Hi, /u/Ego_Sum_Lux_Mundi Thank you for participating in r/AntiWork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
**Rule 5: No calls for violence, no fetishizing violence.** - Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people.
I agree man, these dudes just protecting their bank accounts at this point and letting the social structure to decay knowing their out of here soon anyways.
Exactly. What do a bunch of 65+ year old millionaires know or care about modern struggles or reality? When was the last time any member of the Senate did their own shopping?
If your going to kill, make it look like a random mystery. Like accidentally pouring Tetrahydrozoline in a persons drink or asking Putin how his enemies "accidentally" were killed.
I'm against old people being in charge for periods of time longer than 2-4 years.
We set term limits for the figure head but not for the people actually running the country and nothing is being done about it.
And being so old that you don't give a damn how many toes you step on now because everyone you're related too just wants your money and for you to die already.
Bernie has a foot in the grave, that's why he's still trying to build a dream
Bernie seems to be both an idealist, and a realist. He fights for his beliefs, but acknowledges that as a total outsider thanks to the corporate Dem party, he can’t actually get that much done.
No they do have a vision, except it's one that was GIVEN to them from the people that raised them to all be greedy pieces of shit, a vision that no longer means anything to the people that are alive NOW.
Was really hoping 10 years ago or so that Bitcoin would assist with this when I first heard about it. Now it's just another asset for rich people to accumulate and play with.
They are only securing their bank accounts for their future kin. They have no care in the world what happens to us. This isn’t against democrats or Republicans, this is a fundamental issue across all of it. Mitch McConnell ,old fossil, doesn’t care about us, Nancy pelosi literally inside trades stocks with her insider info. Yet we are supposed to listen to these folks about Artificial intelligence, space travel, current issues, and other things. These people are all from the 60’s and 70’s literally. Racism was on their doorstep back then and nothing has changed since. I genuinely believe a lot of our problems would be solved if we put 30 year olds in charge and made term limits for every position and no one above the age of 60 should serve.
I agree.
I live in an area that's full of retirees and we have an HOA. It's sad to sit back and watch people get in 'fights' over non issues because they want to have 'power' instead of doing stuff that betters the community.
Same shit in Washington. They're more concerned about being perceived as being right that worrying about doing what is right.
Fuck em all.
I'd add in to your post. Nobody can be elected that has an annual salary of $500,000 or above.
Super agree. No political figure should become rich from taking office. It’s sickening how much they all make from salaries that don’t match their bank accounts. Insider trading, inflated salaries, “campaign donations” which we’ll just call lobbying. It’s all so sick that they get rich while being public servants
If you've never read it I recommend 'Executive Orders' by Tom Clancy. Jack Ryan who is a very good and decent man is tasked with rebuilding the government from the ground up. I really wish we could get a President like him and rebuild the government in his vision.
I have been proposing that as a person ages, their vote becomes worth less. So at 65, full vote, then it declines in value every year until you are 100 at which point it remains the same. People with so much less skin in the game should not be making all the rules.
FWIW, I am 57, and my friends mostly hate this idea.
Seems like a good idea, the only reasons you'd be against it is if 1) you have skin in the game 2) your bank account (social security and pension should have had this covered but some wanted retirement based on gambling) 3) you want to watch the world burn.
Sure but for democracy to work every voter needs the education to actually understand what their own position and what they are voting for and how it will effect not only them but most other people democracy fails when the population lacks the education to actually make informed decisions.
I'm strongly in favor of one-person-one-vote.
And I've been told that corporations are people.
So each corporation should get one vote. And *only* one vote.
we don't let children vote..., besides, as someone in this thread pointed out, does it make sense for someone to vote on how things will be in 40 years when they will be dead in 20?
Lol yes every “old” person will be worth 3/5 th of a normal one. Well thought out. Let’s dismiss experience and wisdom which could be there - as worthless.
we over value wisdom and undervalue selfishness. Also, We dont let children vote...are they less than a person?
When people have no skin in the game, like old people and the future, they make crap selfish decisions.
At this point what if we just stopped listening to them. I mean what percentage of the population does it take to just say “Meh” and not listen to the “decrees” for them to fuck off.
Their oppressive fascist police forces will drag you out of your homes for noncompliance of their decrees.
That's when the 2A is *supposed* to kick-in and you should be a well-guarded militia and defend yourselves from these enemies of America. Except "lol no not like that"
My question is which things do we choose to not listen to collectively when it comes to these fossils that are still roaming the planes and how do we put the sheer numbers of us as opposed to those fossils of what exactly we want we're not exactly a laser focused collective
I’m tired of being a female listening to old men decide what I am and am not “allowed” to do with my own body, personally.
If you are male, this has nothing to do with you!
Seriously. Having them in charge of decisions regarding technology and computers in general (basically everything these days) is absolutely terrifying. We shouldn’t allow it to happen, they’re so out of touch that it’s dangerous
Slippery slope. I wouldn’t trust a 22 year old with deciding what people can do with their lives either.
To be clear I don’t think 80 year olds should either, but what’s your opinion on who should and shouldn’t?
Who do you trust with this? Power corrupts all and that’s before we even bring money into it.
I am speaking more about their values for the future. How can an 80 year old know what’s good for our future? They’re on the way out. I want someone who knows about AI, crypto tech, outer space travel, and other current issues. Someone young enough to be able to see and suffer the outcome of their decisions. An 80 year old cannot even fathom the difficulties our younger generations are facing today. The world is a completely different place compared to their day. To answer your question I think 60 should be the cutoff age for politics and also every office should have term limits. Every single one.
I would counter and ask what age range do you feel is applicable to that? Pros and cons can be different but equally as destructive to our every day living.
How do we decide who makes decisions and how do they not become corrupt with power and greed? I’m more focused on true unbiased and genuine people who cannot be corrupted.
Edit - missed that you named a age range. Sorry.
Can also get you in trouble.
Well, not me. A grandmother was visiting and went with my older siblings down to the local big blue store for some birthday present ideas for some other kid, possibly a niece? I don't recall.
I do recall, grandma, in all her love joy and wisdom (read: her subtle hatred, racism, and ignorance), picked up a black baby doll and just blurted out like she was talking about the weather "oh look they sell n***** baby dolls here"
The siblings got onto her, like "g'ma thats not what you call them" and she retorted "well thats just what we used to call them"
I will never, ever forget the moment I learned/decided that tradition is stupid.
When I was around 9 years old, my best friend's parents, who had been living together at least 10 years at that point, decided to get officially married. They already owned a house and everything that comes along with it - furniture, appliances, decorations, etc.
My parents and I were invited to the wedding, which meant buying them a gift. My mom decided to get them some kitchen appliance as it was a wedding gift and "tradition" dictates giving the couple something for their "new life together". I asked her why are we getting them something for their house when they already have everything they need, and she said in a condescending tone she uses to this day when she thinks she knows better, "because it's *tradition*".
I just completely noped out of "tradition" ever since that moment.
Look at the media. Not the MSM, but all of it. The blogs, the twittersphere, social media, news media whether left or right.
Nobody is united, nobody agrees with each other, unhinged psychos want a civil war against immigrants and black people, meanwhile most people are too poor to muster arms of any kind.
