Comments by "Orwellian Horseman of the Apocalypse" (@DennisMoore664) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
31
-
23
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not any one -ism. If we don't destroy the habitability if our planet first, the answer is a hybrid of social systems under a single world government with small territorial carve-outs for groups that want to live in an exceptional way (like the Amish or the Kardashians). I suspect that Communism only works well in a small group environment of like-minded individuals, much as Capitalism most benefits only a small group of like-minded individuals. As such, neither is going to be a successful singular option for the long-term health of the full, global society. The most successful answer is going to be the one where no one is going to get everything they want. The members of the greater society will be more socially free to be who they are and will have access to very basic and safe shelter, food, clothing, healthcare and entertainment allowing them to focus less on working to earn a living and more on living a life doing meaningful work. There will be common sense rules for everyone about not being greedy or an asshole but also having a bit of tolerance for your neighbors when they fall short. If we want to do some extra tasks in order to have a luxury item than there will be ways to do that. Taking part in a performance or contributing above and beyond to the general good of your community could provide one with credit towards a variety of luxuries. But the freedom to have twenty kids or amass an estate of land and property (save for in the territorial carve-outs) will have to go away. More than anything we have to start working to naturally reduce our global population over several generations. Do we really need more than a couple billion people on the planet? I bet we’d be fine with even less and it would free up a lot of room for everyone.
Or not - a lot of us, like the piece-of-shit people who trashed Joshua Tree and other national parks and monuments during Trump's Shutdown, or the ISIS fucks taking the Yazidi women as sex slaves and destroying cultural antiquities, all remind me of how natural it is for some people to do the worst things. Since we are unable to eliminate the worst examples of ourselves from our tribes, maybe we should all suffer for the sins of those stupidest members and accept our civilizations seemingly inevitable end whether it be with a bang or a whimper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mercenaries attacking a major metropolitan city in the United States and holding it ransom a la Siena? Well, even in that case the city of Siena, which was more like Vail or Martha's Vineyard than Los Angeles or Manhattan, eventually just gave up it's independent status and joined with Milan for protection, so that is more of a lesson about trying to go it alone in a world without a formal state. We're talking about the 14th century here people - the depths of the frelling Dark Ages! That isn't going to happen unless there is a massive shift in the structure of the current order and I think that for now the Oligarchs have way too much to loose to let that happen.
The State will continue to function as their beard for as long as it's useful (long past the time that it will be anything more than empty words an meaningless gestures of obedience hen a few remaining people are surviving in a bunker somewhere). Their mercenaries having been trained in the militarized branch of the State can easily be credentialed and authorized to act on their interests as an agent of the State when the event calls for it. We've seen this already during Katrina and at the recent pipeline protests. Individual actors and groups will commit acts of aggression against other agencies, state and private, oligarchs, and population groups but that really never stopped. Mr McFate (really?) is ignoring instances during the 20th century when hired-guns like the Pinkerton's were used in conjunction with the National Guard by mine owners against striking workers at Ludlow, Colorado. It may be one of the more egregious singular examples of a privatized, armed group being used with a State militarized force of people willing and able to use lethal force to resolve a problem for their employer. but it certainly isn't the only one. Strike-breakers were commonly used throughout the 20th century. And the violence practiced against people in the lower economic status of our society, especially when combined with being from an ethnic, religious, gender or some other minority, has always been present. To the person being physically, socially and/or economically assaulted it doesn't make more than a semantic difference whether it's a mercenary, their boss, their bosses-boss (etc.), the landlord or property owners, law enforcement, a bureaucrat from some local/county/state/federal/privatized level of fill-in-the-blank, or any other person or group of individuals, foreign or domestic, that might be threatening your world.
I feel like it's obvious that mercenaries will also be a part of the Foreign Forever War of Distraction our leaders and their sponsors embarked on a generation ago, right? That's just the Privatization stage of things. I've read this book and seen this movie many times over. Just curious to see if there's going to be a twist before it ends.
1
-
1
-
1