Spicy's plan for utopia

[archibaldcrane]

lmaoooooooooooooooo
Spoken like someone whos never dealt with bureaucratic red tape.

(it was a rhetorical question)

[archibaldcrane]

Now, if you had a system where all voters were in government owned housing the government would be pressured to be particularly responsive to the concerns of the renters (everybody)

But if the owner-occupied housing voters (roughly 2/3rds of adults and obviously disproportionately older and wealthier) can opt out of the social housing (as per Spicy's suggestion) but are also paying the majority of the social housing expenses for the younger, browner, poorer renter class, their incentives are going to be to encourage penny-pinching slumlordery.

[arus2001]

How much governmental incompetence can we attribute to conservative sandbagging, though? Misuse and misappropriation of funds without adequate oversight and punishment? Failure to appropriately tax the wealthy while squeezing the middle and lower class?

Like, I get the skepticism, but my own continued gripe against the assertion of impossibility is it reflects an unwillingness to even try because things might get awkward in the transition as America's economic stockholm syndrome kicks in and corporations do their best red scare routine.

We're still chugging toward automation advances, and with that, lost jobs while populations continue to climb. You can't Nostradamus everyone away from careers that won't exist 5-20 years from now, either, nor can we expect psychological compatibility to "more important" fields. We're told raising wages will just cause inflation, but that's just been happening anyway because unchecked greed is at the helm. One only needs to look as far as the recent OPEC stunt to manipulate our politics so they can get "their guys" in power.

Anyway, I otherwise share the sentiment that landlords are parasites manipulating the housing market for the worse. Things could be said about corporations buying up residential property for similar ends. And yes, it's true not everyone wants to own a home or deal with all the responsibilities of doing such. Shifting that expectation of aid to another needn't mandate they personally own the property. A landlord can mow a lawn. So can a landscaping company. What's the difference? How often they can do it? Cost? Why is the landlord needed if the resident can either do it themselves (if willing) or pay the landscapers? Comparatively speaking, landlords are often the equivalent to middlemen in the healthcare system that are just there to make things more expensive for the consumer because they can.

If the concern is upkeep and repair, then that's when you designate an agency for something like yearly voluntary inspections of all homes at no cost to the resident, and if something is needed, handle it. I have no doubt there are good landlords out there, but when the choice is a person has a home or doesn't, advantage is not in their favor. Capitalism isn't about concessions, but maximizing profit. Doing the right thing for tenants isn't so clear cut when it costs hundreds, thousands, or more. It's also no secret that legislation here favors landlords, and dragging them to court over violations is a financial burden people renting likely can't take on anyway. But it's not like I know anything about this having had to help my sister at three separate residences where one had a collapsing floor, the other a flooding basement, and the last a malfunctioning fridge that was part of the arrangement that they refused to fix/replace. The places I've had to live in before eventually coming back home to caretake for my parents didn't set a high bar, either. So, from my perspective, the idea that privatized housing is the superior solution is pretty shaky, while public options are either untested or openly sabotaged by a resistant private sector.

In the end, even if none of us here have a specific list of solutions to myriad related problems, it doesn't mean wiser minds out there don't. There's a lot of systemic generational programming that needs to be undone (let's call it bootstrap rhetoric or the idea of american exceptionalism), too. My own gripes against incrementalism is because we aren't solving these problems, nor have I seen any sort of meaningful gain in my 20+ years of adulthood and political awareness. It's always just, "That side's worse. Vote for us so it doesn't get worse!" when the disenfranchised want more than that. They actually want shit to get better and candidates willing to fight exactly for that. I don't view that as utoptian hogwash, either. More of a cynical interpretation of our current environment where there's some obvious room for improvement.

[archibaldcrane]

How much governmental incompetence can we attribute to conservative sandbagging, though?

Even if that was the root of all (as opposed to a lot of) government incompetence, unless we are gulaging the conservatives in this hypothetical we have to imagine a world where they still exist!

[archibaldcrane]

We're still chugging toward automation advances, and with that, lost jobs while populations continue to climb.

With U-6 unemployment at an all time low, I'd like to think this Andrew Yang-era take would die.

But alas, automation-caused mass unemployment is always 10 years away

[Mrbeansman]

My own gripes against incrementalism is because we aren't solving these problems, nor have I seen any sort of meaningful gain in my 20+ years of adulthood and political awareness. It's always just, "That side's worse. Vote for us so it doesn't get worse!" when the disenfranchised want more than that.

This is just wrong its not that there's been no gains its just you are in a privileged enough postion that you don't see them. The far left loves to shit on the ACA but the exchanges have brought good affordable coverage to people who previously had no chance at such. And yet it is one bad election cycle away from being stripped away just like a lot of the social safety net. But then people who are fortunate enough not to need government assistance immediately talk down those who do becasue they don't care who they trample over on their quest to "progress".