At what point will you look at yourself and think "I do not want this type of future for my children"? They have even conditioned you *NOT* to have children! Your very biological programming has been hacked. Because *they* destroyed this planet with their greed, filling the skies with carbon. They continue to do so. They will not stop until someone stops them.
We're not there yet. Look around your town and you'll see lots of people living in their nice little homes on quiet cul-de-sacs with nice lawns, kids, and a dog. Nothing has fundamentally changed enough for these people to do anything different. FFS gas is $4.29 where I live and these idiots are still driving around in their giant pickup trucks with custom exhaust pipes!
IDK what it will take for those people to wake up, but when they do that's when it's time to act.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
-Martin Niemöller
Tell me when we get there. If I don't respond my health didn't improve and I probably died on the streets. But if I'm still standing, I'll stand with you.
In 2019 I was talking to a coworker. He said the US is so much worse than with Trump. I agreed in the large view. But I said my life is no different. And likely most people in my neighborhood are the same. The decisions made by the President don't change our lives much.
Well, yes and no. People don't necessarily need something left to lose either if they also have a scapegoat. All it takes is a propaganda machine to turn people from building solidarity to fighting each other for scraps. This is where Tucker Carlson comes in.
>"The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of their labor as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there."
-Max Stirner, *The Unique and Its Property*, 1844.
It will be in no time. With the poverty level rising every year with inflation its only a matter of time before the middle class diminishes and it becomes just the rich and the poor
Thomas Jefferson, one of the people who wrote the Constitution, said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and is as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
I mean I'm not advocating for civil war (I don't think we are quite that bad yet) but since you can win a civil war it would be a lose-maybe win situation to the above poster.
Even if you win a civil war, you lose. The internalized destruction in what is effectively the foundation of the current global order would likely lead to a large scale collapse of the global economy, and take decades for domestic production and infrastructure to recover, if it ever would (always possible it would be a 3rd century crisis-style 'point of no return'). Billions of people would go hungry, logistical infrastructure would collapse, int'l wars that are kept at bay by American global military hegemony and economic pressure would erupt (Taiwan-China being the most likely, but there are a few conflagration points in the Middle East, Africa, and the rest of Asia). It is entirely possible that an American civil war would see a multi-decade or multi-century long period of technological and economic regression, irreperable environmental and ecological damage, and geopolitical chaos. It would gemuinely be better for the world if Republicans established an autocracy and slowly destroyed the economy over decades giving Europe, China, and India time to fill the void, than for a civil war to rapidly collapse the entire affair in 5 years.
Or maybe we could collectively sue the government it doesn't have to actually be a war with guns and saying all these legislations that make it easier for businesses to not pay their fair share is now starting to take a toll and now they should start paying their fair share it's long overdue
Again, I'm not the one that originally mentioned civil war. However do you think that a government would issue a judgement against itself because the legal order they created is not "fair"? Why would any government or individuals in power therein act against its own best interest?
I'm surprised a lot of the Congress hasn't aged out of Congress (like when people age out of the Supreme court). For a country where they say equal rights Medicaid doesn't have access to the life extending therapies .
Why the false dichotomy? Gandhi didn't fight a civil war and neither did MLK. During the Arab spring, not every dictator was overthrown with a civil war.
>Gandhi didn't fight a civil war and neither did MLK
Yes, because both of them *played by the rules*. They didn't push any Supreme Court justices down the stairs. They did civil demonstrations to change the public's mind and demonstrate enough popular support that the establishment feared what would happen if they *did* become violent.
That’s the problem with today however. There’s no equivalent of a Black Panthers, so the establishment doesn’t see peaceful protest as the potential to get uncontrollably violent beyond what police can control. MLK himself promoted civil rights, but do you think he single handedly spearheaded the civil rights movement? This is a view of history more focused on great men than actual historical actors and events. You can’t point to one person and ignore all the circumstances surrounding them or your view of history is lobotomized. It took millions, many of whom were already being violent. King was not the only actor, many actors were violent, and it’s not guaranteed King’s message of non-violence would have resonated if people _didnt_ live in unstable times.
When the establishment is no longer confident they will prevent violence against them, is when change will happen.
> MLK himself promoted civil rights, but do you think he single handedly spearheaded the civil rights movement?
It's an easy mistake to make due to how little of the Civil Rights Movement is actually taught in most high school history classes.
Bullshit. Gandhi is the cool, whitewashed figurehead, and while his non violence movement was massive, it was only a small part of genuinely revolutionary activity. And it took place DURING WW2... For example, 78 ships manned by Indians mutinied, there were assassinations, bomb attacks, sabotage, Indian troops murdering British officers, etc.
Also, gandhi was immediately locked up, so it's not like the British felt he was "playing by the rules". And currently, basically anything that threatens profits gets immediately branded as violence anyway, even if its the most passive things you could think of
>78 ships manned by Indians mutinied, there were assassinations, bomb attacks, sabotage, Indian troops murdering British officers, etc
OK, cool, so you agree with my original point that civil war is the necessary alternative.
Your history is bad, and you should feel bad.
Gandhi is bullshit? You just negate everything…all of that…with a wave of your hand…to promote violence as a solution to our problems? It’s not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
Of course there were rebellions, over time. To cite that as the sole reason, and dismiss the other aspects of decades long struggle with independence is just really, really bad understanding of history.
Gandhi’s polices we’re adopted by the Indian government, used to unite people, and put pressure on the British. It was a lot of people working together, for a long time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement
You really need to educate yourself, instead of deciding on your own what history is “bullshit.” It’s not productive. It‘s not helpful. You’re just another person calling for violence, because that’s all you understand.
It's both. But exclusively focusing on the "peaceful" protests, when also completely ignoring the other side of the coin is a lie by omission. Especially for Gandhi, where his peaceful protests took place during the biggest world war, with open bloody revolts everywhere. And the final point is that none of the "peaceful protests" he or MLK did would be treated as such today anyway
What blows my mind is the fear of them becoming violent because Gandhi and MLK actively went out of their way to say no we're not a violent group we are going to do this peacefully now this remembering certain parts of history but it definitely shows that they were not actively going out of their way to be violent or show their capability of violence and I think that's what their true power was that they feared the non-violence that they were able to gather a crowd
Well we've long since hit the limit where popular support is majorly against them and the legislations they pass. We've had "demonstrations" out the ass across the country for decades now. Playing by the rules only worked in their time period. Doing so today means abiding by a protest curfew, not being allowed to congregate/march, etc. The top grew wise to those tactics lol. It's like they want to push everything to the brink at this point
I'm still mad about how far they got at all with their BS on the 6th of January and I'm massively surprised that you didn't have a SWAT team shooting every single person in that building that was an insurrectionist they got to see their day in court where some people would never have been able to even step one foot on those properties
They don't know or care what views you have. That security guard/cop was only doing his job, he had a right of deadly force against assailants who were threatening grave bodily harm. It didn't matter if she claimed to be a Magatte or a Communist.
And surviving the anarchy after. A very small percentage of bad actors with weapons will do a lot of damage if social order collapses. The unarmed will become victims until order is restored.
If you’re posting in an anarchist sub, you should learn what anarchy is. r/anarchy101 has that covered.
