Raising the bar on what to accept as humans

[PyramidHead]

We all know about the Overton Window and how it sets parameters for discourse and criticism of public life. Unconsciously, cultural attitudes change (or are manipulated) and things that used to be acceptable become unheard of, or things that used to be unacceptable become normalized. This isn't a passive process, though. We're engaging in the activity that shifts the window right now. Yet, the Overton Window as a concept implies a landscape that is already defined, which is grazed upon in various places at various times by a shifting herd of public opinion. I think we're living in an era of unprecedented possibilities, but a dearth of imagination about ways of living that harness them. This has the effect of lowering the bar on what most people accept as a natural, justifiable state of affairs in society, and I believe that bar should be greatly raised.

So, if you agree, then what are the genuinely outrageous elements of modern living that are inadequately questioned, or passed over in discussion to focus instead on comparably minor concerns?

I'll start with a quote from an article by Luke Savage:

...I simply cannot fathom reconciling myself to a society where so many needlessly suffer because of circumstances beyond their control; where human dignity is distributed on the basis of luck and a social caste system is allowed to permeate every aspect of daily life; and where all of this is considered perfectly normal and acceptable in a civilization that has split the atom and sent people to the Moon.

This is the kind of discontent I'm referring to. I agree with the sentiment expressed. It's obvious, simple, and routinely downplayed in favor of emphasizing the window dressing. Even if you disagree, you have to admit that the discontent is of a character one level removed from the usual dialog about specific policies, and that's the kind of wide-ranging style of thought we definitely need more of.

A perfect example of missing the problem that's right under our noses is the argument over whether a minimum wage should enable someone working 40 hours a week to afford a house, transportation, health coverage, and food. By framing the conversation as about minimum wage and the economic intricacies that underlie it, everybody forgets the more urgent question: why should the basic necessities of human social existence be dependent on a wage at all? Is there some reason why only people who work 40 hours should have access to these things? Why 40 hours? Do we all need to work 40 hours just to be productive enough to cover everybody's basic needs? This leads the conversation down a very different path, a more productive and critical one, that is too frequently ignored in my opinion. We should read the foundations of every soundbite policy debate in this way.

Some more scattershot factors for consideration (some of these I have expressed elsewhere):

• The people who work the hardest in most professions often have the least amount of influence over the conditions of work and terms of compensation that affect them the most.
• The police force in America is committed to enforcing the law as it is written, regardless of whether the law is just or not, and monopolizes the use of deadly force to do so.
• National and state borders, rarely (if ever) negotiated or modified by the living occupants within them, are used as adequate grounds for almost any form of brutality against others.
• Almost all of civilized life is dominated by the exchange of currency, and it is almost never seriously contemplated why this should continue to be the case.

ETA: I should be more clear that this thread is supposed to encourage other people to offer examples of what they regard as unacceptable-yet-strangely-accepted aspects of society, even if (especially if) they don't agree with my suggestions, which come from a libertarian communist perspective.

 

[untermensche]

Some answers are in Anarchism.

It is a higher stage of human existence. Existence without bosses.

We are still living in the age of the acceptance of the slave/master dynamic. We accept it in our working lives. We don't accept it in government anymore.

Democratic power is the only answer to that dynamic.

Democratic workplaces are as needed as democratic governments.

In fact increase the democratic control of workplaces and you will make the governmental democracy better as a side consequence.

 

[PyramidHead]

Some answers are in Anarchism.

It is a higher stage of human existence. Existence without bosses.

We are still living in the age of the acceptance of the slave/master dynamic. We accept it in our working lives. We don't accept it in government anymore.

Democratic power is the only answer to that dynamic.

Democratic workplaces are as needed as democratic governments.

In fact increase the democratic control of workplaces and you will make the governmental democracy better as a side consequence.

That may very well be true. But I would argue we still accept the dynamic of authority in government to a large extent. Another weird fact that is not really debated anymore is that choosing who to represent us as a group, without the ability to hold them accountable for how they do so until their term has ended, is all we need to worry about in terms of democracy. Groups being represented by smaller groups or individual people isn't necessarily bad, it's just funny how little we expect as voters to protect against the obvious ways that approach can go wrong. It's been a long time since any politician seriously suggested a mechanism of immediate recall from office by democratic vote, which is transparently the best way to truly ensure our interests are protected as citizens. Yet, we all just work within the confines of the schedule of midterm elections and first-past-the-post tabulation of our votes like there's no alternative worth discussing.

