Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what has fed and reproduced the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is the essence of the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what makes the American Empire.

[Sy Borg]

The elite class are globalists, who seek to break down the west, especially the middle class. As Klaus Schwab said people will "own nothing and be happy". This from a person with a net worth of between $25 million and $100 million.

The aim is control. If you rely on a UBI, then you must do as you are told at all times. Resistance is futile.

You cover a lot of territory with this post.
I agree that UBI is not the answer but what does a society do when a large share of the population are starving?

You raise another wicked problem. With the rise of AI, there is no good answer, suggesting that absolute government control is inevitable. I will remain against total governmental control until such an attitude is too risky - and it seems likely that there will come a time when speaking against governments in the west will be as risky as doing so in China or the Russia.

When populations become huge, there are two possible dynamics - total control and anarchy, nicely illustrated by Orwell and Huxley. Those deemed to matter will be totally controlled and those deemed to be societal chattel will be left alone to anarchy (rule by violent gangs).

I note that there is a push in the mainstream media to limit young people's access to social media in the west, ostensibly because it promotes anxiety. Yet nothing makes young people more anxious than mainstream media's sensationalism, misinformation, cover-ups and negative focus, which has been going on for years.

Ultimately, this is an attempt to control the narrative and the mainstream media is trying to hobble its competition, in a quid pro quo with certain politicians. Such a move will require the end to anonymity online, and have the same effect as a digital ID.

The mainstream media is totally controlled by the Elite Class. If you want to know the weather or which actor is which, then you probably trust the NYT. But if you want the truth about politics or the government, then shun that propaganda rag. Who blew up the Norge Stream pipeline? I think the NYT claimed it was Santa Claus or something equally unbelievable. The US is the only one with the capability to pull it off.

Social media has made a huge impact on getting out the truth. When the US illegally invaded Iraq with the Elite of both political parties totally on board, the public was insulated from the realities of the horrors happening to the innocent Iraqi people. When news leaked out about the atrocities, the leakers were severely punished and not those responsible for the atrocities. As we've seen with Gaza, social media has opened the eyes of the public to the point where the government has to threaten protesters to stifle public outcry. The Elite have or are buying control of social media and will change the messages to align with their propaganda. Twitter is currently being controlled by Musk and the US government wants to make sure the owner of Tik Tok is Elite friendly.
Freedom is not possible unless we can control the Elite Class.

My understanding is that the CIA blew up Nordstream and, yes, Iraq was a snow job. It was insane and corrupt policy that costs the west deary and cost the ME even more. Ideally, Dick Cheney and GWB should be in prison for their crimes against humanity. Probably some of the executives at Halliburton too.

Twitter is the least controlled media available ATM. While it leans right, you will find all sorts of perspectives there - unlike mainstream media outlets, the ones responsible for most the problems falsely attributed to social media.

According to Aristotle, oligarchies are inherently unstable because those who inherit wealth become weaker while the masses, honed by hardship, become stronger. Unfortunately, the replacement tends to be as bad as what came before.

[Mo_reese]

Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what has fed and reproduced the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is the essence of the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what makes the American Empire.

While I completely agree with the above I hope you agree that it's all bad. Nothing good has come from the American Empire.

[Sy Borg]

Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what has fed and reproduced the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is the essence of the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what makes the American Empire.

While I completely agree with the above I hope you agree that it's all bad. Nothing good has come from the American Empire.

Whereas China, Russia, Iran and various jihadist nations are on the side of all that is good, right?

It's sad to see this website moving away from philosophy and towards political sloganeering.

We appear to be witnessing the death of reason, and this is just one more manifestation.

[Mo_reese]

I am leery about claims made about Trump. He's flawed but he's not bringing in the Brown Shirts, who strike me as more aligned with cancel culture - the destruction of "offensive" material. Preventing illegal immigration and securing borders and preventing unauthorised immigration is basic governance, not racism. A failure to secure borders is a failure to protect one's own citizens, an abrogation of the responsibility of a nation's leadership. The tendency to label those who seek secure borders as "far right" is simply wrong, but that's the game being played at present.

If elected I bet Trump pardons the "Proud Boys" that are part of his Brown Shirts that attacked the Capitol on Jan 6.