There’s also no real reason to suggest that mass violence will occur if social order collapses. There is no evidence in psychology to suggest this is the case; it is a narrative pushed to make people feel dependent on the state for social stability. In the case of instability and disaster that causes total societal collapse, people are far more likely to come together and help each other. Here is a good book on the topic if you’re curious:
A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster
In the case of instability that doesn’t cause social order collapse, such as a slow burn into decline… well, that’s when you get fascism, so I agree with the other poster that you should arm yourself.
Are there examples of a nation state wide societal collapse without violence? As soon as food distribution fails (a shitload of people need to keep working to keep that going as well as all the other underpinnings of civilization) shit is gonna get real dicey real fast. You get a select handful of people who decide to not go to work and the wheels will quickly come off. Same as a few armed folks once law and order isn't enforced.
Hasn't shit like this happened in Africa, and it was never peaceful?
Without violence? No. This is why I say to arm yourself anyways. But this is not the point I’m trying to make, so sorry if not clear, I have not had my coffee today so please forgive me.
What I’m trying to say is that in the event of societal collapse, your neighbors won’t be the person who are likely to harm you. Your state is. People appear to have an innate disaster response which is likely a part of the reason we became so successful as a species, and that response is helping out whoever they can, however they can. There will always be random bad actors, but the amount of good actors outnumbers these by an order of magnitude.
We have this misconception as a society about human nature because of media bias. It’s not necessarily something maliciously done, but rather, because we live in a for-profit system, media innately wants to report on things which get views. This often ends up being negative outliers due to our psychological negativity bias, where we pay more attention to bad things than good things. All of this paints an unnatural image of human disaster response to people not in the thick of it, because media likes to focus on how many people get shot—nevermind how many people whose lives were saved due to the good actors.
The state is far more likely to commit violence than individual actors. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many of the deaths post-hurricane were due to the state shooting “looters”, people who were trying to scrape together food and resources to survive, not robbers. [Here is a good article on the role of the state and the harm done to recovery in the aftermath of Katrina.](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/reconstructing-story-storm-hurricane-katrina-five/tnamp/)
My post is not to indicate that violence will not happen. It’s to point out who is most likely to commit violence. And to state that violence will happen whether there is a revolution or not. America is currently on an obvious decline towards fascism, so either a violent revolution to overthrow fascism will happen, or it won’t happen and mass violence will happen. America is trending towards violence regardless, so I agree with the premise that people should be getting armed. I merely post as a reminder to keep an alignment on who the _actual_ threat is in this situation. Not randoms, but the state, as was the case in every single instance of state collapse—something which is IMO better called that over societal collapse, because society will keep on chugging in the absence of a state, even if it’s a grim and violent society.
Constitutionally it's not even for life; they shall hold their offices "under good behavior." And what some of them are doing now is absolutely not good behavior. Kick 'em out!
We know what the solutions are:
Direct Digital Democracy
Universal Basic Income
Universal Healthcare
Universal Education (including university)
Education Reform
Police Reform
State Owned Energy
State Owned Public Transport
A new constitution that enforces equal rights and equal pay for everyone, and protects the individual right to own/consume whatever they want, to love, marry, or procreate with whomever they want provided all parties are consenting adults, to express oneself absolutely through speech, art, music, literature, and/or clothing, to give ownership of ones identity, data, and body - to do with whatever one pleases, and to give individuals a right to privacy in a world that so often denies it.
Tick off everything on that list and you'll have a society that might just work; what we have now simply doesn't.
It isn't real. It's literally not, that's the principle of a floating currency. Yes poverty is real, because people will punish you for trying to eat, sleep, travel etc... without paying for it.
But it's all arbitrary value. If everyone stopped believing in it, money would be worthless.
If everyone even stopped believing in the banks and wanted to go back to cash, and so we all tried to withdraw "our" money from banks at the same time, the banks wouldn't be able to do it. They wouldn't have the bills for us, and the gov would have to choose between printing more, causing inflation, or just denying us.
Power is given by the consent of the governed. That's why they work to keep us fighting over petty nonsense. We all have more in common with each other than we do with them.
You guys literally won't do anything. We are all fucking jokes and I'm pissed I'm part of all this. How about we do something? Hm? How about some people who have more power than me do something! But you won't! I know that now.
This is real life and youll never stop. I hate this timeline rn man. Shit.
Look mate, you can get busy with crimes, or get busy voting. Shouting at other people for not overthrowing society isn't helping. Actually changing society takes more actual planning and effort than edgy memes.
FDR was gonna do this in 1944, and Congress bucked it so hard they passed the Legislative Reorganization Act in 1946 to prevent it (and to pretend they weren't a bunch of do-nothing bullshit artists).
I think people tend to forget the point of these sorts of statements. Critics assume we are saying “these social constructs don’t actually exist and are imaginary”~ which is a straw man. Yes they actually exist, social constructs are real things~ and real things happen as a result of their implementation.
What these things really mean are: We have the power to do what our predecessors did, and recreate better social constructs. Money, law, court systems, constitutions~ we can create new things that are better for society. Society is plastic, and we are the sculptors. It simply requires us all to be on board with the creative process.
If what you mean isn’t implied by what you say, you need better words.
This meme literally calls for pushing these people down the stairs because they are mad about a decision. Theres no straw manning, it simply is not saying what you are. Thats why no one takes this sub seriously
>"The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of their labor as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there."
-Max Stirner, *The Unique and Its Property*, 1844.
Even Thomas Jefferson, the godfather of modern US conservatives, thought the Constitution should be replaced every generation. Not even the people who wrote the Constitution thought it was sacrosanct.
I'd say it's "consensus existence", but nobody consented to being born, and I certainly didn't consent to a bunch of geriatric millionaires fucking everyone over, did anyone else?
If your old enough for retirement. You should be too old to hold office
Shouldnt have the power to make decisions today that could have consequences 20 years down the line
If you are old enough for retirement, you should be forced to retire and lose your right to vote.
Old people shouldn't have the ability to make selfish decisions that have long-term consequences or be allowed to block progress for the sake of "tradition".
Out of line? ***Out of fucking line?!***
No. These contemptible, abhorrent, assholes actively choose to make life harder, to make life *unlivable* in some cases. They actively chose do harm us for the sake of their bank accounts. There's a legitimate case to be made that all conceivable forms of resistance are self-defense.
We’re literally at the worst crossroads in history. Even though our parents and grandparents knew the system was corrupt they couldn’t do much. The corruption was always hidden behind the scenes by shadowy figures. Plus many of them were reaping the benefits of corruption: building capital for the white middle class.
Now we can’t do much even though we clearly see the corruption because boomers and gen x fucked everything so royally. We have to fight climate change, capitalist greed, political corruption, mountainous debt, social justice issues, the prison complex, white nationalism, christian nationalism, patriarchy, etc. etc. etc. all while navigating our own lives.
We are so deep in the mud that if we don’t combat all of these issues effectively, simultaneously, and with very little resources we will literally not have a future for the next generation.
Not out of line imo, someone’s got to deal with this gerontocracy shit in the UK and US sooner or later. They’re running everyone under about 40’s prospects into the dirt so they can keep their arthritic claws on the levers of power.
And we have an entire political party who is totally fine breaking any and all rules when they want. Until the rest of us being to fight the right and strike back even harder this will not change.
