It was more of a middle class thing. It kind of worked kind of relatively well for them. When the French Kingdom was reestablished after Napoleon it was run by bankers and not nobles..
Probably not so much western parts. Also regardless of China’s national policy individual Chinese companies regularly get sanctioned and are effectively forced to chose between doing business in the West and Russia. Which obviously isn’t a very hard choice for most…
AFAIK most stuff is smuggled through countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus (with no negative consequences for those countries; the opposite really..)
For every person who makes any meaningful amount of money doing that you need many 1000s of viewers consuming their content. So it’s not exactly sustainable as a career option for any besides a tiny handful of people in any meaningful way..
Also consumer has a limited amount of time to consume content in any given day so to some extent it’s zero-sum.
Hypothetically if laws lose their legitimacy because nobody is willing to enforce them (at least some people have that perception) and the political system is designed in such a way as to make any meaningful change near impossible what is there left to do?
And more generally the fundamental reason we agree to operate under laws is because these laws are expected to improve society as a whole. But if those laws instead start enabling and protecting bad behavior then they're doing the exact opposite.
It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand.
Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
>Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
It is funny to say this as if every other modern democracy hasn't solved the specific problem that you have given. The issue isn't democracy, it is the American democracy (or republic if you want to be pedantic).
Specifically, the combination of our expansive freedom of speech protections (which make campaign financing restrictions near impossible) and first past the post voting system make it easy for corporations and the rich to shape the government however they want.
This is mostly grass is greener thinking. Here [1] is a relevant poll across the EU, for instance. [1] 65% of people do not think high level corruption cases are sufficiently pursued and 57% do not think efforts against corruption are effective. And everywhere except Scandiland has a majority to vast majority that think corruption is widespread in their country.
The only place it seems to be really working is in Switzerland and in the Scandinavian micronations (notably Sweden is trending more towards the patterns of Europe than Scandinavia).
It is weird to claim it is simply "grass is greener thinking" and then point to opinion polls as if those polls won't suffer the same fate. But either way, that wasn't my point. The "specific problem" I was referring to was the example you gave of health insurers maximizing profit and the government's inability/unwillingness to reign that in. The way all those European countries have addressed that is via universal healthcare.
> The way all those European countries have addressed
They addressed by rationing and limiting access. Of course their systems are generally much more efficient cost wise. However Europe isn’t some Utopian wonderland.
And yet the US trails those European countries in most measures of quality of healthcare including access. It is clear the US pays more for healthcare and receives worse service. That doesn't mean anyone is calling Europe utopian, but the American approach to healthcare is worse by almost every objective measure.
I initially thought the greener grass reference was in relation to their own link. I wonder what a more objective measure of government corruption would be. I suspect it's not possible. The closest measure I could think of it was something along the lines of governmental efficiency, w which would include corruption, incompetence and dysfunction.
I wonder if someone could put together a Time series data on some benchmarks like the government cost to put up a stop sign.
There are groups that try to quantify this sort of stuff. According to one measure, the US was already behind most of Europe in 2024[1] and I would expect us to drop much further in the next iteration of this list.
This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for the executives of healthcare companies who violate such' and it's simply not going to happen. A handful of corporations' "lobbying" easily trumps the opinion of society.
And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
I dont think it is that easy to define "unjustified denials". People might agree on a vibe, but not detail. What would a bill look like?
Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy.
People hate change more than the status quo.
Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution.
An unjustified denial is obviously a denial that should not have been denied by the terms of your agreement with the insurance company. And we should also add delays and other anti-payment 'strategies' as criminal offenses as well. And as such behaviors would now be criminal in nature, exact offenses would determined by a jury of our peers.
It's obviously not people hating change. People want these things, and many others to change. It's a completely broken political system that is happy to change, but only when it benefits corporations or political, especially geopolitical, interests. Ranked choice won't do anything. Australia has one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world, and they have both universal voting, obviously 'Australian voting', and even a proportionally elected Senate.
No they couldn't. Getting ballot access is a huge ordeal, and then the media does an excellent job of divide and conquer by not even focusing on the issues, but instead focusing on hate, fear, misrepresentations, and so forth. Make people hate and fear 'the other side' enough and they won't dare "waste" their vote and will happily vote for somebody they don't even like, but dislike less than the alternative.
And obviously you're straw manning things. The reason people screw over other people is because they expect there will be no consequences. Whether this is some thug mugging a guy for $20 on the street corner, or a guy in a suit developing ever more novel strategies to ultimately refuse healthcare to people - it's the exact same issue. When there are consequences, the entire calculus changes.
You are externalizing all of the problems of the electorate and treating them as if they have no agency. As if every other part of the system is a clever actors, and voters are all mindless dolls with no choice in how they vote, what they read, or what they watch.
