Burn it to the ground and replace it with what?
In any case, replace it with a system that doesn't do all that stuff.
As messed up as the system is, it does work marginally better than anarchy.
I'm assuming the writer lives in the US; I think he greatly exaggerates the issues; the system works; most people live with enough food, enough necessities and without the threat of violence; we CAN make it better, but I'd much rather improve on it than try to come up with a new one.
BTW, I haven't seen ANY system that works wholesale better than ours; have y'all ?
What's better? I don't presume to be able to build a new society from the fount of my head. But relentless, diverse experimentation, and creating the space for that experimentation, seems like a solid approach to me.
No, it didn't, at least not on its own. Even post-Stalin, the Soviet Union couldn't feed its people from its own resources; it relied on large food imports from other countries (including the US). And it still relied on violence to keep people in line, just not as overtly as Stalin did.
Where did I say it got food from the US (and other countries) by trading manufactured goods? How many Soviet manufactured goods do you remember seeing in Western countries?
What the Soviet Union actually "traded" for food was concessions on treaty issues like nuclear weapons. Which was particularly convenient for them since most of what they conceded was not actually verifiable, so the "concessions" amounted to making promises they had no intention of keeping, in exchange for actual stuff.
The point is, people had enough food to survive, which is the point I was addressing.
No, the point you were addressing was that the system in which the people lived was able to provide for them, which was not true of the Soviet Union. If the West had not agreed to play the USSR's con game of trading non-verifiable concessions for actual stuff for decades, the USSR would have collapsed a lot sooner than it did.
The Soviet Union imported large amounts of grain due to a deeply broken agricultural system, which I believe we're in full agreement on. But this wasn't in exchange for merely making unverifiable promises to the West (why would the United States have agreed to that, even?). Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one. And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods, they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas.
Indeed, its reliance on oil for hard cash is what led in part to its downfall, as oil prices collapsed in the 80s, putting significant strains on the system as the pie got much smaller while more and more resources were needed to satisfy rising consumer demands and ill-conceived land wars in Asia.
I'll admit such a view is simplistic, yes. However, I think it played more of a role than you appear to believe it did.
Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one.
I'm not sure this makes much difference, since those other countries were just as messed up. (I also have a hard time taking any numbers that can be found for this at face value anyway, just as I am skeptical of pretty much any numbers that were internally generated by Eastern Bloc countries. Not that Western countries' numbers are miracles of accuracy either, but at least they get a lot more independent checking because the underlying data is more easily available.)
And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods
In other words, you agree with me that this was not a significant factor. Ok.
they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas
I agree that the West got large quantities of oil and natural gas from the USSR; the question is, at what prices? And at what prices did we sell them grain and other foodstuffs in return? I suspect that the respective answers are "high prices" and "low prices"; the trades were not ordinary free market trades because of the political factors involved.
So it works marginally better for those aligned to power or operating in the shade of its inefficiencies; sure, but you could also say this about the world Mad Max drove around in..
It's the best alternative system I have seen so far I think, although I think instead of trialing it out by revolution in an enormous country like the US it will be good to see it in action first in the currently developing Honduran ZEDE's as well as seasteads when they become a reality. It's much easier to say it's a good plan when there is practice rather than just theory.
Irrelevant, because the OP isn't advocating removing a growth; he's advocating "removing" my entire body structure. If a doctor advised you to get a body transplant, would you not feel the need to ask him what your body was going to be replaced with?
I'd say there are is an actual country, made of solid land, tons of assets, houses, buildings, shops, companies, and around 350+ million people that are outside of this "whole body" and they can build a new structure if it goes away.
Heck, some say those all are that started the USA in the first place.
some say those all are that started the USA in the first place
I'm not sure this analogy holds up very well either, because the British government's impact on the colonies was much, much smaller than the current US government's impact on the USA. To "build a new structure if it goes away" would be orders of magnitude more difficult now, and would involve a lot more pain, suffering, and violence.
http://davidjarvis.ca/world-politics/
Reducing the influence of Special Interest Groups is accomplished through moderation whereby moderators are randomly selected, from the entire population of users, and are empowered for a random interval of time.
The path to adoption begins at municipalities wherein contributions are initially restricted to civil servants, whilst benefits and drawbacks to upcoming policies are publicized. Once many cities are using the system to deliberate and solicit public feedback, usage at the Provincial (or State) level could follow.
Similar systems exist[2], however they are too complex for recording open and transparent discourse to achieve majority consensus on a particular policy.
Thoughts?
[1] I am reminded of this quote from V for Vendetta, "You now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."
[2] https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/wiki/Related%20...