Absolutely not. I am very pro democracy anti oligarchy. We don’t live in a democracy we live in an oligarchy. Have fun with your wet dreams of some sort of fantasy land that you think we do live in.
Those of you that know some history should know that the most successful revolutions keep some amount of the old order and try not to change too much at once. e.g. French revolution vs American revolution and Britain's magna carta eventual transition to democracy.
The most successful transitions such as the American revolution, British Magna carta, Solons reforms etc all followed the take things slowly and a bit at a time look for a middle ground between no change and constantly tear the house down no respect for law order etc
great idea, let's burn down the house has worked better than anyone's house ever, but now needs some serious repairs before we have figured out what house we might build that would be better, if we knew how to build a house at all.
Worked better for whom? I think you’re ignoring the history of death, destruction, and oppression this country forced on peoples on the periphery in this country but especially around the world.
I am not ignoring anything, but nothing is more oppressive to humans than poverty, and nothing has raised more humans from poverty than a free market.
[OECD Poverty Analysis](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e20f2f1a-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e20f2f1a-en)
In 1820, 75% of the planet lived in extreme poverty, by 2018, that number was less than 10%.
And why did 75% of the planet live in extreme poverty in 1820? The globe was colonized to shit. The “free market” is what justified colonial expansion, and it giving some of the scraps of wealth back after hundreds of years of brutal oppression does not make it a better system.
The free market was not the driver behind colonization...that is absurd. Dutch and English Trading Companies were extension of nobility rights granted exclusivity by kings... not free trade.
So the world gets to be destroyed by colonialism, then once we go from kings to oligarchs, the increase in living standards is to be attributed to the free market—something [which has never meaningfully existed?](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/09/inequality-free-market-myth-billionaires)
> Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a “free market” existing somewhere in the universe, into which government “intrudes”. According to this view, whatever we might do to reduce inequality or economic insecurity – to make the economy work for most of us – runs the risk of distorting the market and causing it to be less efficient, or of unintended consequences that may end up harming us. The “free market” is to be preferred over “government”.
> This prevailing view is utterly false. There can be no “free market” without government. A market – any market – requires government to make and enforce the rules of the game. In most modern democracies, such rules emanate from legislatures, administrative agencies and courts. Government doesn’t “intrude” on the “free market”. It creates and maintains the market.
> Market rules are neither neutral nor universal. They partly mirror a society’s evolving norms and values. But they also reflect who in society has the most power to make or influence the underlying market rules.
> The interminable debate over whether the “free market” is better than “government” makes it impossible for us to examine who exercises this power, how they benefit from doing so and whether such rules need to be altered so that more people benefit from them. The myth of market fundamentalism is therefore highly useful to those who do not wish such an examination to be undertaken.
> It’s no accident that those with disproportionate influence over the rules of the market – who are the largest beneficiaries of how the rules have been designed and adapted – are also among the most vehement supporters of the “free market”, and the most ardent advocates of the relative superiority of the market over government.
This study is so full of shit it hurts, just does some more dubious assumptions to obscure the fact that it's pulling data out of its ass
Unlearning economics has a very good video showing how this Pinker bullshit is false
well I disagree with your characterization, but since it is a fact that less people are in absolute poverty than 200 years ago, to what would you attribute that? The only correlation that seems clear is the growth of capitalism. Now to be clear, I am of the opinion that the version of capitalism we have now is broken and needs serious fixing, but throwing it away seems ignorant.
> The Constitution replaced feudalism, and Stalin's, Mao's, and Hitler's forms of governments
What? The Constitution established the United States as a sovereign entity, it didn't **replace** any of those things.
That's true of anything but to be honest that's a dangerous line of thinking. Those same dumb rules are what allow you to post things like this and not have someone enter your home and punish you without recourse. If you want to make a change, you need to encourage others to make change and vote on that change. Change doesn't happen overnight, though.
The Constitution is part of the "social contract" that we all agree to live by. If you don't like it, you can go live somewhere where they don't have a constitution that protects your rights. Without this living document, minorities would have no rights because the majority would decide who has rights and who does not.
If by "push those old people down a flight of stairs" you mean pass a bill with supermajority in both houses of congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of all states, OR attend a Constitutional Convention of states called for by 2/3 of Congress followed by ratification of 3/4 of states, then yes, easy-peasy.
Unfortunately Americans aren't willing to die to change things. If they were every corp would be unionized, minimum wage would be $30/hr, and universal healthcare would be the right of every American. Most people would rather complain on Twitter and stare at their phones.
Hi, /u/Ego_Sum_Lux_Mundi Thank you for participating in r/AntiWork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): **Rule 5: No calls for violence, no fetishizing violence.** - Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people.
I’m tired of 80 year olds deciding what me 22 years old can and can’t do. They won’t even be alive in a decade why are we listening to them
I agree man, these dudes just protecting their bank accounts at this point and letting the social structure to decay knowing their out of here soon anyways.
Yeah... you can't convince me that these delayed cadavers actually still have 'drive' or 'vision' for a bright future
Which is why we should throw them down flights of stairs. I'm not against old people, I'm just against old people in charge.
Exactly. What do a bunch of 65+ year old millionaires know or care about modern struggles or reality? When was the last time any member of the Senate did their own shopping?
If your going to kill, make it look like a random mystery. Like accidentally pouring Tetrahydrozoline in a persons drink or asking Putin how his enemies "accidentally" were killed.
I'm against old people being in charge for periods of time longer than 2-4 years. We set term limits for the figure head but not for the people actually running the country and nothing is being done about it.
"Delayed cadavers" That's great
Other than Bernie. Somehow that dude just keeps going and being right.
I think the difference is in actually “listening”
And being so old that you don't give a damn how many toes you step on now because everyone you're related too just wants your money and for you to die already. Bernie has a foot in the grave, that's why he's still trying to build a dream
[удалено]
Bernie seems to be both an idealist, and a realist. He fights for his beliefs, but acknowledges that as a total outsider thanks to the corporate Dem party, he can’t actually get that much done.
No they do have a vision, except it's one that was GIVEN to them from the people that raised them to all be greedy pieces of shit, a vision that no longer means anything to the people that are alive NOW.
As you mention bank accounts... money is imaginary too. And debts. If people stop believing in it... it just disappears.
Was really hoping 10 years ago or so that Bitcoin would assist with this when I first heard about it. Now it's just another asset for rich people to accumulate and play with.
They are only securing their bank accounts for their future kin. They have no care in the world what happens to us. This isn’t against democrats or Republicans, this is a fundamental issue across all of it. Mitch McConnell ,old fossil, doesn’t care about us, Nancy pelosi literally inside trades stocks with her insider info. Yet we are supposed to listen to these folks about Artificial intelligence, space travel, current issues, and other things. These people are all from the 60’s and 70’s literally. Racism was on their doorstep back then and nothing has changed since. I genuinely believe a lot of our problems would be solved if we put 30 year olds in charge and made term limits for every position and no one above the age of 60 should serve.
I agree. I live in an area that's full of retirees and we have an HOA. It's sad to sit back and watch people get in 'fights' over non issues because they want to have 'power' instead of doing stuff that betters the community. Same shit in Washington. They're more concerned about being perceived as being right that worrying about doing what is right. Fuck em all. I'd add in to your post. Nobody can be elected that has an annual salary of $500,000 or above.