While I agree that we need to regulate immigration I feel a bit of a hypocrite. I speak out about the Elite Class (the 1%) and how they lock the gate to their gated community to keep out us riff-raft (the 99%). How is that different from the wealthy US locking out poor immigrants? It was the American Empire that destroyed many of the South American countries economies for the benefit of big

[Sy Borg]

I am leery about claims made about Trump. He's flawed but he's not bringing in the Brown Shirts, who strike me as more aligned with cancel culture - the destruction of "offensive" material. Preventing illegal immigration and securing borders and preventing unauthorised immigration is basic governance, not racism. A failure to secure borders is a failure to protect one's own citizens, an abrogation of the responsibility of a nation's leadership. The tendency to label those who seek secure borders as "far right" is simply wrong, but that's the game being played at present.

If elected I bet Trump pardons the "Proud Boys" that are part of his Brown Shirts that attacked the Capitol on Jan 6.

While I agree that we need to regulate immigration I feel a bit of a hypocrite. I speak out about the Elite Class (the 1%) and how they lock the gate to their gated community to keep out us riff-raft (the 99%). How is that different from the wealthy US locking out poor immigrants? It was the American Empire that destroyed many of the South American countries economies for the benefit of big

You might lose that bet, and I also see no philosophical thought in that comment, just political tribalism.

How many South American economies have ruined themselves with bad policies? It's easy to throw blame around without evidence. However, when you look at the massive missteps and corruption of leaders in floundering economies, you see that most of the problems are self-inflicted. All nations are exploited by the powerful - and not just the US, but Europe, China and Russia. Some wallow in victimhood and never recover, while others make smart decisions on behalf of their people and improve their economies.

Any nation that does not protect its borders is doing a disservice to their people.

Do you keep your front door open and leave a sign outside inviting poor people to come in and help themselves to anything you have? I expect that you don't, because you would not have a computer that enables you to deride nations that don't give all that they own to others. A tad hypocritical?

Rather shallow posting on this thread. No mention of the inherent instability of oligarchies, or how that instability manifests - just biased political posturing and bald assertions without associated reasoning. No mention of corrupt nutritional reporting to support junk food companies marketing low fat sugar-laden food as healthy. No mention of Big Pharma and the problems it causes. These are legitimate left-wing interests but instead thhis thread is largely baseless leftist prattle and sloganeering.

[Mo_reese]

The west should not hate itself. There is no nation with a better system than western capitalism, which is why people from socialist countries are flocking to capitalist ones and not the other way around.

Capitalism is flawed too, of course. The unchecked growing inequality - the shift in wealth from individuals to corporations and its government vassals is deeply problematic, but not as problematic as what's happening under all other political systems. I suspect that we are facing what economists call a "wicked problem", a problem with no good solutions, only least worst ones.

Again I say that you covered a lot of territory in that one post.

Not sure I would say that we can judge that Western capitalism as better because others want a piece of the grift. Western capitalism is exploitative of people and natural resources and that's not a good thing. No one from socialist countries like Norway, Sweden, etc. are coming to our capitalistic wonderland. And China may have a communist government but it's economic system is capitalistic. Capitalism and democracy do not mix.

[Sy Borg]

The west should not hate itself. There is no nation with a better system than western capitalism, which is why people from socialist countries are flocking to capitalist ones and not the other way around.

Capitalism is flawed too, of course. The unchecked growing inequality - the shift in wealth from individuals to corporations and its government vassals is deeply problematic, but not as problematic as what's happening under all other political systems. I suspect that we are facing what economists call a "wicked problem", a problem with no good solutions, only least worst ones.

Again I say that you covered a lot of territory in that one post.

Not sure I would say that we can judge that Western capitalism as better because others want a piece of the grift. Western capitalism is exploitative of people and natural resources and that's not a good thing. No one from socialist countries like Norway, Sweden, etc. are coming to our capitalistic wonderland. And China may have a communist government but it's economic system is capitalistic. Capitalism and democracy do not mix.

Is Sweden going so well? Her is the travel advisory:

Latest update:We continue to advise exercise a high degree of caution in Sweden. In 2023, Sweden raised the terror threat from 'elevated threat' to 'high threat', equivalent to a threat level of 4 out of 5, meaning the probability of an attack is high

Not convinced that the type of democratic socialism practiced by two small, climatically uninviting Scandinavian nations is appropriate for a nation of 300 million.

The one-size-fits-all approach is clearly based on pure ideology, without due consideration of actual reality.

[Sculptor1]

Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what has fed and reproduced the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is the essence of the American Empire.
Uncontrolled capitalisic greed is what makes the American Empire.

