/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10086494
I thought that's what sociology was for?

>>10086503
>sociology
>full of leftists and bullshit
They aren't really sucessful are they? I want something more concrete, with mathematical models and shit

>model for optimal governing
Not enough to have a solid model. The need is for a system inherently resistant to corruption. In other words, optimal for who?

>>10086494
they did, it's called communism

>>10086517
>optimal for who?
The people being governed

Politics is about controlling other people in order to acquire power and control but is not exclusive to governmental processes.
It's subjective because in order to control other people you must know and manipulate what is important or meaningful to them, and assigning meaning or purpose to things is inherently a subjective process. The process of assigning meaning and purpose to things is the essence of philosophy. Philosophy is something that science has shunned, and therefore there is very little crossover between the political community and scientific community.

>>10086494
They did. It's called not having politics in the first place.

>>10086537
You gotta get people at the top who even want that.

>>10086539
Maybe we could find a way to quantify happiness, maybe with crude methods like asking people how happy they are with their current life, then find a methodology to infer what politics to choose to maximize this value and keep it stable

>inb4 mass heroin giveaway for everyone

>>10086563
B-but thats their job, right? Doing well for its people

Here's an interesting thought experiment.
Imagine there is a feudal kingdom and in one province there is a village with a luxurious mansion that the feudal lord lives in, gets catered to, and gets to make the rules over his province. Except there is no singular feudal lord over this province. Instead, every villager has a turn being the lord. Each day a new villager is selected, and becomes lord for a day. The selection process is fair so every villager gets a turn and everyone gets exactly the same time to be the lord. No one is allowed to pass their turn. Once every villager has had one turn, then they all get a 2nd turn and so on and so forth. When a villager becomes lord for a day, they are able to create any law they wish, or remove any law a previous lord had made.

What happens in this situation, truly depends on the hearts and minds of each and every villager. If you knew the likely hood of each villager to abuse the system for their own gain, or try to benefit the people, or simply have a lazy day off work being hand fed grapes as the lord, then you could use game theory to predict what the outcome of this experiment would be. But this all depends on the starting conditions of the villagers and having such foreknowledge of people in real life is unlikely.

>>10086590
Due to polarization of opinions, laws would be alternating constantly

>>10086539
There's little crossover between the scientific community and the political community proper, but any university department is a churning hive of petty squabbles and political maneuvering. I think it's more accurate to say that scientists deal with politics in the sense of controlling individuals and politicians deal with politics in the sense of controlling collectives.

Because politics are context-dependent and some magical optimal context-independent political doctrine would require omniscience

>>10086494
The best mix of science and politics is transhumanism. The focus should be entirely on scientific progress through technology while being libertarian in your politics in leaving people alone.

Pues porque no puedes cuantificar datos sociales, por eso esta la sociología.

>>10086494
there's not technical solution to political problems

>>10086494
>some scientist come up with a mode
this is a good start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

>itt /sci/ attempts to solve the fact/value problem

Gottfried Feder already did this but its part of national socialism so his concepts are seen as inherently evil in todays judaist world

>>10086494
>come up with a model for optimal governing or something

they came up with a model for "if your government is shit you can change it without a civil war" it's called DEMOCRACY
this is as good as it gets

>>10087500
democracy? sounds pretty talmudic desu
pic very related

>>10087500
There aren't many legitimate democracies left in the world.

>>10086551
Dictatorshit or Commie? fucking absolute monarchy?

If you are primarily concerned about are the equal division of resources, then you can probably devise a system to so. However, it would have to operate under the assumption that every person is the exact same. I think it would be unwise to assume such a thing. Every minute difference, right down to our DNA, is going to have an impact on such a system. And that doesn't even take into account our diverse motivations in life which will probably have the greatest impact.

It is difficult to generate mathematical models that will allow for such a system to form and operate over an extended period of time. In my own opinion, I think society should be studied as more of an organic system rather than a mechanical one. I think a lot of our problems come from doing the opposite.

Ideally, you would want a government that doesn't suddenly change course from one side of an issue to another. Allowing for such is a quick way to turn civil discourse into civil war. The status quo should always preferred to change, and a set of rules must be created that the government must abide by. Governmental duties must be as explicit as the rules that the government must follow. However, there must be some elasticity in certain governmental duties, and a system set up to peacefully change the rules if such a consensus can be reached. A system of government with a slightly stronger national government paired with slightly weaker districts would be preferable to a weaker national government. You do not want any one district to hold power over any other.

On a national level, change must come about through wide ranging consensus. If such a consensus cannot be reached nationally, then the federal government should not legislate or rule on it. Instead, the issue should be decided on at the district and local levels where consensus can be reached in smaller population groups. Anyone who doesn't like what their group is doing is free to leave and join a group they do like.

>>10087500
Democracy is essentially a gameshow of authoritarianism when the intellect of your populace's opinions boil down to WAH ME NO LIKE ORANGE GUY BECAUSE RAYCISS vs WAH ME NO LIKE WOMAN BECAUSE UNBASED

>>10087586
What about
me no like orange guy because he businessman and business interests categorically do not align with those of the general public
And
me no like woman because paid by long nose

Democracy is still a very primitive way of governing. All that democracy really accomplishes is nothing more than finding a compromise between the different demographics compromising the electorate. That is literally it.

We have, in our governing system, virtually nothing more advanced than "let's find a compromise".

>>10086494

because people are subjective and dependent on opinions.
It's only natural that politics mirrors the electorate.

>>10086494
In politics facts tend to be purposefully obfuscated and systems tend to be abused in order for power to be maintained.

a government is a body of people.
Any government, where the people are dissatisfied or don't believe in their government will fail. Inversely, even a super duper shitty form of government can be a massive success if the people believe in it and try to make it work.
Ultimately the structure of government has very little impact and what's really important are the people. You can use the analogy of words on a book if you like. Government in the book would be how paragraphs are structured. How much indexing and space in the margins there is. Ultimately the words in the book, or people in this metaphor are what is important.


You could logically create a system of smaller states where each one has a different form of government. When a citizen becomes dissatisfied with their government they simply move to one they believe in and are willing to work for. This works fine so long as nobody tries to sabotage the government they're currently occupying for the sake of anther's. Again, ultimately hearts and minds and goodwill/intentions of the people that matter most.

>>10086590
>then you could use game theory to predict what the outcome of this experiment would be
You already know the result because you have no bounding conditions on the field
more specifically, you can make the laws governing the switcheroo disappear, you can make a day legally last until the death of the current ruler, you can even make laws that prevent other citizens from being lords with frivolous conditions, or straight up ban them with no reason at all
Game theory has no place in any non-bound field, perfect play is "fuck this system into non-existence" which isn't really helpful for any kind of thought experiment.
Start putting limits to the power, and suddenly you'll find that the perfect play switches to "fuck everyone that isn't me in this system" because, you guessed it, you don't put any kind of limiting factor on what the lord should/could/would be required to do.
Game theory has no place in politics as-is

friendly reminder that all math and logic are tautological and have relevance only by that which is based on the assumptions of the structures themselves and have no provable or conclusive correspondence outside those structures
>inb4 muh synthetic a priori
get fucked >laughing in parmenides

>>10086494
As a /sci/ guy, I would follow the next political government that would send me to Mars.
And not to Uranus...

>>10087500
"if your government is good you can shit it up without a civil war lmao"

>>10086551
based and redpilled, unironically

>>10087504
>There are legitimate dictatorships in the world.

