/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9554031
>aka bureucrats.
aka people who work for the government and are selected by elected representatives. Social issues are up for debate, but in the economic realm workers generally want the same things: the most fulfilling work in the best conditions possible, reasonable and flexible hours, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor in their entirety. If there is a governing body, of course there are going to be bureaucrats, people who work for it. But without capital, the bureaucrats and the administration they work for would have no function or choice other than to pursue workers' interests.

>the sheer amount of bureucracy needed to enforce their decisions would make the "sistem" prone to corruption in a global scale.
No country can perfectly enforce 100% of its rules, but the bigger the country, the more resources and manpower it has at its disposal to do so.

And I don't see why a large-scale democracy would be necessarily prone to corruption. Not to mention that in the absence of capital, political corruption would have to be much different than it is now, and most likely less harmful.

>Are you mentally challenged? Tell me, so i can simply dismiss your opinion and applaud you for making one, even if it is wrong.
You seem a little upset, friend. I know I'm writing a lot and may have used some unfamiliar terms in my previous posts, so if you need me to elaborate on any of my points just ask.

>>9554107
>>9554120
>what is DiaMat
>not being an idealist means you're close-minded
> economics < feels
Okay