What if "we the people" agreed that the real enemy was the Oligarchy?

[Augustus]

Interesting post. What do you think of sidis' geprodis?

No idea what that is, sounds like he could be PM of Cyprus though

 

[Curious George]

No idea what that is, sounds like he could be PM of Cyprus though

William Sidis was a smart person that wrote some obscure documents and books. Geprodis was his idea for an organization after he parted ways with the socialist party.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I think people tend to assume a deliberate intent there where I see evidence of the absence of any.

We have a strong human tendency to assume agency behind events.

When it comes to the radicalization of politics, it does not seem to be at all planned to me, but rather sadly spontaneous. People have a craving to find names and targets to blame for the trends they want to fight against. That tendency feeds itself and quickly degenerates into something of a mythfication of organized, purposeful opposition to what "should" happen.

In any case, it seems to me that the masses should best deal with that situation by favoring grassroots efforts (as opposed to manifestations) that create something of the nature of real solutions, and avoid relying so much on what passes for political wisdom and willingness to act.

Politics are just not in a position that allows them to act wisely, and we should not pressure them into pretending otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think the problem is the so-called oligarchy. The problem is ignorance and apathy.

But just in case there is one, vote against any oligarch running for office.

 

[icehorse]

Personally, I think people tend to assume a deliberate intent there where I see evidence of the absence of any.

I don't think oligarchs have a secret club, replete with handshakes. Instead, each has an army of smart lawyers, and so they all come up with similar strategies to game the system. As the system is currently designed, rich people are allowed to let their base instincts of greed and power overrun their sense of long term well being and compassion.

"We the people" have to defend the commons against the worst aspects of individual human nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think oligarchs have a secret club, replete with handshakes. Instead, each has an army of smart lawyers, and so they all come up with similar strategies to game the system. As the system is currently designed, rich people are allowed to let their base instincts of greed and power overrun their sense of long term well being and compassion.

"We the people" have to defend the commons against the worst aspects of individual human nature.

I agree. That is one reason why I campaign for removing nearly all of the power of legal decisions and switching to a combination of the acceptance of the unreliability of arbitrations as tools for "fairness" and community support to compensate for that uncertainty.

 

[icehorse]

I agree. That is one reason why I campaign for removing nearly all of the power of legal decisions and switching to a combination of the acceptance of the unreliability of arbitrations as tools for "fairness" and community support to compensate for that uncertainty.

I can imagine such solutions, but it seems to me that we are many, many steps away from them. I suspect that we're going to have to find more incremental solutions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can imagine such solutions, but it seems to me that we are many, many steps away from them. I suspect that we're going to have to find more incremental solutions.

Fair point. Realistically, you must be right.

How far could we currently go in boycotting the system? Are we willing to renounce, say, the hopes of attaining a stable, well paid position within it?

 

[icehorse]

Fair point. Realistically, you must be right.

How far could we currently go in boycotting the system? Are we willing to renounce, say, the hopes of attaining a stable, well paid position within it?

(wow, how I love a thoughtful exchange, thanks!) Of course I'd rather not pursue chaos. On some fronts I find our system surprisingly resilient to abuse. On others (e.g. the ecology), I think things are pretty fragile. So if we're focusing on economics, it seems to me that reversing income inequality, breaking up monopolies, defanging lobbyists, and attacking corruption in general should only improve people's economic stability, not threaten it.

So, why would you be concerned about risking well paid positions?

 

[LuisDantas]

So, why would you be concerned about risking well paid positions?

One reason is that renouncing a dream (of eventually "making it good", directly or by way of offspring) can be very hard indeed.

Another, which seems to apply a lot more to Brazil than to the USA, is that many people here are very much counting on that hope in order to attain a measure of stability and dignity. There is a lot of reliance on families for survival here.

 

[Koldo]

Unless you live in Switzerland, then I doubt your municipalities have the degree of devolved power that I am talking about.

Which is irrelevant to the "lesser of 2 evils" scenario I was talking about.

You just said that more people can enter the political process as it is cheaper. There is no magic solution, but bringing the government closer to the people, reducing barriers to entry, increasing accountability and interest in politics, reducing partisan hatred and simplifying government seems like a good start to me.

That's really just putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg. You still have a 2 party system that is distant from the people hamstrung by hyperpartisan rivalries, along with the diseconomies of scale caused by large centralised governments and bureaucracies.

You don't think that Switzerland seems like a better governed country?

What gives oligarchies so much power is the money. And it takes a lot of money to properly campaign during an election cycle. If you set a limit on how much can be spent, then it becomes ( if properly done ) much cheaper to compete. That's how you can easily reduce the barriers to entry.

 

[idav]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

I didn't mind Trumps anti-establishment rhetoric if I though he actually meant it. Like I think Bernie actually meant it.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't mind Trumps anti-establishment rhetoric if I though he actually meant it. Like I think Bernie actually meant it.

Trump is a YUGE supporter of the oligarchy. (And I also agree that I found Saunders to be uniquely sincere.)