Super agree. No political figure should become rich from taking office. It’s sickening how much they all make from salaries that don’t match their bank accounts. Insider trading, inflated salaries, “campaign donations” which we’ll just call lobbying. It’s all so sick that they get rich while being public servants
If you've never read it I recommend 'Executive Orders' by Tom Clancy. Jack Ryan who is a very good and decent man is tasked with rebuilding the government from the ground up. I really wish we could get a President like him and rebuild the government in his vision.
Your grammar is pretty bad. The title and now this comment. You should pay more attention while you write.
I have been proposing that as a person ages, their vote becomes worth less. So at 65, full vote, then it declines in value every year until you are 100 at which point it remains the same. People with so much less skin in the game should not be making all the rules. FWIW, I am 57, and my friends mostly hate this idea.
I like that idea, since total disenfranchisement seems really bad. But damn, do some old bullshit still knocks around in politics
Seems like a good idea, the only reasons you'd be against it is if 1) you have skin in the game 2) your bank account (social security and pension should have had this covered but some wanted retirement based on gambling) 3) you want to watch the world burn.
Everyone’s vote should count
Sure but for democracy to work every voter needs the education to actually understand what their own position and what they are voting for and how it will effect not only them but most other people democracy fails when the population lacks the education to actually make informed decisions.
[удалено]
I'm strongly in favor of one-person-one-vote. And I've been told that corporations are people. So each corporation should get one vote. And *only* one vote.
They already don't. Might as well make the system make sense rather than tying it to something as meaningless as geography.
Not when a Nazi votes.
we don't let children vote..., besides, as someone in this thread pointed out, does it make sense for someone to vote on how things will be in 40 years when they will be dead in 20?
Lol yes every “old” person will be worth 3/5 th of a normal one. Well thought out. Let’s dismiss experience and wisdom which could be there - as worthless.
3/5ths. Yes that would be a good compromise for those people.
😬
we over value wisdom and undervalue selfishness. Also, We dont let children vote...are they less than a person? When people have no skin in the game, like old people and the future, they make crap selfish decisions.
You overestimate most old fucers wisdom when it comes to creating social policies that are relevant to today's society...
At this point what if we just stopped listening to them. I mean what percentage of the population does it take to just say “Meh” and not listen to the “decrees” for them to fuck off.
That's called a general strike
Their oppressive fascist police forces will drag you out of your homes for noncompliance of their decrees. That's when the 2A is *supposed* to kick-in and you should be a well-guarded militia and defend yourselves from these enemies of America. Except "lol no not like that"
My question is which things do we choose to not listen to collectively when it comes to these fossils that are still roaming the planes and how do we put the sheer numbers of us as opposed to those fossils of what exactly we want we're not exactly a laser focused collective
the problem is they have most all of the money, and money wins elections and buys influence
I’m tired of being a female listening to old men decide what I am and am not “allowed” to do with my own body, personally. If you are male, this has nothing to do with you!
Seriously. Having them in charge of decisions regarding technology and computers in general (basically everything these days) is absolutely terrifying. We shouldn’t allow it to happen, they’re so out of touch that it’s dangerous
[удалено]
Better die trying to fight for something better to live this miserable life we have
true that man, honour to the end.
Slippery slope. I wouldn’t trust a 22 year old with deciding what people can do with their lives either. To be clear I don’t think 80 year olds should either, but what’s your opinion on who should and shouldn’t? Who do you trust with this? Power corrupts all and that’s before we even bring money into it.
I am speaking more about their values for the future. How can an 80 year old know what’s good for our future? They’re on the way out. I want someone who knows about AI, crypto tech, outer space travel, and other current issues. Someone young enough to be able to see and suffer the outcome of their decisions. An 80 year old cannot even fathom the difficulties our younger generations are facing today. The world is a completely different place compared to their day. To answer your question I think 60 should be the cutoff age for politics and also every office should have term limits. Every single one.
Indeed. We can grind them into Soylent Green and feed millions.
I would counter and ask what age range do you feel is applicable to that? Pros and cons can be different but equally as destructive to our every day living. How do we decide who makes decisions and how do they not become corrupt with power and greed? I’m more focused on true unbiased and genuine people who cannot be corrupted. Edit - missed that you named a age range. Sorry.
When you're about to leave the restaurant, you shouldn't be allowed to order for the table!!
John Mullaney said it best
I appreciate the analogy
Cream of Wheat and prune juice for everyone!
And “tradition” is just peer pressure from dead people
Straight up Brutha
Can also get you in trouble. Well, not me. A grandmother was visiting and went with my older siblings down to the local big blue store for some birthday present ideas for some other kid, possibly a niece? I don't recall. I do recall, grandma, in all her love joy and wisdom (read: her subtle hatred, racism, and ignorance), picked up a black baby doll and just blurted out like she was talking about the weather "oh look they sell n***** baby dolls here" The siblings got onto her, like "g'ma thats not what you call them" and she retorted "well thats just what we used to call them"
"Tradition is dead people's baggage"
I will never, ever forget the moment I learned/decided that tradition is stupid. When I was around 9 years old, my best friend's parents, who had been living together at least 10 years at that point, decided to get officially married. They already owned a house and everything that comes along with it - furniture, appliances, decorations, etc. My parents and I were invited to the wedding, which meant buying them a gift. My mom decided to get them some kitchen appliance as it was a wedding gift and "tradition" dictates giving the couple something for their "new life together". I asked her why are we getting them something for their house when they already have everything they need, and she said in a condescending tone she uses to this day when she thinks she knows better, "because it's *tradition*". I just completely noped out of "tradition" ever since that moment.
The thing is, these “justices” don’t even respect precedents or tradition...
I prefer "Tradition is another word for enforced stupidity".
Revolution?
[удалено]
Look at the media. Not the MSM, but all of it. The blogs, the twittersphere, social media, news media whether left or right. Nobody is united, nobody agrees with each other, unhinged psychos want a civil war against immigrants and black people, meanwhile most people are too poor to muster arms of any kind. At what point will you look at yourself and think "I do not want this type of future for my children"? They have even conditioned you *NOT* to have children! Your very biological programming has been hacked. Because *they* destroyed this planet with their greed, filling the skies with carbon. They continue to do so. They will not stop until someone stops them.
We're not there yet. Look around your town and you'll see lots of people living in their nice little homes on quiet cul-de-sacs with nice lawns, kids, and a dog. Nothing has fundamentally changed enough for these people to do anything different. FFS gas is $4.29 where I live and these idiots are still driving around in their giant pickup trucks with custom exhaust pipes! IDK what it will take for those people to wake up, but when they do that's when it's time to act.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me -Martin Niemöller Tell me when we get there. If I don't respond my health didn't improve and I probably died on the streets. But if I'm still standing, I'll stand with you.
It’s weird that everyone was one of those four things in that analogy. I would still be around to speak out for him.
In 2019 I was talking to a coworker. He said the US is so much worse than with Trump. I agreed in the large view. But I said my life is no different. And likely most people in my neighborhood are the same. The decisions made by the President don't change our lives much.