 

[barbos]

Why new thread?

 

[PyramidHead]

I'll add one more bit of food for thought: it's frankly bizarre how going to a university is chiefly a way of increasing one's usefulness as a worker, which benefits everybody, but instead of being paid enough to survive while going to school, I have to pay the school for the privilege of not being able to otherwise support myself.

- - - Updated - - -

Why new thread?

This is meant to be broader than the one just about working all the time, and I invite suggestions from other people, especially people with different views than me, on what they view as an intolerable situation that is almost never acknowledged.

 

[untermensche]

Some answers are in Anarchism.

It is a higher stage of human existence. Existence without bosses.

We are still living in the age of the acceptance of the slave/master dynamic. We accept it in our working lives. We don't accept it in government anymore.

Democratic power is the only answer to that dynamic.

Democratic workplaces are as needed as democratic governments.

In fact increase the democratic control of workplaces and you will make the governmental democracy better as a side consequence.

That may very well be true. But I would argue we still accept the dynamic of authority in government to a large extent...

The fact that the master/slave dynamic at the workplace exists means education has to prepare people to function within that dynamic.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We all know about the Overton Window and how it sets parameters for discourse and criticism of public life. Unconsciously, cultural attitudes change (or are manipulated) and things that used to be acceptable become unheard of, or things that used to be unacceptable become normalized. This isn't a passive process, though. We're engaging in the activity that shifts the window right now. Yet, the Overton Window as a concept implies a landscape that is already defined, which is grazed upon in various places at various times by a shifting herd of public opinion. I think we're living in an era of unprecedented possibilities, but a dearth of imagination about ways of living that harness them. This has the effect of lowering the bar on what most people accept as a natural, justifiable state of affairs in society, and I believe that bar should be greatly raised.

So, if you agree, then what are the genuinely outrageous elements of modern living that are inadequately questioned, or passed over in discussion to focus instead on comparably minor concerns?

I'll start with a quote from an article by Luke Savage:

...I simply cannot fathom reconciling myself to a society where so many needlessly suffer because of circumstances beyond their control; where human dignity is distributed on the basis of luck and a social caste system is allowed to permeate every aspect of daily life; and where all of this is considered perfectly normal and acceptable in a civilization that has split the atom and sent people to the Moon.

This is the kind of discontent I'm referring to. I agree with the sentiment expressed. It's obvious, simple, and routinely downplayed in favor of emphasizing the window dressing. Even if you disagree, you have to admit that the discontent is of a character one level removed from the usual dialog about specific policies, and that's the kind of wide-ranging style of thought we definitely need more of.

A perfect example of missing the problem that's right under our noses is the argument over whether a minimum wage should enable someone working 40 hours a week to afford a house, transportation, health coverage, and food. By framing the conversation as about minimum wage and the economic intricacies that underlie it, everybody forgets the more urgent question: why should the basic necessities of human social existence be dependent on a wage at all? Is there some reason why only people who work 40 hours should have access to these things? Why 40 hours? Do we all need to work 40 hours just to be productive enough to cover everybody's basic needs? This leads the conversation down a very different path, a more productive and critical one, that is too frequently ignored in my opinion. We should read the foundations of every soundbite policy debate in this way.

Some more scattershot factors for consideration (some of these I have expressed elsewhere):

• The people who work the hardest in most professions often have the least amount of influence over the conditions of work and terms of compensation that affect them the most.
• The police force in America is committed to enforcing the law as it is written, regardless of whether the law is just or not, and monopolizes the use of deadly force to do so.
• National and state borders, rarely (if ever) negotiated or modified by the living occupants within them, are used as adequate grounds for almost any form of brutality against others.
• Almost all of civilized life is dominated by the exchange of currency, and it is almost never seriously contemplated why this should continue to be the case.

ETA: I should be more clear that this thread is supposed to encourage other people to offer examples of what they regard as unacceptable-yet-strangely-accepted aspects of society, even if (especially if) they don't agree with my suggestions, which come from a libertarian communist perspective.

You honestly would prefer that the police not enforce the written law? You'd prefer that what they believe is just? Yikes, who decides what is just? Trump? (I'm sorry for not following the rules)

 

[Treedbear]

...
ETA: I should be more clear that this thread is supposed to encourage other people to offer examples of what they regard as unacceptable-yet-strangely-accepted aspects of society, even if (especially if) they don't agree with my suggestions, which come from a libertarian communist perspective.