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

I haven't been able to afford health insurance since 2007, but go on and assume my circumstances.

[Mrbeansman]

I haven't been able to afford health insurance since 2007, but go on and assume my circumstances.

Yeah fuck those other people if you can't have it they can't either.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[NynJa]

How much governmental incompetence can we attribute to conservative sandbagging, though?

lol cmon man.
I get you hate conservatives, but govt incompetency runs deep no matter what political affiliation.

[Mrbeansman]

I do genuinely want to believe competent government is possible.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

Yeah fuck those other people if you can't have it they can't either.

Now tell me where I said that without you twisting my critique of incrementalism because you've fearmongered yourself into political paralysis.

[Zealot]

Automation-caused mass unemployment was supposed to be the goal of society.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Mrbeansman]

Now tell me where I said that without you twisting my critique of incrementalism because you've fearmongered yourself into political paralysis.

My point is that for you and spicy progress doesn't count unless you benefit from it and it really shows in your posts.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

I suppose we haven't really talked about businesses at all, if you abolished private ownership of land, what becomes of the land owned by corporations? do they then just pay the government a fixed rate for the land? Would the government even have the funds to compensate for all the land it would be straight up taking from everyone? Or would they just say "Heh...Sucks to Suck!" and not pay people for their land? If anything was going to cause a civil war it would be that imho lol

Depends on how it is approached. You could attempt reform and begin by touching simpler things first like government structure, labor laws, etc and work up to it. This would especially be helpful for winning over the goodwill of the majority of people whose lives improve vastly at the expense of the few. Eventually though there is a point where reform only goes so far, and it is absolutely not a permanent fix. This is generally what I point to because not only is it eventually required as no ruling class makes more than concessions, but because otherwise it turns into a conversational slog over stupid shit.

I'm on board with most of Spicy's social issues and also reject the notion that implementing them is impossible. The way things are is no reason not to imagine and work toward the way they should be.

I just think political takes both foreign and domestic are hot garbage born of feckless contrarianism.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

There's a quote I think applies here I will paraphrase. That "The people love us. They just don't know it yet."
The ultimate goal of it is to drastically decrease or eliminate systematic inequality and prevent it from being able to reoccur. Simple things like the removal of inheritance may sound extreme to the small guy, but they aren't the reason it gets removed or heavily restricted. It is the aristocracy that forms from it. For example in Europe where they basically just watch over their fortunes and it generates more fortune for hundreds of years while giving them power and privilege at the expense of that small guy upset he can't inherit a pittance in comparison. Which wouldn't matter much anyway since their base needs are now met which the inheritance is generally the stopgap of for the same class.

I agree that the feelings of hopelessness and an attitude of resignation at the task of organizing society out of the hands of those who thrive from exploitation is perhaps one of the largest obstacles.

If you want to live without hospitals, u do u b.

Socialism is when the government takes your toothbrush and your hospitals aways.

I haven't been able to afford health insurance since 2007, but go on and assume my circumstances.

Everyone wants to assume the capitalism isn't as rigged and malicious as it is. Probably because they are either doing okay, even relatively speaking, or really bought in to the theme of lies that if they try really hard they can be anything they want when they grow up. Meanwhile the wealthiest nation in the history of the world provides worse healthcare in most major metrics compared to a poor island to the south of Florida crippled by a decades long blockade. People die or suffer a lower quality of life simply for profit.

[arus2001]

Automation-caused mass unemployment was supposed to be the goal of society.

I don't disagree. I mean, the core of many arguments against various social services or perceived rights is that anyone and everyone needs to prove their worth to society through employment and paying their dues. Just don't have a job that's beneath their standards, either, because you deserve any and all suffering that follows.

But, y'know, I'm devoid of empathy and want the world to burn because I believe we can do better. :/

[Andalusian girls]

I do genuinely want to believe competent government is possible.

only in Singapore

[Mrbeansman]

But, y'know, I'm devoid of empathy and want the world to burn because I believe we can do better. :/

More like you have no regard for the people who's lives will be ruined by your reckless rush to the goal line.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

More like you have no regard for the people who's lives will be ruined by your reckless rush to the goal line.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I wish you saw the true depth of irony in how your attitude and arguments against anything but the tiniest progress will see you realize no change.

"Please Mr. may I have some more healthcare?"

"Sure little Beansie, one free physical a year."

"But Mr. I have cancer!"

"I SAID ONE!"

"Okay, I don't want to upset you..."

[Mrbeansman]

Lol I get better coverage on the exchanges then I got from the employer provided coverage at my last job.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Lol I get better coverage on the exchanges then I got from the employer provided coverage at my last job.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

1) That is a problem.
2) Healthcare shouldn't be tied to an employer.
3) Your health is being subsidized by others in order to pay for the profits of a private party. The private party needs to go because ones health is not something one should profit from when it means life and death.