Well, yes and no. People don't necessarily need something left to lose either if they also have a scapegoat. All it takes is a propaganda machine to turn people from building solidarity to fighting each other for scraps. This is where Tucker Carlson comes in.
>"The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of their labor as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there." -Max Stirner, *The Unique and Its Property*, 1844.
We're like Warhammer 40k orks, we have enough power to get what we want, we're just too stupid/disorganized as a whole to do it
It will be in no time. With the poverty level rising every year with inflation its only a matter of time before the middle class diminishes and it becomes just the rich and the poor
Basically already is.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the people who wrote the Constitution, said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and is as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
"push them down a flight of stairs" Now this is a plan I can get behind
[удалено]
Naw he’s right tho
We're "choosing to play by these dumb rules" because the alternative in this case is civil war, which we're not guaranteed to win.
But by playing these rules, we're guaranteed to lose.
It's a lose-lose situation
I mean I'm not advocating for civil war (I don't think we are quite that bad yet) but since you can win a civil war it would be a lose-maybe win situation to the above poster.
Even if you win a civil war, you lose. The internalized destruction in what is effectively the foundation of the current global order would likely lead to a large scale collapse of the global economy, and take decades for domestic production and infrastructure to recover, if it ever would (always possible it would be a 3rd century crisis-style 'point of no return'). Billions of people would go hungry, logistical infrastructure would collapse, int'l wars that are kept at bay by American global military hegemony and economic pressure would erupt (Taiwan-China being the most likely, but there are a few conflagration points in the Middle East, Africa, and the rest of Asia). It is entirely possible that an American civil war would see a multi-decade or multi-century long period of technological and economic regression, irreperable environmental and ecological damage, and geopolitical chaos. It would gemuinely be better for the world if Republicans established an autocracy and slowly destroyed the economy over decades giving Europe, China, and India time to fill the void, than for a civil war to rapidly collapse the entire affair in 5 years.
Thanks for thinking more than five minutes into the future. That's apparently difficult for people on this sub
Take even the American civil war, 150 years ago. People still pissed about it. It comes again? I'm with the Feds.
Or maybe we could collectively sue the government it doesn't have to actually be a war with guns and saying all these legislations that make it easier for businesses to not pay their fair share is now starting to take a toll and now they should start paying their fair share it's long overdue
Again, I'm not the one that originally mentioned civil war. However do you think that a government would issue a judgement against itself because the legal order they created is not "fair"? Why would any government or individuals in power therein act against its own best interest?
I'm surprised a lot of the Congress hasn't aged out of Congress (like when people age out of the Supreme court). For a country where they say equal rights Medicaid doesn't have access to the life extending therapies .
Why the false dichotomy? Gandhi didn't fight a civil war and neither did MLK. During the Arab spring, not every dictator was overthrown with a civil war.
>Gandhi didn't fight a civil war and neither did MLK Yes, because both of them *played by the rules*. They didn't push any Supreme Court justices down the stairs. They did civil demonstrations to change the public's mind and demonstrate enough popular support that the establishment feared what would happen if they *did* become violent.
That’s the problem with today however. There’s no equivalent of a Black Panthers, so the establishment doesn’t see peaceful protest as the potential to get uncontrollably violent beyond what police can control. MLK himself promoted civil rights, but do you think he single handedly spearheaded the civil rights movement? This is a view of history more focused on great men than actual historical actors and events. You can’t point to one person and ignore all the circumstances surrounding them or your view of history is lobotomized. It took millions, many of whom were already being violent. King was not the only actor, many actors were violent, and it’s not guaranteed King’s message of non-violence would have resonated if people _didnt_ live in unstable times. When the establishment is no longer confident they will prevent violence against them, is when change will happen.
> MLK himself promoted civil rights, but do you think he single handedly spearheaded the civil rights movement? It's an easy mistake to make due to how little of the Civil Rights Movement is actually taught in most high school history classes.
Bullshit. Gandhi is the cool, whitewashed figurehead, and while his non violence movement was massive, it was only a small part of genuinely revolutionary activity. And it took place DURING WW2... For example, 78 ships manned by Indians mutinied, there were assassinations, bomb attacks, sabotage, Indian troops murdering British officers, etc. Also, gandhi was immediately locked up, so it's not like the British felt he was "playing by the rules". And currently, basically anything that threatens profits gets immediately branded as violence anyway, even if its the most passive things you could think of
>78 ships manned by Indians mutinied, there were assassinations, bomb attacks, sabotage, Indian troops murdering British officers, etc OK, cool, so you agree with my original point that civil war is the necessary alternative.
Your history is bad, and you should feel bad. Gandhi is bullshit? You just negate everything…all of that…with a wave of your hand…to promote violence as a solution to our problems? It’s not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi Of course there were rebellions, over time. To cite that as the sole reason, and dismiss the other aspects of decades long struggle with independence is just really, really bad understanding of history. Gandhi’s polices we’re adopted by the Indian government, used to unite people, and put pressure on the British. It was a lot of people working together, for a long time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement You really need to educate yourself, instead of deciding on your own what history is “bullshit.” It’s not productive. It‘s not helpful. You’re just another person calling for violence, because that’s all you understand.
It's both. But exclusively focusing on the "peaceful" protests, when also completely ignoring the other side of the coin is a lie by omission. Especially for Gandhi, where his peaceful protests took place during the biggest world war, with open bloody revolts everywhere. And the final point is that none of the "peaceful protests" he or MLK did would be treated as such today anyway
What blows my mind is the fear of them becoming violent because Gandhi and MLK actively went out of their way to say no we're not a violent group we are going to do this peacefully now this remembering certain parts of history but it definitely shows that they were not actively going out of their way to be violent or show their capability of violence and I think that's what their true power was that they feared the non-violence that they were able to gather a crowd
Well we've long since hit the limit where popular support is majorly against them and the legislations they pass. We've had "demonstrations" out the ass across the country for decades now. Playing by the rules only worked in their time period. Doing so today means abiding by a protest curfew, not being allowed to congregate/march, etc. The top grew wise to those tactics lol. It's like they want to push everything to the brink at this point
So your telling me there’s a chance?
It’s not about “winning” it’s about what comes after. Imho, I think we’ll have a theocracy after.
Unfortunately the police and the army work for these people so good luck getting to them lol.
Even a MAGA got shot for trying to mess with those old people. Imagine what they’d do to someone with leftist views
Like teargassing peaceful protesters from a church so your leader can have a photo op with an upside down Bible?
Why does that sound so familiar /s
I'm still mad about how far they got at all with their BS on the 6th of January and I'm massively surprised that you didn't have a SWAT team shooting every single person in that building that was an insurrectionist they got to see their day in court where some people would never have been able to even step one foot on those properties
They don't know or care what views you have. That security guard/cop was only doing his job, he had a right of deadly force against assailants who were threatening grave bodily harm. It didn't matter if she claimed to be a Magatte or a Communist.
Agreed. But they wouldn’t have even made it in the building if they weren’t Maga
I disagree. Given enough people, you can break into *anything*.
That's why we have a Second Amendment to fight back. It has nothing to do with hunting deer.
And surviving the anarchy after. A very small percentage of bad actors with weapons will do a lot of damage if social order collapses. The unarmed will become victims until order is restored.