This probably has some relevance to most of your points, and that is that communist principles don't provide the individual with sufficient motivation for a society to continuously seek advances that yield the improvement of the human condition.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...
ETA: I should be more clear that this thread is supposed to encourage other people to offer examples of what they regard as unacceptable-yet-strangely-accepted aspects of society, even if (especially if) they don't agree with my suggestions, which come from a libertarian communist perspective.

This probably has some relevance to most of your points, and that is that communist principles don't provide the individual with sufficient motivation for a society to continuously seek advances that yield the improvement of the human condition.

When one person is able to accumulate wealth to the degree that his offspring for the next 30 generations do not need to labor are we talking about advancing the human condition? Pure communism and pure capitalism do not exist except as vanishing points. We all live elsewhere on that spectrum.

The problem is wealth disparity. But people should still certainly labor toward some societal goal for which they are compensated. The problem is that presently that goal is to accumulate more personal wealth.

Society does require some form of discipline among its members and there is nothing wrong with a degree of wealth disparity owing to the fact that some people will labor harder than others. It's the degree of wealth disparity that is the problem.

 

[Treedbear]

...
ETA: I should be more clear that this thread is supposed to encourage other people to offer examples of what they regard as unacceptable-yet-strangely-accepted aspects of society, even if (especially if) they don't agree with my suggestions, which come from a libertarian communist perspective.

This probably has some relevance to most of your points, and that is that communist principles don't provide the individual with sufficient motivation for a society to continuously seek advances that yield the improvement of the human condition.

When one person is able to accumulate wealth to the degree that his offspring for the next 30 generations do not need to labor are we talking about advancing the human condition? Pure communism and pure capitalism do not exist except as vanishing points. We all live elsewhere on that spectrum.

I wasn't arguing for capitalism. But I don't see how communism can be combined with any other system of values. The excesses of capitalism can easily be mediated with socialist programs so that it serves the society as well as the individual. Communist values never consider the individual.

The problem is wealth disparity. But people should still certainly labor toward some societal goal for which they are compensated. The problem is that presently that goal is to accumulate more personal wealth.

I look at capitalism as a tool rather than an ideology. A very powerful tool because it is modeled after nature's fundamental axiom of adaptability and fitness for survival. The same with socialism. Ideologies such as communism (in my view) are too inflexible.

 

[PyramidHead]

You honestly would prefer that the police not enforce the written law? You'd prefer that what they believe is just? Yikes, who decides what is just? Trump? (I'm sorry for not following the rules)

I didn't make any statement about what I would prefer, just about what's accepted without question even though it's highly suspicious. A whoooole lot is riding on our trust in (a) the written law serving the interests of the average person, (b) the existence of a separate population of enforcers who have no other profession, and (c) the leeway to use deadly force and lethal weaponry solely belonging to this population in accordance with the same written law. It's absolutely ripe for corruption and brutality, which is what we're seeing on a regular basis today even though it's nothing new, and without specifying any concrete alternative I just wanted to highlight how this root nature of the system is never scrutinized; all the ideas are about how to make a better, more accountable police force, rather than whether there isn't something inherently corruption-prone about having a police force per se.

 

[PyramidHead]

When one person is able to accumulate wealth to the degree that his offspring for the next 30 generations do not need to labor are we talking about advancing the human condition? Pure communism and pure capitalism do not exist except as vanishing points. We all live elsewhere on that spectrum.

I wasn't arguing for capitalism. But I don't see how communism can be combined with any other system of values. The excesses of capitalism can easily be mediated with socialist programs so that it serves the society as well as the individual. Communist values never consider the individual.

The problem is wealth disparity. But people should still certainly labor toward some societal goal for which they are compensated. The problem is that presently that goal is to accumulate more personal wealth.

I look at capitalism as a tool rather than an ideology. A very powerful tool because it is modeled after nature's fundamental axiom of adaptability and fitness for survival. The same with socialism. Ideologies such as communism (in my view) are too inflexible.

We are coming from different lexicons and different background knowledge sets here. Socialism and communism are often used interchangeably on the left. There is little substantial difference between libertarian communism and libertarian socialism, for example. Noam Chomsy prefers the latter label, and I don't have any serious disagreements with him. The important part is the libertarian part, which distinguishes it from state forms of both socialism and communism (again, no real distinction between the two). I suggest you explore some of what has been written by proponents of left libertarianism, because the objections you raise are among the first and easiest to dispense with--that communism means nobody will do the work that needs doing, and that nature makes us competitive and selfish.