I agree consequences are a powerful incentive. If you reject updating the law, where does that leave you?
What exactly is your position? Should I go out and shoot people I disagree with or not? Are you going out and shooting people?
I don't think you really believe that edgelord fantasy. Was January 6th far too tame for your liking? How many police and politicians have you lynched?
If I have to read "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots" one more time I'm going to claw my eyes out. It is a rhetorical copout when faced with genuinely difficult of how to enact reform. Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war, let alone every generation. If internet posturing ever turns into reality, people will be in for a rude awakening.
I'd encourage you to read the entire letter alongside its context. The reason I link to the letter and not the quote is because the quote, relevant and insightful though it may be, is made exponentially more so by understanding the context in which it was said.
Here's a quiz for understanding: what did Jefferson think of the 'revolutionaries' of whose actions he's directly defending?
The tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants is true, that is literally spoken by a founder of the country and person who penned the country's founding document. It is a belief that you materially benefit from but deny. You have so much privilege but deny it's genesis.
You believe in the product of Locke's philosophy, but deny its requirements.
Tyranny is the result of consolidated power. Tyrants aren't going to respond to "please give up your power" or "please follow the law" peacefully. If you challenge power, power will respond. The freedom of speech exists precisely because saying something tyrants don't like will result in tyrants trying to punish you for your speech. Freedom of speech exists in order to protect speaking truth to power because power doesn't like truth spoken to it.
Freedom is solidarity. Solidarity is its price. The word solidarity itself is important to reflect on, because it is solidarity against a force that seeks to break the solidarity by harming individuals acting in solidarity. Labor rights and protection for freedoms were hard won, many individuals were harmed earning them. This country that you enjoy was the result of a revolutionary and civil war.
This is the language the country was literally founded on. This is where the rights you enjoy being protected come from:
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but "to bind us in all cases whatsoever" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.
> Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war
What do you think makes people fight in a war? Why are Ukrainians fighting in what, if you accept Putin's framing, is a civil war?
The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence.
You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property.
Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money.
You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law.
How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing.
Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law?
This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."
You're original false dichotomy is also condescending getting you a condescending tone. There is nobody who believes in shooting whoever you disagree with. There is nobody who supports random shootings. The post you were responding to was one almost directly laying out American founding philosophy, that we live under a consent based government.
The person you were responding to was laying down an argument that would defend the civil rights movement, that frequently acted in violation in of the law, threatened violence, and even became violent, before the descendants of people who were literally slaves (under law) were given protection by the law, protection that is still violated to this day which the black lives matter protests and contemporary driving/walking while black cases show. It took riots to see consequences for one cop extra-judicially killing a man.
Say what you want about the case in new york, but it is building consensus that we have a 2 tiered legal system that exists to protect the rich and impose order (not justice) on the poor.
Change doesn't happen only from the carrot or only from the stick, but the carrot and the stick working together. Where you are right is that destruction and being against alone will not lead to good outcomes, you have to create and be for something to have good outcomes.
If I reflect on this in relation to the national situation, you're de facto defending what is happening right now and choosing beliefs that defend this repeatedly new normal as inevitable and using magical thinking to describe how change should happen. It's magical because its easy to say what you say, but if you were to write an algorithm for what real physical humans do in real life to create change, you will quickly find out how much magic is required and how many functions you have to implement later or how many impossible things you need to be true. Russia has elections too. Believing that American elections could not be like Russian elections is pure American exceptionalism.
People with agency vote based on information, but there is an entire information economy controlled by the very rich that you deny in your other posts. Money influences votes, you have to confront the depth of what that means and you're not. You should read the dissent of citizens united.
You're right I don't know your background, but you don't seem to have internalized the founding philosophy because if you had you couldn't argue the way you argue which means either you don't have a philosophical framework to support you or you haven't really deeply thought about the things you say yourself and given them any philosophical rigor.
And yeah, I agree, there is an extremely strong analogy to the national situation, and you should reflect on which "side" you are on.
By calling the post obnoxious you haven't made me feel obnoxious, you've created the conditions to confirm my own beliefs and made yourself appear to be in denial. You haven't given me anything to critically think about my own beliefs, you've only told me that being told you're wrong and uninformed feels bad, but much like the half of America who feels condescended and chooses to be strong and wrong rather than question themselves, you will get exactly the government you deserve.
I think you see the target on your back (based on your profile) as someone who could be seen as contributing to the downfall of America and directly harming those who participate in our for profit healthcare system, and want laws to protect you while failing to realize that laws are not defending those our for profit healthcare system victimizes. Since you profit from a system that victimizes people, I can certainly see how you would see the attack as "random" since the very same logic that applied, and that some are even celebrating, could reasonably be applied to you based on your titles alone giving you a sense of insecurity that those who need healthcare feel.