>>10086690
>>10086494
This, only a true autosentient being can develope a objective and independent view on things.

>>10087578
how the fuck does the pic relate

>>10086494
Politics is directly related to on-going events and important history (i.e. relevant to the present in a conscious manner). This has made it easy for politics to be largely about bullshit social power plays, conflict and grasping for power extends into society at large including the study of politics itself (the activity and the disciplines of political science, political philosophy, ethics, economics, etc.) The bullshit has been given prestige and an establishment to utilise it. You cannot make it scientific without cleaning the slate, and you will be opposed academically and politically, if you try. Perhaps it'd be different if mathematics/physics autists of the early 20th century were able to give a basis to politics. That is, they were interested in doing so and were allowed to overwrite the pre-established doctrine and somehow negated all the subversive forces in play (such as the designs of someone's political ambitions).

>>10090106
Also, another big influencer in politics is hollow naive idealism that many appropriate towards some personal benefit. This comes from the retards of the Enlightenment (i.e. everyone) and philosophy in general. Idealism and other nonsense needs to be stripped away, reformed, and placed upon the descriptive, scientific basis, once we've got that figured out. Obviously subjectivity is natural, the main issue is that it's all just bullshit 'subjective' noise. There's no real study or approach.

Also, maybe the terms we have are lacking as well. I've found many words to simply be inaccurate or too vague yet they're used as if they mean anything, used integrally, even. Like 'democracy' or 'liberalism'. Further, a lot of 'politics' is just surface-level impression ethical aesthetic, in that, serious scientific inquiry renders its dichotomies and apparent definitions to be incoherent or wrong or just too simplistic to mean anything.

>>10086590
This system would break down rather quickly as some Lords would abuse their power to settle petty disputes with their neighbors

>>10087604
Better than constant war

the only system that would work is one where one set of people dont control another

>>10086494
politics is stochastic nonlinear so it's hard to compute man

>>10086494
It's called communism. But anti commies say that humans are greedy and not selfless. Humans are not rational and they hate communism.
Robots would have communism

>>10086494
because morals are subjective. even when people have similar morals they still might disagree on politics because they prioritize these morals and virtues differently. for instance many people agree that freedom is important and equality is important. But these virtues seem to oppose each other on a societal scale so if two people prioritize them differently they will have different politics even though they believe both are important goals.

>>10086494
>Why can't some scientist come up with a model for optimal governing or something

They already have reasoned these things out to a great extent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZSxeiziMg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2k (All 6 episodes are well worth watching, but especially episode 1, 2, and 6.)

>>10086494
because scientists are people who live in a bubble thats not connected to reality and all they go after is having their name written on a paper

>if enough people want it, the government can take objectively immoral actions against the people who didn't want it

Bravo democracy! *claps in nigger cattle*

>>10087500
>they came up with a model for "if your government is shit you can change it without a civil war" it's called DEMOCRACY
Cringed.

>>10086494
>Why are politics so subjective and dependent on opinions? Why can't some scientist come up with a model for optimal governing or something

>>10086494
It's simple, just find a cost function involving the happiness/freedom/wealth/safety/health of citizens and minimize it

>>10086494
to divide us. there is not one complete solution for everyone. but there is a one base solution we can all adhere to. the law, basically.
sadharana dharma allows for diversity while adhering to an agreed base.
decentralisation. tribes. community governance.
if we cannot have a unity of faith, we can at least have a unity of love.
we live in seriously dumb times.

The nuclear age established the idea of just one man in each great power - namely the soviet premier and the american president, as well as, now, the heads of state/military of other equipped nations - having the sole ability to authorize nuclear force. However, this is not unique to the advent of nuclear weapons, because it taps into the general idea that a government requires "decisiveness" and that in times of trouble, by the time a group or committee or "checked powers" can react and agree on a course of action, the window of opportunity will have passed.

Democracies such as Athens historically ran into serious issues when the collective minds of the public wavered during times of tension. The nukes simply re-enforce the fact that if you set too many barriers to power, you cannot use this power in a time of great need. Imagine waking up all of congress to get ANYTHING done, let alone respond to an attack no-one has a policybook on, arriving in twelve minutes.

Many attempts to "fix" politics will try to remove the potential of power in bad hands by introducing middling steps between ambitious people and what they are tasked to run. Some others will try to remove any figurehead whatsoever, so that no one has a unique amount of power over than their government peers, Sometimes i hear people even nowadays claiming that a well-thought-out communist state wouldn't need a charismatic leader, or a central power that holds all the cards, all of these ideas potentially making sense, but only if your nation was the only nation in existence. As long as there are unknown variables governments will require a merit-based singular head of state. how you judge merit and exactly what this head can and can't do alone is up to whoever writes the rules.

>>10086494
>Why can't some scientist come up with a model for optimal governing or something
It's because of the kidnapping, rape, torture, and extortion that goes on behind the scenes 24/7.

>>10086494
The definition of optimal goes back to moral philosophy.

>>10086494
its called libertarianism

>>10091316

Monkeys in a zoo get fed, get medical care, get their own space, get someone assigned for breeding, don't have to work.

>>10091857
Crucially, they bring in income for the zookeepers and aren't allowed to leave.

>>10086494
Why do you assume an optimum exists within the system.
>What is the maximum of a circle

>>10091915
times up

>>10086534
Would only work if humans were artificial automatons acting the very arbitrary way Marx thought they do. But they aren't.
>>10086494
Because to answer the question of "what should the government do" you first need to answer the question "what do I want?". Different political ideologies try to maximize different parameters. Different people care more or less about different things.

You can't have a single model optimize for every single variable.

If you can decide what you want, coming up with a model of government is fairly simple and generally pretty obvious, so long as the goals are clear and precisely stated.

>>10091829
Not really, all you have to have is an axiomatic set of target variables. How you derived them is irrelevant, politics is only every concerned with developing an algorithm that optimizes the environment for them.

>>10086567
Lmao, even politicians would laugh at you right now

>>10086494
There is, it's called the neoclassical synthesis.

>>10087500
This is a very common misconception. Western democracy is not about executing the will of the majority, it is about protecting the individual from any harm unnecessary, more than anything the harm caused by a tyranny of majority or a tyranny of military power.

>>10086494
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Politics_is_the_Mind-Killer

>>10086590
Excuse me, old woman!

>>10091829
Triple E
Efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy.
How efficiently effective is the efficacy?

>>10088103
end government then. clearly it is not fit for purpose.

>>10090113
>There's no real study or approach.
Harmonic frameworks which examine the whole

>>10086494
Swiss got good goverment and politics imo...

More direct model of taking decisions can lead population to get informed about what they've doing.

>>10086494
you can't conduct controlled experiments on human societies.

>>10092950
We are the Chaos Initation Artists
All your mind are belong to us

>>10086534
>>10090534
It's been nearly a century and communists have still never successfully solved the economic calculation problem. It's time to stop.

>>10086494
>Why can't some scientist come up with a model for optimal governing
Because everyone has different moral systems, and guiding principles. It's why philosophy in general is a pretty cute past-time.
The best we can do is the democratic process. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have available.
As long as there is no clear factions - i.e. there are multiple factions all competing with each other - then it's not always clear where the final chips will be placed within the democratic sphere/decision-making process. Checks and balances need to be made to prevent corruption of power that is associated with 1-party rule.
As long as you have those checks and balances, democracy is the best of the worst that is the entire scope of the political process. Extremists (either sjw's from /pol/ or sjw's from the democrats) are uncomfortable with this notion.

