But, won't people who don't hold those opinions also influence society?Bishop149 wrote: ↑Fri, 11. Jan 19, 14:31If they live in society their views will influence it, simple as that.
They will participate in literally 100's of social interactions daily and will routinely be given opportunities to discriminate based on their racism, and even with the best possibly behaviour, they will.
And, if enough people complain or just stop attending these conferences, citing bigoted audiences as the problem, and the only speakers who show up are circuit-speakers nobody wants to listen to while more notable speakers boycott the venue.... Well, perhaps people can affect change by modifying their behavior after all?
It means that she lit upon the appeal of a radical idea that exercises the newfound empowerment she and her bloc have received, mistaking her victory as a false general affirmation by the masses... She took the newfound and likely unexpected validation she received in her political victory and enthusiastically applied it to an idea that demonstrated her lack of forethought. It is the equivalent of someone surviving their first exhilarating roller-coaster ride without throwing up and then shouting "Let's get to Mars by flying there. Yeehaaaww!"No, it means shes a politician and is behaving like one.
Is it a good system, no. . . . is it one of the only ways of setting long term goals in short term parliaments, yes . . . . . does it work? Kinda, not very well sadly . . . largely for the reasons you describe.
If this had been your idea and you spent one hour thinking on it and writing down something resembling an outline of a basic plan, do you think you would have uncovered some of the problems and pitfalls and/or noted some possible goals that needed to be met along the way? She didn't... So, either she didn't think about it or she's incompetent. I'll give her the benefit of doubt and say she just didn't think about her idea very much. (I hope.)
Two subjects we haven't discussed "economics" and "climate science." So, you concede the ones we have discussed, then?I'd suggest she does "know what shes talking about" in regard to both economics and climate science.
I know both from my own knowledge and (far more importantly) this because her ideas are supported by large numbers of experts within both fields (especially the latter).
I don't quite know what you mean by "natural law" but I think you might mean "How capitalist economics traditionally works", and the fact the economic theories she is talking about fly in the face of the way the system currently operates is the ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT!
There can be no debate that the USA represents a massively unequal society.
There can equally be no debate that this situation is the (to use your words) "natural" result of the economic system under which the US operates.
If you dislike the former you simply have no choice but to either reject or heavily modify the latter . . . . more on this later.
You can dismiss this as "impossible" or "unnatural" if you like, that is your opinion and your prerogative, but this does NOT make it invalid.
"Impractical" as stated, resembling fitting a rock for a new pair of shoes. One would have to change the nature of the rock and then... it's not just a rock anymore, is it? Her plans, that I have addressed, first require things that do not exist.
What happens when almost half the population becomes disaffected, angry, unsettled.... When you anger a significant enough portion of the population, "civil unrest" becomes very likely.Why not? The majority would be very happy with their oranges. . . . why wouldn't they vote for the person again?
What if there is a "Right" that states "The Right of the People to choose their fruit shall not be infringed"? For instance, one must realistically expect to have to pick from what is on the menu at a restaurant. If one doesn't like what is offered, one can go to another restaurant. But, if all restaurants were mandated by the government to be "Taco Bell," then what? I love Taco Bell, but... I would probably be a little upset.
"Only act at the very highest level" - I don't know what that means.Those protections only act at the very highest level, matters of basic human rights and the like. They too are also not inviolable (although admittedly far better protected than anything at a district level that we are discussing), you only have to look at how Trump, with his majority support in all branches of government, attempted to erode those rights in relation to women. He may yet succeed.
How did Trump act to "erode those rights in relation to women?" Can you cite an example?
How does "electoral law" not reflect this? Please cite an example of electoral law. After all, if The People do not like their representative's actions, they can vote them out of office or even impeach them.Agreed, the point is that your electoral law does not reflect that ideal . . . . at all.
If you require other law in order to try and correct this then this a) proves my point and b) is a rather indirect and imperfect way of doing so, not to mention incredibly venerable to corruption which is a point I think you made.
"Compromise" isn't "Centrism," for one.Indeed, I haven't fully worked out an alternative to centrism than steers well clear of tyranny, the two being (IMO) kinda opposite ends of the same scale.
But, consider "anti-tyranny" to be a foundation of your personal ideal. So, how should it be protected against/fought? What's "the best way" to do that?
In other words, first identify what you truly value. Is it "anti-tyranny" or rather "personal freedom and independence?" After all, not all means to establish anti-tyranny would be desirable simply for the sake of it being "anti-tyranny." That may mean that anti-tyranny is just an attribute of some more deeper, basic, ideal.
You can not "indirectly" guide a capitalist market. You can not create demand. I know that doesn't sound quite right, but it's a mainstay of capitalist policy that often gets misinterpreted. In short, you can't "indirectly" force people to buy something.Ok, you largely have the right of it here but are making basically the same mistake as the Center Leftists.
It is their view that the government do what you suggest, GUIDE the market via regulation and legislation, but almost never to the point where any actual CONTROL is exerted. Never to the point where the goals of capitalism are actually limited or challenged. That is the point of compromise in the Center between Left and Right and it is WAAAAAAY too far to the Right. For more details google "Neoliberal economics".
If you goal is to create a fair an equal society that benefits all then such control and limitation is REQUIRED, quite simply because a free market capitalist system "naturally" results in the EXACT opposite.
The sorts of regulations I was talking about that are government controls over the economy should be there to prevent abuse, encourage stability, and promote the overall practical health of system in general.
A government's means to "guide" economic behavior are generally connected to a system of taxes, where a government influences economic behaviors by meting out rewards and punishments through its tax system. If a government wishes to encourage certain economic behavior, then they reduce the taxes for that behavior or offer rebates and credits. If it wishes to reduce certain behaviors, it raises the taxes or places extra taxes on that behavior. This can also apply to other sorts of behaviors, like pollution by industry. Regulations and the subsequent fines and penalties for compliance failures are another way to influence behavior, but they're more punitive than "taxes."
With that "goal" for capitalism listed, you have demonstrated that you could not write out a valid "Economics 101." Your definition of capitalism appears to be decidedly Marxist in origin.I am not going to write out an entire economics 101 here to cover all the exceptions and subtleties I will just highlight the key point.
The goal of capitalism is in the name, to accumulate as much capital as possible. Most (near all) capital is based upon labour and there is only so much (not very) capital that you can achieve via your own labour....
If your labor is not valuable, how much should someone pay you for it? And, if you have the ability to increase the value of your labor, who should be responsible for doing so?
If I was in the habit of responding to loaded and leading questions that would only be suitable to further direct a point of inquiry down a self-serving rabbit-hole of misdirection and confused issues, I would certainly respond with an answer...One such stick is the concept of "soaking the rich". Feel free to suggest another mechanism by which the capital stolen from the masses might be returned to them?
IOW - I do not accept the premise of your question.