We don't oppose "socialist programs" (although we insist that they are not socialist, but state-administered welfare). But they are by no means complete solutions to every problem we face, which is what this thread is trying to show. A perfect example is when proponents of welfare policies will argue over whether recipients should be able to spend food stamps on snacks. All the debates about means-testing and meritocracy gloss over the fact that what we're talking about is how to account for people who don't have enough to eat even though they live in a place with abundant food, huge chunks of which get thrown away all the time. That switches the onus from haranguing over the minutiae to justifying the starting position of presumed scarcity of resources, and from there we might further ask what prevents everybody from simply taking whatever food they need from a common repository without exchanging it for stamps, bank notes, or vouchers, since everybody needs food and we have so much.

Those are more important questions than what to do about people who buy potato chips on government assistance, and the more they are asked, the more the conversation shifts away from state-administered welfare and towards a different economic foundation that eliminates the need for it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some answers are in Anarchism.

It is a higher stage of human existence. Existence without bosses.

Odd, because Anarchism = Libertarianism. Neither side would agree to that, but both are relatively the same thing.

 

[PyramidHead]

Some answers are in Anarchism.

It is a higher stage of human existence. Existence without bosses.

Odd, because Anarchism = Libertarianism. Neither side would agree to that, but both are relatively the same thing.

?

Libertarianism is a concept that originated on the left. Only fairly recently has it become a conservative label. There is a huge difference between anarchism and right-wing libertarianism: private property is abolished by the one and held up as sacred by the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some answers are in Anarchism.

It is a higher stage of human existence. Existence without bosses.

Odd, because Anarchism = Libertarianism. Neither side would agree to that, but both are relatively the same thing.

?

Libertarianism is a concept that originated on the left. Only fairly recently has it become a conservative label. There is a huge difference between anarchism and right-wing libertarianism: private property is abolished by the one and held up as sacred by the other.

That part is minimal. The underlying premise of both is that 'People can work it out themselves', which is about as willfully ignorant a thought can get.

 

[PyramidHead]

?

Libertarianism is a concept that originated on the left. Only fairly recently has it become a conservative label. There is a huge difference between anarchism and right-wing libertarianism: private property is abolished by the one and held up as sacred by the other.

That part is minimal. The underlying premise of both is that 'People can work it out themselves', which is about as willfully ignorant a thought can get.

What aspect of running the society you live in, the place you work at, or the way you spend your free time do you think is better imposed upon you by others than directly decided with your democratic input? I don't think it's willfully ignorant to wonder why the people who do the productive activity that makes society function are separated in role (and therefore power and authority) from the people who decide how society is organized and executed. Who is beyond the reach of education in how to cooperatively manage the simple distribution of necessities without a state bureaucracy? You're taking the current social consciousness, which is a product of culture, and mistaking it for something inherent about humans, when for most of our history as a species we didn't need class divisions or hierarchies. Of course, the (actually willfully ignorant) rejoinder is always: "We didn't have as much technology back then," as if having MORE comfort, ease, and efficiency at our fingertips today would somehow be an IMPEDIMENT to our making sure everybody is adequately sustained, as if that prowess would make us need a ruling class of idle authorities MORE and not less.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

?

Libertarianism is a concept that originated on the left. Only fairly recently has it become a conservative label. There is a huge difference between anarchism and right-wing libertarianism: private property is abolished by the one and held up as sacred by the other.

That part is minimal. The underlying premise of both is that 'People can work it out themselves', which is about as willfully ignorant a thought can get.

What aspect of running the society you live in, the place you work at, or the way you spend your free time do you think is better imposed upon you by others than directly decided with your democratic input? I don't think it's willfully ignorant to wonder why the people who do the productive activity that makes society function are separated in role (and therefore power and authority) from the people who decide how society is organized and executed.

Simple... the answer is the same as the need for traffic signals. Individuals can manage things quite easily. Groups of people are incapable of managing things.

Who is beyond the reach of education in how to cooperatively manage the simple distribution of necessities without a state bureaucracy? You're taking the current social consciousness, which is a product of culture, and mistaking it for something inherent about humans, when for most of our history as a species we didn't need class divisions or hierarchies.

Funny. A socialist once said (can't remember the name) ~'There is something inheriently wrong about the human psyche that makes our cause a pathetic joke.'