>>10086590
easily corruptible

>>10093894
there are principles which work for everyone tho. like not murdering people. not beating up children. not only does it hurt the victims, it hurts the perpetrator and hurts the whole.
if you dont believe there is an objective good as well as subjective good, you are deluded and are something close to nilhism.
sadharana dharma, diversity and mutual respect.
as of now people will literally beat each other to death for supporting a different sports team or for wearing different clothes to themselves.
there is a wholesome thing to do.
if you are not whole, or able to understand the concept of wholeness, you are divided.

>>10093894
there are principles which work for everyone tho. like not murdering people. not beating up children. not only does it hurt the victims, it hurts the perpetrator and hurts the whole.
if you dont believe there is an objective good as well as subjective good, you are deluded and are something close to nihilism.
sadharana dharma, diversity and mutual respect.
as of now people will literally beat each other to death for supporting a different sports team or for wearing different clothes to themselves.
there is a wholesome thing to do.
if you are not whole, or able to understand the concept of wholeness, you are divided.

>>10094551
That's absolutely not true. There are plenty of people on this earth who have no problems killing others. They don't feel bad about it. There is no such thing as absolute morals dharma, etc is a personal belief that varies from individual to individual. You can't lump everyone under another spiritual belief in which over half the world doesn't even practice.

>>10086564
Make everyone retarded, and they will never know sadness

>>10094568

>There are plenty of people on this earth who have no problems killing others.

no sane nigga on this planet cares about those mfs so their opinions on the matter aren't important. what normal people want is a society where we all get along have enough to get by and aren't harmed by our fellow man. anyone who thinks different might as well be kicked out to some remote island where they can die alone with their retarded ideals.

Because that's the nature of public governance. You want to win the vote? You have to win the majority's heart (or electoral college, etc.). There is no incentive to implement the "best" policy, let alone look for it.

Private governments don't care about public opinion, or at least, they don't have to. They care about the value of their property (i.e. the well-being of their country), and will thus, for the most part, implement policies they genuinely believe to be the best. Politics wasn't much of a thing until a few centuries ago.

>>10094644
It's called prison. We have that already. My point is, fuck off with the "absolute morals" bill shit. They're not concrete, they see not absolute. The simple fact I just proved you wrong is proof enough that morals are not absolute and you're absolutely retarded to think that. The fact you and I may have differing opinions on abortion, slavery, murder, rape etc means they are not objective. These are actual definitions, you fuck. Read a book.

>>10094653

like I said, faggot. nobody cares what a rapist or a murderer wants. so we don't even count their 'moral' compass into the equation. what 98% of us wants is how this perfect government would run.

>>10094656
Like I said, retard. Nobody gives a shit about your opinion as your opinion doesn't dictate reality. You're literally wrong. I don't particularly give a shit who you do and do not care about. Your mother could hang herself tonight and I wouldn't even know, let alone give a shit. I'm talking facts, fuck off with your retarded /pol/ billshit. This is /sci/, where we present evidence for our opinions. My evidence is the simple FACT that morals are subjective. Now either refute that, or make like a tree and fuck off.

>>10094662

they are objective because as I said, literally everyone on this planet disagrees with these heinous things except for a select few, who are mentally defective psychopaths that don't fucking matter

>>10094666
>literally everyone
>except these people
>I still haven't found this "book" you were talking about. I don't actually know the definition of literally
Again, your opinion on what does and doesn't matter is still an opinion. I think you need to look up the definition of fact and opinion as well. You seem to be on the slower side of things, so this refresher might be nice. Because at the end of the day, you're arguing an opinion. That's stupid and low tier middle school thinking. You argue with facts, retard. You can say these psychopaths don't matter, but they matter enough to spend millions of dollars on to house them in correctional facilities. Apparently they matter more than you do. I dont see the American public funding your home, food, recreation time etc. It seems to me like you're just another retard who doesn't own a dictionary.

>>10094653
Go drink your milk billy clearly trying to think on the higher plane of objextive morality is hard work for real men. They should really test T levels before allowing the right to vote

>>10094699
>low tier insult slinging
>still doesn't understand the difference between fact and opinion
Sorry, there are people on this world who subjectively think killing people is not wrong. You can't argue that, nor can you argue the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Either way you look at this, you're wrong. Not that you have a weak argument, you have no argument. You're arguing against the dictionary, idiot.

>>10087556
Absolute monarchy is great when you have a good monarch

>>10094666
> literally everyone on this planet disagrees with these heinous things

Wrong, henious things are widely supported. Hundreds of millions of muslims believe adulterers should be stoned, apostates killed and gays thrown off buildings.

Morals are subjective, people believe in evil shit and they do so just as passionately as you.

>>10086663
Scientists are controlled by politics, period.

>>10086494
Would need to take genetics into account...

Someone did. Dialectical Materialism is scientifically valid and has been used as a heuristic in science before. Of course, American conservatives blew their top and demanded scientists stop using dialectical materialism.

>>10093846
The economic calculation problem isn't a problem and never has been. Stalin never even mentioned it in Economic Problems of the USSR because it never posed an issue.

>>10094823
Except that dialectical materialism is blatant pseudoscience on the same level as feminist theory, lysenkoism, theology or gender studies. There is zero rigor in those "fields".

>>>/x/ is that way

>>10094825
>Stalin never even mentioned it

Oh, that settles it then, lol.

Failure of central planning to solve the economic calculation problem was the main reason behind Soviet Union economy being so much behind the West and falling further behind.

>>10094819
>/sci/
>this post
this is how bad this board has gotten

>>10094836
You've not said one thing to disprove anything I said.

>>10094843
No it wasn't and the soviet economy wasn't "behind" the west. The economic calculation problem is a none-issue and always has been. Mises and Hayek were complete pseuds and not one thing they've ever said has been proven true.

>>10094874
>soviet economy wasn't "behind" the west
it was you moron, as someone who lived through fall of communism I can tell you that awesome consumer goods and information coming from capitalist countries were instrumental in proving to the people that communism is inferior and that the party is spewing bullshit

>>10094890
By what metric though? You can say it was inferior because certain consumer goods were more scarce. Or you can say it was superior because of full employment and zero homelessness.

By the same logic one can look at the 1% of India or Saudi Arabia and conclude that the country is very advanced or they could look at the poor/slaves of either country to conclude the exact opposite.

>>10094890
Why is it whenever I debate someone about Marxism they always "lived in a communist country"? Where the fuck are all these gusanos coming from? Anyway, those "awesome consumer goods" are what cause recessions and they're only made possible in the West because the West exploits and monopolizes resources in third world countries to keep them cheap, which is unsustainable, not to mention cruel.

>>10094897
>Or you can say it was superior because of full employment and zero homelessness.

full employment was not superior at all, people were doing bullshit jobs that contributed nothing to the society merely to have jobs on paper

as for homelessness, you dont need communism to solve that, basic welfare and safety net system is enough

>>10094903
>Why is it whenever I debate someone about Marxism they always "lived in a communist country"?

Maye because people from post-communist countries are allergic to bullshit being spewed about their lived experience by pampered Western idiots on the internet?