While I completely agree with the above I hope you agree that it's all bad. Nothing good has come from the American Empire.

Pretty much yes. America has been at war with democracy abroad, whilst manipulated its onw population to believe that they are the protectors of democracy.
Examples are too numberous to list. But the USoverthrew democratically elected and popular leaders for independance in Vietnam, Libya, Iran, Chili, Grenada and elsewhere.

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree that UBI is not the answer but what does a society do when a large share of the population are starving?

I think UBI is the answer, a good answer, but not to the question(s) you're asking here.

Freedom is not possible unless we can control the Elite Class.

Yes, but isn't this a statement that is bigger, and more all-embracing, than the question you're asking in this topic?

[Pattern-chaser]

Nothing good has come from the American Empire.

Whereas China, Russia, Iran and various jihadist nations are on the side of all that is good, right?

If I assert that "X is bad", why would you think I was also saying that "Y and Z are great, though"? Isn't this a sort of mild straw-man comment? I think it is. And so this leads us to:

It's sad to see this website moving away from philosophy and towards political sloganeering.

We appear to be witnessing the death of reason, and this is just one more manifestation.

It's sad to see this forum moving away from philosophy. Specifically, it's sad to see it moving away from reasoned discussion. ... And employing logical fallacies instead.

[Pattern-chaser]

Rather shallow posting on this thread.

Agreed. See:

Do you keep your front door open and leave a sign outside inviting poor people to come in and help themselves to anything you have?

It is quite different for a *country* to use its resources to support the poor, than it is for an individual to try to do so using only their own personal resources. But you knew this just as well as any forum contributor, before you said it?


Criticising shallow posting only leads to extended and pointless investigations as to whether the offending comment failed to meet the expectations of reasoned discussion. Posting shallow posts does likewise. And so I echo your request for more considered philosophy, and less of ... the other stuff.

[Mo_reese]

I think the question of whether we should look to elitism, populism or pluralism for a political system is a philosophical question. It seems to me that it is obvious that elitism is not sustainable. As the Elite Class gains more and more power they gain access to more and more resources and that allows them more power.
Populism also has disadvantages as people are easily lead by strong, dynamic leaders which may not be in their best interest.
In the US one political party is Elitist while the other is run-away populist with an insane leader.
Looking around the world do we see any better systems.

[Sy Borg]

Rather shallow posting on this thread.

Agreed. See:

Do you keep your front door open and leave a sign outside inviting poor people to come in and help themselves to anything you have?

It is quite different for a *country* to use its resources to support the poor, than it is for an individual to try to do so using only their own personal resources. But you knew this just as well as any forum contributor, before you said it?


Criticising shallow posting only leads to extended and pointless investigations as to whether the offending comment failed to meet the expectations of reasoned discussion. Posting shallow posts does likewise. And so I echo your request for more considered philosophy, and less of ... the other stuff. 👍👏

The best way to support the poor is to increase productivity and to create abundant clean and reliable energy. Venezuela decided to help the poor and it destroyed the economy. Idealistic handouts - unless extremely limited and strategic - always destroy economies. That's economic history.

[Sy Borg]

I think the question of whether we should look to elitism, populism or pluralism for a political system is a philosophical question. It seems to me that it is obvious that elitism is not sustainable. As the Elite Class gains more and more power they gain access to more and more resources and that allows them more power.
Populism also has disadvantages as people are easily lead by strong, dynamic leaders which may not be in their best interest.
In the US one political party is Elitist while the other is run-away populist with an insane leader.
Looking around the world do we see any better systems.

There are no ideal systems and, given that systems are dynamic, as soon as a system becomes ideal it will change and stop being ideal.

Further, there is no one-size-fits-all solution due to differences in geography, resources, climate, population, history, culture and neighbours. That's why I think that, whether the national system, federalism is good for a nation. Not only does it allow for locales with particular characteristics to tailor their governance to those characteristics, it allows allows of a plurality of systems which opens up new options and allows for experimentation and exploration of various solutions of societal challenges.

As for the US, I suspect that the claims of wonderfulness and terribleness of each candidate is greatly overblown, which probably applies to most countries.

Still, we can be sure that, whenever there is a revolution, the new government is never better than the previous one, sometimes worse. Like Orwell's pigs in Animal Farm, the new regime repeats the sins of the old one. Why that is the case is perhaps the most interesting question to ask regarding this thread's topic.