Individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among executive leadership

[untermensche]

This is hand waving to not address the immorality of dictatorship.

Should people be free to sell themselves into slavery?

Perhaps your definition of slavery is not the same used by nearly everyone else. Who are you to interlope in the affairs of others? You seem no different than the mullahs or Fred Phelps.

Hand waving.

Do we allow people to sell themselves into slavery? Real slavery.

Why do we limit their freedom in this way?

 

[coloradoatheist]

And we can live in a world with unicorns and tooth fairies too.

This is exactly what the dull without vision said about monarchy.

It is a dream to think we can live with democracy.

Democracy was tried in Athens so it had been around for a while and voting was not that much of a difference.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps your definition of slavery is not the same used by nearly everyone else. Who are you to interlope in the affairs of others? You seem no different than the mullahs or Fred Phelps.

Hand waving.

Do we allow people to sell themselves into slavery? Real slavery.

Why do we limit their freedom in this way?

How many court cases have there been challenging the rules of a contract that can't be broken?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But a hierarchy will emerge, and oligarchy will be established. Even small groups independent groups can suddenly fuse into large powerful entities. I present the following biographies as examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

We are barely a baby step from slavery and feudalism.

Are we not always? And why is it that when resources begin to grow, so does population and social organization?

Let humans live a few centuries without dictatorships and they will not resemble the poor souls destroyed by learned helplessness that are ubiquitous in the current system.

That helplessness is comfort.

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly what the dull without vision said about monarchy.

It is a dream to think we can live with democracy.

Democracy was tried in Athens so it had been around for a while and voting was not that much of a difference.

But that democracy had slavery.

 

[untermensche]

This is exactly what the dull without vision said about monarchy.

It is a dream to think we can live with democracy.

Democracy was tried in Athens so it had been around for a while and voting was not that much of a difference.

Democracy didn't exist anywhere for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And what the supporters of monarchy said was that democracy was tried in Greece, it failed, therefore it could never possibly survive.

Why do we limit their freedom in this way?

How many court cases have there been challenging the rules of a contract that can't be broken?

Yes, why is liberty impinged like this?

 

[Trausti]

Perhaps your definition of slavery is not the same used by nearly everyone else. Who are you to interlope in the affairs of others? You seem no different than the mullahs or Fred Phelps.

Hand waving.

Do we allow people to sell themselves into slavery? Real slavery.

Why do we limit their freedom in this way?

????

Do you consider an agreement whereby one person works for another, both with the right to end the arrangement at any time they chose, to be slavery?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Democracy was tried in Athens so it had been around for a while and voting was not that much of a difference.

Democracy didn't exist anywhere for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And what the supporters of monarchy said was that democracy was tried in Greece, it failed, therefore it could never possibly survive.

Why do we limit their freedom in this way?

How many court cases have there been challenging the rules of a contract that can't be broken?

Yes, why is liberty impinged like this?

Except now we do have a lot of experience and studies of group dynamics. You are just saying hey we made it to the moon therefore we can just jump and make it there.

 

[untermensche]

Hand waving.

Do we allow people to sell themselves into slavery? Real slavery.

Why do we limit their freedom in this way?

????

Do you consider an agreement whereby one person works for another, both with the right to end the arrangement at any time they chose, to be slavery?

In some cases it is a fair arrangement.

In many cases it is taking advantage of desperation.

Who is out there begging to be paid less than a living wage?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) That's only talking about the tools, not the materials.

2) Why in the world would they lend when there's no hope of repayment??

One insane absurdity after another.

What a waste of time.

How do banks that lend to businesses get paid back in any system?

I'll give you a hint it isn't by a miracle.

They get paid back from money you wish to give to the workers instead. Thus it is not available to repay the loan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So in your imagined world, if Zaa and Zab wanted to start an enterprise, and Zac and Zad agreed to work for that enterprise at $/hr, they'd all be free to enter into that arrangement. After all, to stop them, you'd need force. Or does the revolution require they be killed off first?

This is hand waving to not address the immorality of dictatorship.

Should people be free to sell themselves into slavery?

You're evading here. His question is quite reasonable.

 

[Jayjay]

Of course they could exist. But is there any reason to think that worker-owned banks would operate any differently with respect to their customers than non-worker-owned ones?

Oh, but you said worker oriented. Which probably in your lexicon means something completely different.

The system does away with top down dictatorships.

Financing for new enterprises shifts from lending to individuals to lending to workers involved in an enterprise.

It's a completely different system.

Not just a word.

And again, it violates no laws of the universe.

And it is more than a different system. A different system creates different people. As George Orwell noticed.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

George Orwell wasn't talking about banks but peasants.

It's easy to handwave that it would be a different system and everything just magically works out, but for some reason you don't seem to be able to actually describe how that would work and why the workers in the bank would suddenly start giving out financially unsound loans if they were in charge.

 

[untermensche]

The system does away with top down dictatorships.

Financing for new enterprises shifts from lending to individuals to lending to workers involved in an enterprise.

It's a completely different system.

Not just a word.

And again, it violates no laws of the universe.

And it is more than a different system. A different system creates different people. As George Orwell noticed.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

George Orwell wasn't talking about banks but peasants.

No, peasants are what exist under top down authoritarian systems.

Orwell was talking about freedom from artificial and damaging top down power systems.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of course they could exist. But is there any reason to think that worker-owned banks would operate any differently with respect to their customers than non-worker-owned ones?

Oh, but you said worker oriented. Which probably in your lexicon means something completely different.

The system does away with top down dictatorships.

Financing for new enterprises shifts from lending to individuals to lending to workers involved in an enterprise.

It's a completely different system.

Not just a word.

And again, it violates no laws of the universe.

And it is more than a different system. A different system creates different people. As George Orwell noticed.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

Why do you assume that "worker owned banks" are willing to accept greater risk that for profit banks? Whether it's a rich investor or a "worker", people who fund a bank don't want to lose money.

 

[untermensche]

The system does away with top down dictatorships.

Financing for new enterprises shifts from lending to individuals to lending to workers involved in an enterprise.

It's a completely different system.

Not just a word.

And again, it violates no laws of the universe.

And it is more than a different system. A different system creates different people. As George Orwell noticed.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

Why do you assume that "worker owned banks" are willing to accept greater risk that for profit banks? Whether it's a rich investor or a "worker", people who fund a bank don't want to lose money.

Nobody is saying they should take any greater risk than they currently take in lending to individual dictator wanna-be's.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is this the only fault of CEOs etc., that they have bad traits?

Let 'em have their bad traits. All that matters is that they keep doing all that good stuff for us.

 

[ZiprHead]

I remember watching "The Men Who Built America" on the History channel. I was amazed at how often they would do things that hurt their workers just for spite.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is this the only fault of CEOs etc., that they have bad traits?

Let 'em have their bad traits. All that matters is that they keep doing all that good stuff for us.

Thank you, sir. May I have another.

 

[lpetrich]

Is this the only fault of CEOs etc., that they have bad traits?

Let 'em have their bad traits. All that matters is that they keep doing all that good stuff for us.

What "good stuff"? What everybody with any good moral sense would consider "bad stuff"?

I find this admiration of antisocial tendencies very sick. It's also dangerous, because people with antisocial tendencies can be *very* destructive.