>>10093846
>>10094843
>>10094874
Economic calculation problem is not really a problem in the technical sense. It is a very roundabout way to say, "let the rich have what they want and let the poor starve". Capitalism does exactly that. It doesn't solve the "problem" anymore than communism does. It is just that you are taught to ignore the ills of capitalism so you think capitalism is superior when in fact it is performing horribly.

>>10094903
>and they're only made possible in the West because the West exploits and monopolizes resources in third world countries to keep them cheap, which is unsustainable, not to mention cruel.

wrong, second world is main producer of those consumer goods (leading to record economic growths in China, not exploitation), third world could disappear overnight and capitalist countries would hardly even notice

>>10094911
You have no idea what you are talking about, economic calculation problem is a very real problem concerned with a way to allocate resources in the economy, and the fact is that nobody has come up with any other solution to it that would come even close to what free markets can accomplish.

>>10094857
ur jus mad cuz im smarter then u
:)

>>10094909
>pampered western idiots
Yeah, people who are homeless, don't have jobs or healthcare and if they do have jobs often have to work two are so pampered aren't they? But we have pizza hut and a minority of people can live a life luxury living off the back of everyone else's labour, so that makes it OK.

>>10094911
Basically. Its also completely dumb because it relies on the "value is subjective" argument which is incorrect, anti-science and idealistic rather than materialist.

>>10094915
>second world is main producer of those consumer goods
They assemble it, but China gets much of the important resources for electronics from Africa (places like the Congo specifically) where are they mined by slaves. Western corporations then use Chinese workers paid a pittance to manufacture them and ship them to the West for cheap.

>leading to record economic growths in China, not exploitation
By what metric? Also;
>not exploitation
What else is it called when make someone work 12 hours a day to make something, pay them pennies and then sell that shit in the West for hundreds of dollars? This again relies on the "subjective value" crap.

>third world could disappear overnight and capitalist countries would hardly even notice
AHAHAHA, without third world exploitation the Western capitalism would fucking crumble. What, do you really think westerners are going to live in factory dorms working 12 hours a day for £400 a month?

>>10094932
value is subjective and claiming otherwise is complete pseudoscience, so you are the one who is anti-science

>>10094903
I live in a post-communist country and these people are full of shit. Nobody who was poor in communist times is going around praising capitalism and denouncing the full employment programs. Don't believe this bullshit. If it wasn't for communism, allowing my parents to lift themselves from poverty, I would not be university educated. In fact, there would be no university education at all. If it wasn't for communism we would still be a feudalistic shithole where a very distinct class of the elites have all the opportunities to do everything intellectual (including science) and all of rest of us would be treated like literal farm animals.
If these people are from post-communist countries they are probably from rich family lineages or they are nearsighted retards whose family did flourish under communism but then bumped their heads against the glass ceiling and instantly turned capitalist.

>>10094932
>leading to record economic growths in China, not exploitation
>By what metric?

By any metric you choose, be it GDP per capita, human development index, life expectancy.. Chinese economic boom is unprecedented and undeniable.

>>10094906
Full employment is the proverbial bootstrap. If you don't understand that, you are not worth debating with.
And welfare programs in western Europe are getting eradicated as we speak. And what of the wonders of capitalism, that you can go in the richest most expansive cities in Europe and meet homeless beggars all over.

>>10094932
>AHAHAHA, without third world exploitation the Western capitalism would fucking crumble. What, do you really think westerners are going to live in factory dorms working 12 hours a day for £400 a month?

Again, third worlders are not the ones who work in capitalist factories. East Asians are. Generally speaking, third world provides nothing for global economy except for some raw resources (and without capitalism, those resources would simply stay in the ground).

>>10094950
>And what of the wonders of capitalism, that you can go in the richest most expansive cities in Europe and meet homeless beggars all over.

Immigrants or people who want to be homeless. You can thank open borders immigration policies for that.

>>10094942
Lots of social institutions serve to convert collective subjective opinions into objective goals. Justice for example. Lolbertarians completely ignore this, pretending that we still live in a cavemen times. Actually, not even that. Because archeology proves that even in those times social institutions were much stronger than Lolbertarian fantasies allow for.

>>10094942
Claiming value is subjective is not back by any evidence and can yield no predictions. Vlaue is clearly objective, if you set supply and demand to be at equilibrium, then the value of something is the resources that went into it plus the labour time.

>>10094953
Again, this is blatant bullshit. The resources mined in the third world they are given pennies for are far more valuable than what they're given.

>>10094950
>And welfare programs in western Europe are getting eradicated as we speak.
nope, welfare state is as solid as ever, you are just mad that welfare capitalism succeeded where communism failed miserably

>>10094957
No you can't. There's more homes than homeless in every European country because tycoons own the land, quite often foreign tycoons who only bought the houses for status and never even visit them and can charge whatever they want. How the fuck does that make sense? It doesn't.

>>10094961
>if you set supply and demand to be at equilibrium

Cannot do that without solving the economic calculation problem. Only free markets can set the equilibrium with any reliability.

>>10094957
You show yourself to be ignorant and privileged with that post.

The homeless are local people who have been driven out of the increasingly expensive unregulated (deregulated by the capitalist friendly parties) housing. The housing is increasingly expensive because of the government effort to attract rich foreigner residents (students, workers, investors, tourists) which according to their theories, makes everyone better off. Except clearly not. And welfare cannot keep up because all the while they have been downsizing it and narrowing its scope.

>>10094962
Says the prep school liberal kid who never had to file a welfare form. Welfare getting reduced is pretty much a common theme anywhere in Europe.

>>10094963
there is more open places in homeless shelters than homeless in vast majority of cities

again, only citizens who want to be homeless are homeless

>>10094964
The economic calculation problem is about price, not value. Mises and Hayek claim value doesn't exist.

>>10094971
https://nltimes.nl/2018/05/25/housing-shortage-increases-homeless-problem-dutch-cities

>>10094919
Read Cockshott.

>>10094972
you usually cannot determine value without price, hence why central planning is grossly inefficient

Also if one really wanted to show how capitalism is flawed, one needs only to point at the climate change crisis which only exists because of capitalism. Because it is a problem that is fundamentally incomputable with the capitalist economy.

>>10094973
>They also note that the group of homeless people in the cities is becoming increasingly diverse.

As I said, mass immigration is to blame here

>>10094971
Oh well that's good isn't it. At least they have grotty hostels to sleep in. Also, homelessness is defined by not having a permanent residence, not having a place to sleep for the night.

>only citizens who want to be homeless are homeless
Yeah, its got nothing to do with capitalism's chronic issue with unemployment, the housing bubble or the fact a capitalist can buy a house and then charge whatever the fuck they want for it.

>>10094975
Again, Mises and Hayek claim value doesn't exist. They conflate value and price, which s a fundamental error. Value and price aren't the same, price is proportional to value but not the same thing as price is subject to the laws of supply and demand while value isn't.

>>10094975
>hence why central planning is grossly inefficient
Says he unironically on a board dedicated to a discipline that is 100% centrally planed.

>>10094979
Just because capitalism has flaws (and very few people think it has none), does not mean communism is a valid option. Communist countries had worse pollusion than capitalist ones. Capitalist innovation coupled with a carbon tax is that will solve climate change, if anything will.

>>10094983
science is not centrally planned and science would be grossly impeded without capitalism

>>10094984
>Capitalist innovation coupled with a carbon tax is that will solve climate change, if anything will.
It clearly isn't. It clearly is working precisely to aggravate the problem. You just cannot admit the facts in front of you, can you.

