Nostr Web Client

Right now you can go to the store & buy what you want or not buy anything at all. Is Walmart going to be more responsive to people's needs if they get $1000 a month from everyone no matter what & then have people vote on what sort of items should be in a standard food basket that has to satisfy everyone?

What my neighbor buys today doesn't concern me, but if I have to eat out of a basket of goods they vote on I'm suddenly going to have reasons to hate all of my neighbors. Should I just wait 4 years & vote for a new Walmart CEO who might give me a better basket (and let my neighbors hate me for the change), or should I move to some other political region... maybe one dominated by Harris Teeter instead of Walmart where I'll get a slightly higher quality basket of goods that I'm still going to mostly be unhappy with.

None of that is freedom, it's insane to have other people managing our lives at all, much less so many aspects at once. It creates division & hatred & poverty & crippling inefficiencies.

Democracy *at best* is lowest common denominator mob rule, and it's usually even worse than that.

Jack 2y ago

You can have a mix of different types of gov/econ.. it seems you describe the extremes of either a command economy with totalitarianism or a capitalistic and anarchic society. It's not a 0 or 1 game

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Jeff Swann 2y ago

No, the seed of forced funding always grows.

That's what the failure of the American experiment teaches. The effort to create the smallest & most restrained govt ever, produced the largest & most destructive govt ever.

The aim was decent. The economic freedom produced prosperity. But the prosperity was fertile soil for the growth of the parasite they created. No piece of paper is ever going to be enough to restrain any organization once the power to steal with impunity gas been legitimized in the eyes of the people who are then destined to be its slaves.