If a system requires constant guardrails that run directly counter to its core tenets, that probably just means the system is bad, and you should go with one whose tenets are in-line with said guardrails.
all isms need governance always or they cant be stable. youre basically saying ‘if your system needs rules to survive, it shouldnt’ when systems are defined by their rules.
if your core tenant is to fuck everyone over at all costs, i guess you might have a point.
all isms need governance always or they cant be stable
Where did I say anything about not having guardrails/ regulation/ governance? I said that if the guardrails run counter to the underlying system’s core tenets, that is indicative the tenets are bad, to wit:
to fuck everyone over [to extract value] at all costs
That is Capitalism in a nutshell. Nothing within Capitalism as a doctrine calls for limits to be placed upon value-generation in favor of protecting people.
Contrast this to other systems, (even free market ones like Mutualism where regulation is not present) where an asymmetrical concentration of power is considered inimical or even contradictory to the system’s tenets. Asymmetrical wealth and influence structures will always emerge even in those systems, but those systems are intended, from the ground up, to counter that, as opposed to Capitalism which intrinsically encourages and rewards that imbalance.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
If a system requires constant guardrails that run directly counter to its core tenets, that probably just means the system is bad, and you should go with one whose tenets are in-line with said guardrails.
this is nonsense
all isms need governance always or they cant be stable. youre basically saying ‘if your system needs rules to survive, it shouldnt’ when systems are defined by their rules.
if your core tenant is to fuck everyone over at all costs, i guess you might have a point.
Where did I say anything about not having guardrails/ regulation/ governance? I said that if the guardrails run counter to the underlying system’s core tenets, that is indicative the tenets are bad, to wit:
That is Capitalism in a nutshell. Nothing within Capitalism as a doctrine calls for limits to be placed upon value-generation in favor of protecting people.
Contrast this to other systems, (even free market ones like Mutualism where regulation is not present) where an asymmetrical concentration of power is considered inimical or even contradictory to the system’s tenets. Asymmetrical wealth and influence structures will always emerge even in those systems, but those systems are intended, from the ground up, to counter that, as opposed to Capitalism which intrinsically encourages and rewards that imbalance.