>>10094989
>science is not centrally planned
It literally is, without question. Do you even understand how funding works?

You ever wonder if like, 95% of a thread and it's post are made by robots spewing the same shit they always do?

>>10094983
>science is centrally planned
Would you explain what you think central planning is?

>>10094991
You can thank capitalist innovation for falling renewable energy prices. The problem with global warming is politicians dragging their feet, not capitalism.

>>10094992
do you even understand how peer review and citations work? it is a decentralized system

also plenty of scientific funding comes from private sphere, too

>>10094995
Funding committees are granted a share of the budget which then they distribute to funding proposals using their expertise in the field as guidance and some criteria of priorities, rather than market signals. Exactly how science works.

>>10094996
No, I thank the 15 years of national government funds that were poured into the university projects without expecting anything in return.

>>10095006
university project does not a cheap solar panel factory make, basic research is important but they would be hopeless without applied science where private industry dominates

>>10095014
>without applied science where private industry dominates
That is just false. In fact there are more renowned universities for their applied sciences than there are for their pure sciences. Private industry does nothing more than marketing and manufacturing and even research in those two fields in mainly done in universities.

>>10095006
>No, I thank the 15 years of national government funds that were poured into the university projects without expecting anything in return.
Which ended like 15 years ago...

>>10095023
bullshit, as a rule of thumb R&D spending in the economy roughly is 1/3 public, 2/3 private, also most applied science departments have strong ties to private industry

>>10095006
Central planning is a single or multi-armed authority which has dominance over the sizable portion, if not majority of activity performed. If you think hundreds of scientific committees with no relation to each other funding different things for different motivations with no central authority is centrally planned, you legitimately have a psychotic delusion.

>>10095025
I went to the University of Buffalo. I can trash talk them day in and day out, but they do a ton of photonics work. They're a publicly funded institution.

>>10095023
>private industry "research"
>cigarettes are good for you
>our drug is 100% safe and the only drug that ever needs to be made and btw we need patents for centuries
>infinite debt makes you infinitely profitable
>stress is good for you
>race relations are always more important than taxes

>>10095025
No it didn't.

>>10095031
Private R&D = marketing research = advertising

>>10095043
>Private R&D = marketing research = advertising
not even sure anymore if troll or serious..

>>10095031
"Research" is a corporate tax haven. It used to be discounted on taxes or flat repaid at 1.5x the cost to companies. There's now permanent tax cuts like the Research & Experimentation Tax Credit.

Let's not forget all the money and grants given by government TO BUSINESSES that result in non-public patents or data use. The military is notorious for this. You think any of the F-35 patents are public domain?

>>10095043
Equating private R&D with mere advertising is obviously complete bullshit, however let me point out that without advertising and marketing, the economy goes down the drain, because once again, with no free market you cannot solve the economic calculation problem. So it is no laughing matter

>>10095038
That is also how the current public funded programs work. Central planning is a misnomer in this case. The confusion stems from propagandists creating a boogie man out of "THE GUBERMINT" by pretending like it is some monolith entity with the singular goal of destroying them. In reality the government is fairly decentralized with lots of factions that often disagree and even compete and amongst each other.

>>10095053
you dont necessarily need a public domain patent for the public to benefit, depends on specifics but subsidizing private R&D makes sense either way

>>10094961
>the value of something is the resources that went into it plus the labour time.

>buy lamborghini
>spend 3 days pounding it into scrap metal with a hammer
>now have scrap metal worth a lamborghini + 3 days' wages

>>10094966
>>10094963
Unregulated real estate environment + demand = a lot of new houses

The reason for the housing crisis is regulations that restrict how many houses can be built and where. Do you really think countries are running out of land to build on? Or do you think that construction companies would rather sit around than build houses they can sell for $$$?

>>10095082
>Unregulated real estate environment + demand = a lot of new houses
There are already lots of empty houses.

>>10095082
>mudpie argument
Marx clearly said that its only socially necessary labour that has value.

>Unregulated real estate environment + demand = a lot of new houses
Except that's not what happens because capitalist land owners often have more incentive to restrict the supply of housing to raise the price of rent and property and create a bubble.

>The reason for the housing crisis is regulations that restrict how many houses can be built and where.
No it isn't, considering there are already more houses than people. The problem isn't that there's not enough houses, its that people can't afford them.

>Or do you think that construction companies would rather sit around than build houses they can sell for $$$?
Its nothing to do with construction companies, they don't own the land, they're contracted to develop. The issue is with the landlords.

>>10095061
That's really stupid moving of the goalpost, and retarded in itself.

1. Subsidizing private R&D is the government providing money for research. The government giving a company a billion dollars and then saying it was the private company spending money, and not the government, is deceitful.

2. A private company requesting money for research, and then keeping the results entirely regardless of the wealth provided by the government, hurts everyone. The research was paid for already. There is no benefit to private capitalization over the public having the research and the wealth staying in the hands of the citizens, because the citizens paid for it. Not intending to strawman, but for all the talk of taxation is theft, it's sickening how much people are willing to let someone else take their money and call it "just the way we have to do things".

>>10095092
>Marx clearly said that its only socially necessary labour that has value.

There is no objective way to determine what is "socially necessary". Capitalism with its price mechanism does a very good job overall since it embraces this subjectivity, communism shits the bed as usual.

>>10095082
>selling is worth more than hoarding
Literally banks have bought minerals to force prices to rise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html

It's been known for a long time that housing markets are driven by a large investor buying up houses, driving up prices, and then leaving houses empty. Trailer parks were notorious for this, because they were originally seen as disgusting and "worthless", until corporations realized most of the tenants had no options and lived on fixed incomes. Now a trailer can cost as much as an apartment in rent.

>>10095092
>The problem isn't that there's not enough houses, its that people can't afford them.

As it should be. Capitalism correctly allocates the resources because some small % of people do not deserve to live in houses as they contribute little to the economy. As with most other things, certain amount of welfare and social programs built on top of capitalism solve this ethical issue without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

>>10095092
>Marx clearly said that its only socially necessary labour that has value.
Who determines what's socially necessary?

>(you): capitalist land owners often have more incentive to restrict the supply of housing
>me: The reason for the housing crisis is regulations that restrict how many houses can be built and where.

These are literally the same thing. Wealthy capitalists restrict the housing market by lobbying politicians for regulations. The problem isn't with capitalism, it's with money in politics.

>No it isn't, considering there are already more houses than people. The problem isn't that there's not enough houses, its that people can't afford them.
Not my problem, they should've worked harder. You're not owed anything.

>>10086494
I forgot to respond to the OP.
>Why are politics so subjective and dependent on opinions?
Because people have different values. If you want to make political decisions, you need to decide what needs to be done, which means you have to know what is desirable, which means you have to know what's good and bad, and that's inherently subjective.
Is prostitution good?
Are abortions good?
Is an X% tax rate good? etc

>>10095099
Yes there is, obviously if its filling a social need. A randomly banged up piece of metal has no use value, so its value is moot. But hypothetically, if someone did want your piece of metal, then its value is still going to be the labour time you put into it and cost of resources.

>Capitalism with its price mechanism
Again, price is not value. Stop getting them mixed up. Price is proportional to value, but it isn't value. Value is intrinsic to the object, price isn't.