 

[PyramidHead]

What aspect of running the society you live in, the place you work at, or the way you spend your free time do you think is better imposed upon you by others than directly decided with your democratic input? I don't think it's willfully ignorant to wonder why the people who do the productive activity that makes society function are separated in role (and therefore power and authority) from the people who decide how society is organized and executed.

Simple... the answer is the same as the need for traffic signals. Individuals can manage things quite easily. Groups of people are incapable of managing things.

That's a non-sequitur. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have rules or traffic signals. We're saying that they should be decided by, enforced by, and beholden to the people they apply to. It should not be possible to use a traffic light as a mechanism for one group (say, armed enforcers of the law) to oppress another (say, poor minorities). Right-wing libertarianism takes that to mean: dismantle traffic lights. Left libertarianism takes the same problem and says: dismantle the police force.

Groups can and do manage things quite efficiently across many contexts. It's just not as visible, because individual management is easier to take credit for. In the workplace, it's often the case that the coordinated activity of groups is so efficient that having a manager around to call the shots inevitably makes things go less smoothly, because the manager isn't part of the group and has no idea how to perform its function. Humans hate being ordered around by glorified babysitters who aren't qualified to give the orders. We decided that was how we were going to set up the economy absurdly recently, compared to how production was organized less than 1000 years ago. Nothing pernicious or unalterable lurks in the phenomenon of a group that makes it somehow incapable of getting anything done; human history is the history of cooperation among humans, not of rare individuals managing the incapable masses.

Who is beyond the reach of education in how to cooperatively manage the simple distribution of necessities without a state bureaucracy? You're taking the current social consciousness, which is a product of culture, and mistaking it for something inherent about humans, when for most of our history as a species we didn't need class divisions or hierarchies.

Funny. A socialist once said (can't remember the name) ~'There is something inheriently wrong about the human psyche that makes our cause a pathetic joke.'

I don't know who said that either, and I disagree with it. Humans want to do productive things, and love doing them in groups. The scourge of modern capitalism isn't laziness, it's meaningless busywork and hollow administrative tasks, most of which only exists to prop up other examples of the same.

Everybody who says that people are incapable of self-management inevitably turns out to be talking about everybody except himself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's a non-sequitur. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have rules or traffic signals.

Umm... yes, they are.

We're saying that they should be decided by, enforced by, and beholden to the people they apply to.

That isn't any different.

It should not be possible to use a traffic light as a mechanism for one group (say, armed enforcers of the law) to oppress another (say, poor minorities). Right-wing libertarianism takes that to mean: dismantle traffic lights. Left libertarianism takes the same problem and says: dismantle the police force.

Neither situation works. How does dismantling a police force help traffic maintenance? Are we supposed to create self-enforcing groups at each light to ensure traffic is controlled and driving conditions are safe and efficient? Most lights don't have any enforcement at them, but it is the chance of enforcement that leads most people to obey the lights. The police carries a weight of enforcement of the law that individual traffic posses could not.

Groups can and do manage things quite efficiently across many contexts. It's just not as visible, because individual management is easier to take credit for.

Such as what?

In the workplace, it's often the case that the coordinated activity of groups is so efficient that having a manager around to call the shots inevitably makes things go less smoothly, because the manager isn't part of the group and has no idea how to perform its function.

Often the case? It is often the case that people think they have all the answers.

Humans hate being ordered around by glorified babysitters who aren't qualified to give the orders. We decided that was how we were going to set up the economy absurdly recently, compared to how production was organized less than 1000 years ago. Nothing pernicious or unalterable lurks in the phenomenon of a group that makes it somehow incapable of getting anything done; human history is the history of cooperation among humans, not of rare individuals managing the incapable masses.

This seems to extrapolate dumb managers meaning the general populace can handle environmental regulation and enforcement, contract enforcement, among an infinite number of other things.

Who is beyond the reach of education in how to cooperatively manage the simple distribution of necessities without a state bureaucracy? You're taking the current social consciousness, which is a product of culture, and mistaking it for something inherent about humans, when for most of our history as a species we didn't need class divisions or hierarchies.

Funny. A socialist once said (can't remember the name) ~'There is something inheriently wrong about the human psyche that makes our cause a pathetic joke.'

I don't know who said that either, and I disagree with it.

You clearly don't know your socialism in America politics history, Eugene Debs and IWW among other things, do you. I'll give you the short history: People love capitalism until they need something specific that capitalism isn't providing... and once the fight to gain that is made, they go back to loving capitalism, forgetting what other form of economics helped provide them what they needed.