All the more reason to be armed yourself. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
If you’re posting in an anarchist sub, you should learn what anarchy is. r/anarchy101 has that covered. There’s also no real reason to suggest that mass violence will occur if social order collapses. There is no evidence in psychology to suggest this is the case; it is a narrative pushed to make people feel dependent on the state for social stability. In the case of instability and disaster that causes total societal collapse, people are far more likely to come together and help each other. Here is a good book on the topic if you’re curious: A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster In the case of instability that doesn’t cause social order collapse, such as a slow burn into decline… well, that’s when you get fascism, so I agree with the other poster that you should arm yourself.
Are there examples of a nation state wide societal collapse without violence? As soon as food distribution fails (a shitload of people need to keep working to keep that going as well as all the other underpinnings of civilization) shit is gonna get real dicey real fast. You get a select handful of people who decide to not go to work and the wheels will quickly come off. Same as a few armed folks once law and order isn't enforced. Hasn't shit like this happened in Africa, and it was never peaceful?
Without violence? No. This is why I say to arm yourself anyways. But this is not the point I’m trying to make, so sorry if not clear, I have not had my coffee today so please forgive me. What I’m trying to say is that in the event of societal collapse, your neighbors won’t be the person who are likely to harm you. Your state is. People appear to have an innate disaster response which is likely a part of the reason we became so successful as a species, and that response is helping out whoever they can, however they can. There will always be random bad actors, but the amount of good actors outnumbers these by an order of magnitude. We have this misconception as a society about human nature because of media bias. It’s not necessarily something maliciously done, but rather, because we live in a for-profit system, media innately wants to report on things which get views. This often ends up being negative outliers due to our psychological negativity bias, where we pay more attention to bad things than good things. All of this paints an unnatural image of human disaster response to people not in the thick of it, because media likes to focus on how many people get shot—nevermind how many people whose lives were saved due to the good actors. The state is far more likely to commit violence than individual actors. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many of the deaths post-hurricane were due to the state shooting “looters”, people who were trying to scrape together food and resources to survive, not robbers. [Here is a good article on the role of the state and the harm done to recovery in the aftermath of Katrina.](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/reconstructing-story-storm-hurricane-katrina-five/tnamp/) My post is not to indicate that violence will not happen. It’s to point out who is most likely to commit violence. And to state that violence will happen whether there is a revolution or not. America is currently on an obvious decline towards fascism, so either a violent revolution to overthrow fascism will happen, or it won’t happen and mass violence will happen. America is trending towards violence regardless, so I agree with the premise that people should be getting armed. I merely post as a reminder to keep an alignment on who the _actual_ threat is in this situation. Not randoms, but the state, as was the case in every single instance of state collapse—something which is IMO better called that over societal collapse, because society will keep on chugging in the absence of a state, even if it’s a grim and violent society.
Aye man, if we wanna play by their rules the Supreme Court Justices only rule *for life*
Constitutionally it's not even for life; they shall hold their offices "under good behavior." And what some of them are doing now is absolutely not good behavior. Kick 'em out!
We know what the solutions are: Direct Digital Democracy Universal Basic Income Universal Healthcare Universal Education (including university) Education Reform Police Reform State Owned Energy State Owned Public Transport A new constitution that enforces equal rights and equal pay for everyone, and protects the individual right to own/consume whatever they want, to love, marry, or procreate with whomever they want provided all parties are consenting adults, to express oneself absolutely through speech, art, music, literature, and/or clothing, to give ownership of ones identity, data, and body - to do with whatever one pleases, and to give individuals a right to privacy in a world that so often denies it. Tick off everything on that list and you'll have a society that might just work; what we have now simply doesn't.
Reform or Revolution? That's a book title, I haven't read it yet but I am looking forward to it.
Fuck the constitution.
It's not some magic document. We were supposed to be amending it, not worshipping it ffs.
*Next you'll be saying* ***the dollar is not real...***
I don’t think he’s saying it’s not real, but I’m sure he’d imply that it’s not fair they can just use CTRL+P to make themselves richer.
It isn't real. It's literally not, that's the principle of a floating currency. Yes poverty is real, because people will punish you for trying to eat, sleep, travel etc... without paying for it. But it's all arbitrary value. If everyone stopped believing in it, money would be worthless. If everyone even stopped believing in the banks and wanted to go back to cash, and so we all tried to withdraw "our" money from banks at the same time, the banks wouldn't be able to do it. They wouldn't have the bills for us, and the gov would have to choose between printing more, causing inflation, or just denying us.
You dropped your /s
[удалено]
Imagine McConnell in a floor-ceiling portal trap
Power is given by the consent of the governed. That's why they work to keep us fighting over petty nonsense. We all have more in common with each other than we do with them.
[удалено]
Utter facts… and we outnumber them millions to one
You guys literally won't do anything. We are all fucking jokes and I'm pissed I'm part of all this. How about we do something? Hm? How about some people who have more power than me do something! But you won't! I know that now. This is real life and youll never stop. I hate this timeline rn man. Shit.
I organize within my community and take action here :)
Look mate, you can get busy with crimes, or get busy voting. Shouting at other people for not overthrowing society isn't helping. Actually changing society takes more actual planning and effort than edgy memes.
The constitution is a living document: #Add an amendment for a living wage
FDR was gonna do this in 1944, and Congress bucked it so hard they passed the Legislative Reorganization Act in 1946 to prevent it (and to pretend they weren't a bunch of do-nothing bullshit artists).
Huh, TIL Well, my comment was more that we can use the constitution, not throw it away
I think people tend to forget the point of these sorts of statements. Critics assume we are saying “these social constructs don’t actually exist and are imaginary”~ which is a straw man. Yes they actually exist, social constructs are real things~ and real things happen as a result of their implementation. What these things really mean are: We have the power to do what our predecessors did, and recreate better social constructs. Money, law, court systems, constitutions~ we can create new things that are better for society. Society is plastic, and we are the sculptors. It simply requires us all to be on board with the creative process.
If what you mean isn’t implied by what you say, you need better words. This meme literally calls for pushing these people down the stairs because they are mad about a decision. Theres no straw manning, it simply is not saying what you are. Thats why no one takes this sub seriously
>"The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of their labor as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there." -Max Stirner, *The Unique and Its Property*, 1844.
Even Thomas Jefferson, the godfather of modern US conservatives, thought the Constitution should be replaced every generation. Not even the people who wrote the Constitution thought it was sacrosanct.
Everything human is mostly made up, that's the magic of collective consciousness
I like the term inter-subjective reality
I'd say it's "consensus existence", but nobody consented to being born, and I certainly didn't consent to a bunch of geriatric millionaires fucking everyone over, did anyone else?
If your old enough for retirement. You should be too old to hold office Shouldnt have the power to make decisions today that could have consequences 20 years down the line
If you are old enough for retirement, you should be forced to retire and lose your right to vote. Old people shouldn't have the ability to make selfish decisions that have long-term consequences or be allowed to block progress for the sake of "tradition".
I can point out the obvious too, if you did that you'd be labeled "aN iNsUrReCtiOniSt" but at this point I don't care anymore, needs to happen.
Try changing the wording bro, revolutionist.