>>10095104
This comment is a fucking mess. Capitalism obviously doesn't allocate resources is people want fucking houses but can't afford them, that's just wasting resources. "Contribute to the economy" is a moot point because capitalism requires unemployment, so even if people want to contribute to the economy, they can't because the capitalists have exclusive ownership of the means of production and said they can't arbitrarily.

>certain amount of welfare and social programs
Welfare capitalism only plasters over the issue, in reality, its fucking shit.

>>10095109
>Who determines what's socially necessary?
People, obviously.

>Wealthy capitalists restrict the housing market by lobbying politicians for regulations. The problem isn't with capitalism, it's with money in politics.
This a) complete idealism and 2) a failure to understand how capitalism works. The state is a part of capitalism. Without the state capitalism would be gone in a week. Of course, that's why the state isn't going anywhere.

>Not my problem, they should've worked harder. You're not owed anything.
Well if they can't find work, or do have work but the capitalist doesn't pay them enough because the tendency in capitalism is for the capitalist to pay the worker the least amount possible tending towards the bare minimum they need to survive, then obviously its not their fault. Also:
>implying capitalists work hard
They're just parasites that leech of workers. They're not necessary.

>>10086494
Because if it would be based on facts it will be totalitarian government.

>>10095093
>There is no benefit to private capitalization over the public having the research and the wealth staying in the hands of the citizens

Now you are conflating things. Making the patents public does not mean public will benefit from them. It means anyone who implements the technology can benefit. And as a rule of thumb, it will be private companies because government sucks at bringing new tech to the market.

Making patents from government-funded research public is a good idea, tough (unless the funding is both public and private, in which case things get complicated).

>>10095100
What keeps them from establishing trailer parks elsewhere?

>>10095124
>People, obviously.
Will comrade Lenin walk around the entire country every day and ask everyone what they need and how much? How will they quantify these values, and how fast will based Lenin have to walk with all those reams of paper?

>then obviously its not their fault
It is. Even with all this talk, most people live somewhere, in fact, people have a higher standard of living than ever before (except in communist countries, of course). You need to put in work, though, so there's that.
Also, there's NGOs that are willing to help the homeless, but that's more shameful to them, than they want a home. I'm not going to help them for that.

>They're just parasites that leech of workers. They're not necessary.
Everyone in a capitalist system is a capitalist. You don't accept a smaller wage or pay extra at the grocery store just to be a nice guy; why should others?

>>10095124
>But hypothetically, if someone did want your piece of metal, then its value is still going to be the labour time you put into it and cost of resources.

Wrong, value is determined by the buyer, not the seller. Price is what you pay, value is what you get.

To explain this concept, a thing made with lots of labor and from expensive resources can still be of little value if it is a shitty thing.

You dont even know basic economics terms.

>>10095151
The public benefits because the wealth isn't hoarded by a single company, with the inevitable downstream impact of amassment of wealth and perversion of "fairness".

Main issues of allowing a business to own public property: 1) monopolization - specifically the restriction of using the knowledge, which is usually completely overlooked by people purporting a business will always use it, 2) perception of authority - by permitting businesses to own public property, they were given their wealth but people will assume it was earned. This causes problems because it causes a snowball effect of undeserved trust (the current case where only Amazon is "large enough" to be given government contracts, or Equifax's breach meant nothing to the IRS). And 3) the most obvious and relevant danger today, when companies are making the rules. The public is completely fucked when the institution that owns the wealth also makes the rules. Americanism is a really bad thing because morons think they'll be the ruling class someday. We shouldn't even call it Capitalism.

>>10095166
The economy is centrally planned. The way this works is using statistics on consumption and how much of a surplus is needed, mass line (from the masses to the masses), and communication with workers and directors in heavy and light industry. The soviet union never had a problem pricing things. The whole "le price" argument is stupid anyway, how do you think companies plan how much they need and what people want? Each company is itself centrally planned. Its just that in those cases, its centrally planned around profit for the capitalist rather than meeting need.

>most people live somewhere
Yeah but not everyone does, clearly. Those are the people we're talking about.

>people have a higher standard of living than ever before
I mean you'd expect that anyway just because technology and science advance. However, living standards in the western world are getting worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/23/uk-fall-living-standards-resolution-foundation-budget

>except in communist countries
Such as?

>Also, there's NGOs that are willing to help the homeless
NGOs are shit and at the end of the day, are profit-seeking as well. Half the time they don't even do what they're meant to be doing.

>I'm not going to help them for that.

No-one is asking you to.

>Everyone in a capitalist system is a capitalist
No they aren't, clearly if they don't own the means of production. As in, capital, things that make other things on a mass scale. That's waht a capitalist is.

>You don't accept a smaller wage or pay extra at the grocery store just to be a nice guy; why should others?
That's not the point. Workers should get the full value of their wages, since capitalists are taking it off them. That's kinda the point of why communists advocate a revolution to expropriate the capitalists.

>>10095177
>value is determined by the buyer
Complete horseshit. Walk into a car dealership and try to say you'll buy a car for $1, they'll laugh you out of it....

>>10095124
forgot this one:
>This a) complete idealism
Elaborate on that, otherwise it's not even lose to being an argument.

>and 2) a failure to understand how capitalism works. The state is a part of capitalism. Without the state capitalism would be gone in a week. Of course, that's why the state isn't going anywhere.
There's states without capitalism, and there's capitalistic states that have no housing crisis, also. If the wealthy can't influence politics to restrict other capitalists, we wouldn't be in such a shitty situation.

>>10095191
>The soviet union never had a problem pricing things.

It had, it was a huge and pervasive problem and the resulting inefficiency and stagnation, especially in contrast to the capitalist West, was a major factor behind its collapse.

>>10095191
>Walk into a car dealership and try to say you'll buy a car for $1, they'll laugh you out of it....

Because the value of a car is usually not $1 you moron. But you can indeed buy a car for a few dollars if it is an old wreck. Value fluctuates with time, that is another basic aspect your retarded ideology cannot account for.

>>10095166
The same companies own the real estate. You can't a) get property without paying the company for use/ownership of it, and there's a capital investment. The basic rule is there's going to be two kinds of owners, one who wants to maximize profits for themself and is fine with hurting everyone in the process, and the other who doesn't want to hurt everyone in the process, which won't maximize profits. The latter will always lose because the former will exploit the resources, use their extra resources to acquire more, so on until they can make the rules. The more compact the society the more competition there is, but inevitably, there will be a dominating presence that tries to squeeze every last penny it can out of people.

>second half of your post
>everything is a zero-sum game with effort being the only metric
It's objectively shown providing homes for the homeless costs less to society than letting them be homeless, even in the short term. It's sort of like abortions. You can try to block it for moral reasons (it's their fault, they should work harder, they deserve punishment, etc) but in reality it's way more beneficial to stay out of their damn way.

>everyone is as shitty as me
Have you ever heard of people taking lower wage jobs so they can be happier? Do you think people can't have an urgency other than wealth or hurting others?

>>10095177
>value is determined by the buyer, not the seller
That's retarded. Value is determined by both. You have to be autistic not to realize that people who put a lot of effort or resources into something typically want something of comparable value out of it, not beginning to describe that even if to the seller the item is worthless, if it's valuable to someone else, they will drive up the price. You literally can't say price without speaking of value, because "price" is a metaphor for money, which has value. You're not exchanging an abstract for a real. Money is valuable. Someone else's desires influence yours.