Humans want to do productive things, and love doing them in groups. The scourge of modern capitalism isn't laziness, it's meaningless busywork and hollow administrative tasks, most of which only exists to prop up other examples of the same.

Everybody who says that people are incapable of self-management inevitably turns out to be talking about everybody except himself.

That sounds like someone talking about home education.

 

[PyramidHead]

How does dismantling a police force help traffic maintenance? Are we supposed to create self-enforcing groups at each light to ensure traffic is controlled and driving conditions are safe and efficient? Most lights don't have any enforcement at them, but it is the chance of enforcement that leads most people to obey the lights. The police carries a weight of enforcement of the law that individual traffic posses could not.

Then have a rotating body of citizens take care of enforcing traffic laws, and have all of them be subject to immediate recall by vote if they abuse their power. The current economic paradigm of individuals keeping the same role in production/service for years, decades, or even their entire life is given to us, not encountered as an aspect of the natural world. It doesn't take a special kind of person to keep an eye out for bad drivers and report back to some other person to administer an appropriate penalty agreed upon by society. Moving people into and out of these roles so their power does not become entrenched removes the ability to use authority to subjugate others, since any rule enacted when you're the one monitoring the intersection will apply to you when you're rotated out. This is just one proposal, mind you, but there could be many other ways of managing it. A great idea might be to have people within a community decide for themselves which system works best for them, and involve other communities to the extent that their decision affects them (in the case of traffic law, probably quite a bit).

The question is why you're satisfied that we aren't doing anything remotely like this right now. You have to obey traffic lights or else somebody in a uniform may follow your car until you pull over. This person is a paid long-term agent of the state who is instructed to uphold laws you have very little influence over, using a degree of lethal force you have no access to in your capacity as a citizen, trained to use his personal discretion about what is best for the police force's goals and the larger political culture that determines its funding to determine who to stop, how long to inconvenience them, whether and how much to ticket them, and if they feel threatened enough to end their life with a bullet. In an ordinary traffic violation, in the best of cases (assuming you are not black or Hispanic), this hulking iceberg of antagonism floats beneath the surface as the officer approaches your vehicle, and you have basically no control over any of it except to cast a vote for their boss's boss's boss' boss every few years, among candidates whose chances of even being electable hinge upon support from the police force. All because you can't imagine a scenario where human beings would voluntarily stop at a publicly understood signal instead of driving into oncoming traffic without a permanent police force breathing down their necks.

In the workplace, it's often the case that the coordinated activity of groups is so efficient that having a manager around to call the shots inevitably makes things go less smoothly, because the manager isn't part of the group and has no idea how to perform its function.

Often the case? It is often the case that people think they have all the answers.

We're in agreement, then? In a scenario where it's dangerous for any person to mistakenly believe they have all the answers, which strategy is more likely to exacerbate the negative effects of this tendency: vesting authority in a pyramid-like hierarchy where the most important decisions are made by the fewest people, or giving every person an equal voice in providing whatever they believe to be the answers?

Humans hate being ordered around by glorified babysitters who aren't qualified to give the orders. We decided that was how we were going to set up the economy absurdly recently, compared to how production was organized less than 1000 years ago. Nothing pernicious or unalterable lurks in the phenomenon of a group that makes it somehow incapable of getting anything done; human history is the history of cooperation among humans, not of rare individuals managing the incapable masses.

This seems to extrapolate dumb managers meaning the general populace can handle environmental regulation and enforcement, contract enforcement, among an infinite number of other things.

Of course we can! What is it about the general populace, innately and in their blood, that makes you think environmental regulation is beyond our ability to comprehend? Are environmental regulators born with the ability to do it? Do you imagine that the current system of placing our future prospects of living on a habitable planet in the hands of profiteers and political parties is anything but a spectacular failure?

Humans want to do productive things, and love doing them in groups. The scourge of modern capitalism isn't laziness, it's meaningless busywork and hollow administrative tasks, most of which only exists to prop up other examples of the same.

Everybody who says that people are incapable of self-management inevitably turns out to be talking about everybody except himself.

That sounds like someone talking about home education.

There's another place where we should ask why the bar is so low: when we evaluate schools and compare them to each other or to other forms of learning, we automatically look at how prepared for the workforce each system leaves its students, as if that should and has always been the primary function of education. You're making this thread easy.