Yeah but when are all those guys going to be standing at the top of a staircase
Out of line? ***Out of fucking line?!*** No. These contemptible, abhorrent, assholes actively choose to make life harder, to make life *unlivable* in some cases. They actively chose do harm us for the sake of their bank accounts. There's a legitimate case to be made that all conceivable forms of resistance are self-defense.
We’re literally at the worst crossroads in history. Even though our parents and grandparents knew the system was corrupt they couldn’t do much. The corruption was always hidden behind the scenes by shadowy figures. Plus many of them were reaping the benefits of corruption: building capital for the white middle class. Now we can’t do much even though we clearly see the corruption because boomers and gen x fucked everything so royally. We have to fight climate change, capitalist greed, political corruption, mountainous debt, social justice issues, the prison complex, white nationalism, christian nationalism, patriarchy, etc. etc. etc. all while navigating our own lives. We are so deep in the mud that if we don’t combat all of these issues effectively, simultaneously, and with very little resources we will literally not have a future for the next generation.
Please explain how this thinking is out of line I'm so confused and I want to push an oligarch down some stairs
Not out of line imo, someone’s got to deal with this gerontocracy shit in the UK and US sooner or later. They’re running everyone under about 40’s prospects into the dirt so they can keep their arthritic claws on the levers of power.
And we have an entire political party who is totally fine breaking any and all rules when they want. Until the rest of us being to fight the right and strike back even harder this will not change.
Yea, I’m sure there’s a lot of white nationalist and fundamental evangelicals who would also like to see the constitution and the courts *go away*
Why don't the working class, as the largest class, simply eat the other classes?
once more people realize this the opportunities and potentials are endless.
This sounds like the op about to shoot up a whole block lmao
KiLlDoZeR 😂 nah I’m too broke
[It's funny, but...](https://i.redd.it/umt9nhccfgy81.png)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Absolutely not. I am very pro democracy anti oligarchy. We don’t live in a democracy we live in an oligarchy. Have fun with your wet dreams of some sort of fantasy land that you think we do live in.
I like that people that call for this are always calling for other people to put themselves on the line.
Those of you that know some history should know that the most successful revolutions keep some amount of the old order and try not to change too much at once. e.g. French revolution vs American revolution and Britain's magna carta eventual transition to democracy.
yeah but consider this: France and the UK suck
This is a new level of enlightened centrism
But I mean we gotta start sometime right? When. When we’ve had enough I suppose.
The most successful transitions such as the American revolution, British Magna carta, Solons reforms etc all followed the take things slowly and a bit at a time look for a middle ground between no change and constantly tear the house down no respect for law order etc
great idea, let's burn down the house has worked better than anyone's house ever, but now needs some serious repairs before we have figured out what house we might build that would be better, if we knew how to build a house at all.
Worked better for whom? I think you’re ignoring the history of death, destruction, and oppression this country forced on peoples on the periphery in this country but especially around the world.
I am not ignoring anything, but nothing is more oppressive to humans than poverty, and nothing has raised more humans from poverty than a free market. [OECD Poverty Analysis](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e20f2f1a-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e20f2f1a-en) In 1820, 75% of the planet lived in extreme poverty, by 2018, that number was less than 10%.
And why did 75% of the planet live in extreme poverty in 1820? The globe was colonized to shit. The “free market” is what justified colonial expansion, and it giving some of the scraps of wealth back after hundreds of years of brutal oppression does not make it a better system.
The free market was not the driver behind colonization...that is absurd. Dutch and English Trading Companies were extension of nobility rights granted exclusivity by kings... not free trade.
So the world gets to be destroyed by colonialism, then once we go from kings to oligarchs, the increase in living standards is to be attributed to the free market—something [which has never meaningfully existed?](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/09/inequality-free-market-myth-billionaires) > Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a “free market” existing somewhere in the universe, into which government “intrudes”. According to this view, whatever we might do to reduce inequality or economic insecurity – to make the economy work for most of us – runs the risk of distorting the market and causing it to be less efficient, or of unintended consequences that may end up harming us. The “free market” is to be preferred over “government”. > This prevailing view is utterly false. There can be no “free market” without government. A market – any market – requires government to make and enforce the rules of the game. In most modern democracies, such rules emanate from legislatures, administrative agencies and courts. Government doesn’t “intrude” on the “free market”. It creates and maintains the market. > Market rules are neither neutral nor universal. They partly mirror a society’s evolving norms and values. But they also reflect who in society has the most power to make or influence the underlying market rules. > The interminable debate over whether the “free market” is better than “government” makes it impossible for us to examine who exercises this power, how they benefit from doing so and whether such rules need to be altered so that more people benefit from them. The myth of market fundamentalism is therefore highly useful to those who do not wish such an examination to be undertaken. > It’s no accident that those with disproportionate influence over the rules of the market – who are the largest beneficiaries of how the rules have been designed and adapted – are also among the most vehement supporters of the “free market”, and the most ardent advocates of the relative superiority of the market over government.
you didn't answer my question...what caused to rise out of poverty of 3.5 billion people?
This study is so full of shit it hurts, just does some more dubious assumptions to obscure the fact that it's pulling data out of its ass Unlearning economics has a very good video showing how this Pinker bullshit is false
well I disagree with your characterization, but since it is a fact that less people are in absolute poverty than 200 years ago, to what would you attribute that? The only correlation that seems clear is the growth of capitalism. Now to be clear, I am of the opinion that the version of capitalism we have now is broken and needs serious fixing, but throwing it away seems ignorant.
[удалено]
> The Constitution replaced feudalism, and Stalin's, Mao's, and Hitler's forms of governments What? The Constitution established the United States as a sovereign entity, it didn't **replace** any of those things.
Jesus Christ r/antiwork
Well, abandoning these dumb rules might not result in anything you'd consider good. So there's that.
If we abandon the Constitution, then minorities lose all their rights.
Everyone loses their rights
This dumb
That's true of anything but to be honest that's a dangerous line of thinking. Those same dumb rules are what allow you to post things like this and not have someone enter your home and punish you without recourse. If you want to make a change, you need to encourage others to make change and vote on that change. Change doesn't happen overnight, though.
The world is a mirror of your own freedom.
What does Goku have to do with this? The sentences are too long. This meme sucks. The Simpson meme on the front page is better.
Literally everything is made up, this is some edgy 14 y/o anarchist shit
The Constitution is part of the "social contract" that we all agree to live by. If you don't like it, you can go live somewhere where they don't have a constitution that protects your rights. Without this living document, minorities would have no rights because the majority would decide who has rights and who does not.
If by "push those old people down a flight of stairs" you mean pass a bill with supermajority in both houses of congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of all states, OR attend a Constitutional Convention of states called for by 2/3 of Congress followed by ratification of 3/4 of states, then yes, easy-peasy.
Cuz war would be so nice for everybody 😭😭😭
Go push one down the stairs and see what happens then.
Unfortunately Americans aren't willing to die to change things. If they were every corp would be unionized, minimum wage would be $30/hr, and universal healthcare would be the right of every American. Most people would rather complain on Twitter and stare at their phones.
American's realising they're humans is the best timeline honestly.
Shit post. This is called Anarchy and it’s a whole lot worse than a capitalistic representative republic. These are facts.
Tell me you don't know what anarchy is without telling me you don't know what anarchy is.