>>10095177
>>10095191
>price is what you pay, value is what you get
This doesn't make any sense. Value is what the object is worth when supply and demand are in equilibrium. If supply and demand are in equilibrium for a pencil and car, the car is always going to be more valuable than the pencil intrinsically because it cost more resources and labour time to make. Subjective value can't explain prices when supply and demand are in equilibrium.

>a thing made with lots of labor and from expensive resources can still be of little value if it is a shitty thing.
It can't little value, it can be of little use value. But the object still has an intrinsic value that if you trade it off for lower than, you've lost out. If you make a gold pizza, a thing made with lots of labor and from expensive resources but is ultimately worthless, it still has a value. If you give it away for a fucking pencil, you've lost out because the gold itself is more valuable because it takes longer to extract and mine than it does to make a pencil.

I do know basic economics, I also know advanced economics. This comes directly from Adam Smith.

>>10095194
>Elaborate on that
Idealism is thinking subjective ideas make the world rather than the material world making our ideas.

>there's capitalistic states that have no housing crisis
Yes, but this only achieved because of welfare capitalism and state intervention. If you just leave the capitalists to do whatever the fuck they want, they're going to do what makes them the most profit, not what's most efficient.

The fundamental problem of capitalism is that it creates massively wealthy people compared to the rest of society by nature. The problem isn't going to go away in any scenario.

>>10095191
>how do you think companies plan how much they need and what people want? Each company is itself centrally planned.

Competition between companies, the invisible hand of the market. Nobody centrally plans that, it is a decentralized phenomenon. One that no amount of central planning can match.

>>10095198
>>10095198
Those weren't problems with pricing, stagnation happened because profit seeking was reintroduced by Khruschev who focused on light industry (consumer goods), who was then replaced by Brezhnev who focused on profits in heavy industry, which is stupid for an industrialized country. Of course the root of the issue was Khrushchev introducing profit-seeking in the first place. There's a reason Stalin warned against it.

>>10095211
>Because the value of a car is usually not $1 you moron
YES BUT WHY. This is exactly what the LTV fucking sets out to explain. Why is a car not $1 and a pencil is when supply and demand are equal, why aren't they the same price? Because one intrinsically cost more to make in terms of resources and labour.

>But you can indeed buy a car for a few dollars if it is an old wreck. Value fluctuates with time, that is another basic aspect your retarded ideology cannot account for.
Yes it can, a wrecked car has less use value than a new car because it doesn't work as well and is probably to need to be fixed.

>>10095222
>le invisable hand
This is how I can tell you've not read Wealth of Nations. You do know that was ONE line in the book and by the invisible hand he meant God right? He literally meant that God.

>Nobody centrally plans that, it is a decentralized phenomenon
Yes it is between companies, but not within them.

>One that no amount of central planning can match
Except it matches and surpasses it by a long shot. Capitalism is complete chaos.

>>10095191
>The economy is centrally planned...
You massively underestimate just how many decisions are made ever single moment by capitalists (yes, everyone is one, it's not up for debate, it's the definition) everywhere. How much gasoline needs to be ordered to every single pump in the entire western world, how many scones, condoms, plates and scooters are needed, and how much are they needed? If we have to choose between a scooter and a toaster, which one do we need to choose?
THIS is what capitalism does. It outsources all these decisions to the little people instead of burdening Lenin with them.
The allocation of scarce resources which have alternative sources.

>Yeah but not everyone does, clearly. Those are the people we're talking about.
My point was that most people can succeed. If the system was inherently flawed, and against the people, only a minority would prosper.

>I mean you'd expect that anyway just because technology and science advance...
Yes, in the last ~5 years, things have gotten worse, EXACTLY because of govt. overreach, as I have explained before. Competition suffered because of regulations.

>Such as?
Cuba, China before the 90s, assorted historical examples. Can you give me one (ONE) communistic country that has equal or better numbers than the OECD average in the following: infant mortality, maternal mortality, adult illiteracy, Human Development Index?

post too long...

>>10095221
>Yes, but this only achieved because of welfare capitalism and state intervention.

Wrong, "housing crisis" is not some kind of an universal thing in capitalism. If it exists then state intervention may be in order but it does not have to exist.

>The fundamental problem of capitalism is that it creates massively wealthy people compared to the rest of society by nature. The problem isn't going to go away in any scenario.

Wealthy people are necessary for the economy. If there is too much inequality then again, state intervention may be appropriate. But this state intervention is not the same as commie revolution, or whatever BS you have in mind.

>>10095230
>Those weren't problems with pricing, stagnation happened because profit seeking was reintroduced by Khruschev who focused on light industry (consumer goods), who was then replaced by Brezhnev who focused on profits in heavy industry, which is stupid for an industrialized country. Of course the root of the issue was Khrushchev introducing profit-seeking in the first place. There's a reason Stalin warned against it.

This is simply ahistorical bullshit, the consensus is that stagnation was due to lack of private enterprise in Soviet economy. There were some efforts to reform the system but it was too little, too late. Compare with China which went with a much more pragmatic and extensive market based reforms and thus is now the fastest growing global region for decades.

>>10095230
>Yes it can, a wrecked car has less use value than a new car because it doesn't work as well and is probably to need to be fixed.

No such thing as "use value". Why is the value of an old wreck different from a new car when they both cost the same in terms of labor and resources to make? Because LTV is long-obsolete BS, thats why.

There is a reason why modern economics puts human behavior at the center of things. This presents an issue for both ancaps (because humans often are irrational) and commies (because value IS subjective). You know you are doing something right when both extremes dislike you..

>>10095191
>No-one is asking you to.
Blatant lie. Needs and skills bullshit, take from the high earner to give to the homeless. It's what communism is.

>That's not the point
That is exactly the point. Where do you draw the line where you should give your money away to the poor? Why don't you give your money away? You're shitposting with internet and electricity, you're waaaaaay richer than the bottom x%. Why haven't you given your stuff away yet?

>That's not the point. Workers should get the full value of their wages, since capitalists are taking it off them. That's kinda the point of why communists advocate a revolution to expropriate the capitalists.
If there's expropriation, there's no more riches to plunder. People won't put in the effort if they know you'll take it away from them. You'll have one big lunch and then nothing.

We proved the Earth was spherical almost 2000 years ago and you still can't accept it. We have plenty of models for you stupid fucks to work on and it always comes down to "I want more regardless of who hurts" versus "stop doing that". If you dense motherfuckers would realize you're not going to be a 1%'er you could start working with everyone else.

>>10095274
This the called the fallacy of the centrists or something like that. The status quo is always the most popular by definition, but the status quo is bound to change with time as progress is made so obviously it can be improved upon.

>>10095306
It's not a fallacy to say that the majority of extremists are wrong, and even the ones that are right about the reasons for their motivations have faulty reasoning in their actions that follow.

>>10091857
Minus the work part (which makes people happy anyways), you just described the American Negro up to 1865.
The real oppression the White man put on the Black man was freeing him. So many died just so the White man could have the sadistic pleasure of freeing the Negro.

>>10086567
Politicians do what is best for the Aristocracy. What are you, like 12 years old?

>>10086494
Because people believe what they want to believe. The end goal of the common individual isn't some grand epic, it's to live peacefully and comfortably. To this end, a convenient lie beats an uncomfortable truth every time.

>>10086494
>Why can't some scientist come up with a model for optimal governing or something
tfw you don't realize the state is a pseudo-religious superstition and anarchism is the only achieve lasting human welfare

As soon as people accept optimal ration and luxury goods management via A.I. we will have peace.
Everyone will average 1800 cal/day and the chaotic myth of freedom will die. Every person will be afforded a small room to sleep in unless they're a family in which case they will have a small dining area as well. Basically the homeless and students will be given separate but equal pod housing. Employed persons will be given a 1 bedroom with a fixed amt of electricity.
It'll be great.

>>10095293
If you're admitting that people want more then how come they won't want more under your perfect system

>>10094551
>there are principles which work for everyone tho. like not murdering people. not beating up children.
Sure. Our society has agreed that these things should be standard. We also agree that we should follow the rule-of-law yet there are many other societies which have a hard time respecting private property rights on that very basis, for example.
I'm not saying there isn't any standards. Only it's foolish to think that there is a one-size-fits all solution to these moral questions. It's imperialism, or a dictatorship at worst, if you don't respect the voting process of the civilians being ruled.
You are never going to convince a community of anything, even if you think you're 100% correct, unless it comes from within the very community.
Ultimately you're not going to figure out anything without some type of voting process of the voters involved. No taxation without representation.

>>10086494
>Why can't some scientist come up with a model for optimal governing or something
Because no one would be happy with it.

Emotions are the problem.

>>10094823
>Someone did. Dialectical Materialism is scientifically valid and has been used as a heuristic in science before.
First of all, no it isn't. We don't use marx fundamentally because it does a shit job at explaining the economy in all situations except for the rare case of constant economies of scale.
Secondly, his "objective moralism" is a load of crap which ends up being nothing more than a subjective viewpoint, when you actually scrutinize his work.
Finally he has a spotty recounting of history that doesn't hold up.
Marx only considers homo-economus, and people are far more complex than doing cost-benefit analysis in their heads (or in marx's case, be perfectly and neatly boxed in to either a prole camp or a capitalist camp).
Next, unless you don't believe in individualism and self-ownership at all, then his arguments on "exploitation" fall flat.
The fundamental take-away from marx's idea on exploitation is society wants to be exploited in order to keep up with the joneses.
The problem with this is marx, and marxists, do not own claim to what constitutes as "labor". The fundamental critique of marxism by feminists is to say, "Well what about the women working in the home for the prole? The prole is benefiting from her surplus and she's not even getting paid." Thus we see a power dynamic, similar to prole and capitalist, between men and women.
Pierro straffa, a marx economist, was also able to show that you could make ANYTHING into "labor" so we get things like animal rights, or environmental rights. But taking marx literally for his word this also means that when you have a horse till a field, you are exploiting that horse's labor - nobody believes this is true. If you plant and harvest corn by hand in a field, you are exploiting that crop - again no one believes this is true.
So you ultimately get EVERYTHING as a form of exploitation under marx.
We know there is exploitation, but his description of exploitation is ultimately subjective.

>>10096176
If you DO believe that we are nothing more than the product of our environment, that individualism doesn't exist, then you might as well say bye-bye to any idea outside of the social norm (the status-que).
How dare you criticize the society? You are nothing more than a product of the environment that you are raised, and you want to go back on that?
You say you want to be an artist, how *dare* you turn your back on your parents who raised you to be a doctor. Do you know how much time and investment they put into you? How dare you bite the hand that feeds you.
Or even worse, you might be ostracized for being gay.
Secondly, his ideas of what he thinks as exploitation are framed strictly within the capitalist mode of production. However we know there has been cases of exploitation OUTSIDE of the capitalist mode of production (even marx agrees). So how can anyone who believes in "Objective moralism" even remotely make the claim that, if we follow marx's advice, exploitation will be removed - since he ONLY characterizes exploitation within the framework of the capitalistic mode of production. Exploitation exists in capitalism, but it ALSO exists (and has existed) OUTSIDE of capitalism. Exploitation is INDEPENDENT of any specific "mode of production." Marx cannot guarantee exploitation won't exist in any other mode of production.
Marx's idea of the masses of proles "rising up" to start a new mode of production has never occurred ever in history. Slavery wasn't abolished with the uprising of the slaves. The Roman empire did not fall due to the proles in that society "rising up". It fell because the goths toppeled them (also funnily enough, the goths were a far less technologically advanced civilization - which again goes against marx's ideas on revolutions).
Also his whole idea of "class" is a load of bunk. You cannot box people into nice little camps like "prole" and "capitalist". There are many facets to individuals which are at play.

No gibs, no nogs, no "my HS dropout opinion matters as much as your expertise" vote. Guaranteed space conquest by 2030.

>>10096200
You may be poor, or rich, or somewhere in between.
You may be male or female.
You may be working for a specific company.
You may be white or black or hispanic, or whatever.
You may be disabled or not, you may have a mental disorder or not.
There are a whole HOST of factors going on here that you cannot simply box people in to a "prole" or a "capitalist."
Moreover, people have different values in general which come into play. People don't just blindly, like automatons, do things simply because they are prole or a capitalist. There are people who take a hit to their profit margin because something might go against their moral system.
Secondly, who is to say there is a multi-parameter approach to power systems and, as a corollary, societal hierarchy systems? You cannot take a single-parameter approach to these questions.
Moreover, who is to say there is only "class"? What about something like "status"? Weber classifies a persons class (not by any one of two camps, btw) as a continuum dependent on your personal productivity level, and he classifies status as what you personally can consume. If you are eating crossant's every morning in a business suite you bought, Weber believes you're expressing a certain "status" in society. If you're able to produce at a certain level, you will be part of a specific "class" of individuals who likewise also produces at that level. He believes there is inter-play there.

Durkheim takes it from a collectivist perspective. He has much to say about suicide, for example, but he also has his own views on alienation. He thinks there needs to be an appropriate level of societal norms (rules and regulations) which create a moral foundation for society. If you don't have enough, you end up seeing people become alienated. If you regulate too much, you get kafka-esque alienation.

I'm not saying Weber or Durkheim is right, but you are INCREDIBLY naive to think that Marx has everything figured out for you and the rest of society.

97.8 % of people have an IQ below 130, logic doesn't work on the vast majority of humanity.

>>10086494
Because scientific facts get in the way of profits, so they lobby against it.

>>10086534
based

>>10086494
real answer is because people are stupid and are easily persuaded into believing stupid things
>inb4 me smart you stupid meme
its true. Have you seen some of those old dinosaurs on Capitol hill? It's no wonder the tech industry skirts around the government without a hoot in the world. The people in charge are fucking stupid and long past their due date.

>>10092264
As long as you have two people, you have a government, the only real choice is what type.

>>10086564
Aw! Babby's first utilitarian proposal!

>>10086494
Imagine solving an equation with 100 million variables ...

>>10094979
>the climate change crisis which only exists because of capitalism
The climate change crisis is a problem related to any technology dependent system

>>10086494
They already have.

Starship Troopers by Heimlien covers everything

>>10097236
And keep in mind, we are on the tail end of an ice age, some temperature increases are normal.

>Why can't some scientist come up with a model for optimal governing or something
But they have. Pick related. The best way to govern a man is a bullet in the back of the head.

>>10097360
This unironically

Decentralised government perhaps? crypto friendly :D

>>10097370
> Decentralized government
Just grow some balls and say anarchy

>>10096495
Also imagine that equation is discontinuous, but you don't know at what values.