I think the actor acted with conscience and since I also act in conscience I don't feel at risk. I feel more at risk from people who follow the law but don't care about justice than I do from people who care about justice but don't follow the law. America was literally built by the latter. There is no explicit relationship between justice and law other than law without justice de-legitimizes law until people reject it and choose to act on their own, meaning they choose the state of nature.
I am as white and as American as you get. I am descended from people who fought in the revolutionary war, all 16 of my great great grandparents were born here, and I would feel much much safer sitting next to the person in question than an ICE agent, and I would prefer to be in a country made of the former than the latter, and if you want to live in a free country, you should start contemplating why you must support people who hold justice in higher esteem than the law.
I am not defending the current situation, I am opposing people acting as judge jury and executioner, in the name of their own justice. Individuals going out and shooting people on the street is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society, or one that seeks to prevent sliding deeper into dysfunction. What I reject is the idea that anyone who doesn't accept your definition of justice should have a target on their back. That is not a power I will grant, even under veiled threats of death and national destruction.
I have never voted republican in my life, am appalled by the current lawlessness, and generally support healthcare reform. We should be allies with many mutual interests, but here you are making an enemy.
> Individuals going out and shooting people on the street is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society
I absolutely 100% completely agree, however you added "in a functional society" which is why that statement is true. We are not in a functional society, we are in a rapidly deteriorating one.
So why did you add in a functional society? Is it true in a non functioning society? How should people act in a non functioning society? What determines whether a society is functioning or not? Who gets to make that choice whether society is functioning or not? Was the confederacy a functioning society? Was it a functioning society for chattel slaves? Would they have been justified in using "sticks"? Are Ukrainians justified in using sticks? Why or why not?
> is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society
> am appalled by the current lawlessness
Don't you see your own denial even a little, or how someone in good faith could interpret it that way?
> We should be allies with many mutual interests, but here you are making an enemy.
I could accuse you of the same, but I don't think you're an enemy at all, I think you're ignorant, privileged, and haven't really given your own point of view a thorough shakedown. I am not angry at you, nor do I see you as an enemy. If I did, I would treat you like rayiner, I might accidentally respond, but otherwise I would downvote flag and move on. I am sad that you are too scared to accept what is true because it makes you personally responsible for participating in building a future we want to be a part of and nobody wants to be told they are responsible especially when that message comes with personal cost. Anger is a result of feeling threatened, but sadness is a result of understanding, and I am deeply sad about the current state of things and people who should be ideological allies choosing comfort over truth.
Everyone wants a functioning government, but "nobody" wants to pay taxes or take a pay cut do be a part of it. Everyone wants labor rights and higher wages, but nobody wants to risk their job, their pay, or their "permanent record." Everyone wants to sit in the shade of the tree of liberty, but nobody wants to water it. You'll only want to fight for liberty once it's gone and by then the fight will be much much harder.
I asked so many questions and almost none of them are rhetorical. I think if you took the time to answer any of them, you would quickly run into trouble maintaining internal consistency, and I think the core of it is that you have no conception of what it takes to go from the state of nature to a consensus based lawful government because you think Locke and Jefferson were "edgelords".
The fact that such behavior might become acceptable (at least amongst a significant section of society) indicates a systemic failure in the socio-economic system. IMHO its more a of symptom. Like labor and anarchist related political violence back in the first Gilded Age back in the late 1800s.
Massively increasing inequality and giving too much political power to corporate robber barons has its costs. If nobody is willing to keep them in check the appearance of some sort of “vigilantism” seems hard to avoid. Not implying that its a good thing or that political violence really ever led to positive change historically..
1918? Most of the territory of modern Ukraine. Before it was conquered by Bolsheviks.
Also Russia as an independent state ceased to exist in 1922. So it’s hardly that different. Both Russia and Ukraine only became independent countries in 1991 when they decided they to leave the USSR.
Yes, that’s literally what these people are saying.
Russia is allegedly entitled to own half of Europe due to some deranged reasons. Everyone who disagrees with that is supposedly a nazi or something similar.
The concept of hypocrisy is entirely foreign and incomprehensible to anyone who honestly supports Russian imperialism..
> there was never a separate country called "Ukraine" before 1991
Btw that is simply not true. There has been independent Ukraine few years by the end of WWI. Unfortunately, eventually they lost the war to the red army and been occupied by Moscow .
the nazis came as far as they did because a ton of peoole greeted them as liberators and joined their new oppressors to fight for a free homeland. You dont do that unless you really hate the empire you are imprisoned in..
Germans were pretty good at exploiting ethnic grievances in multiple countries - Czhech vs Slovak, Croats vs Serbs, Bulgars vs Greek and Hungarian vs everyone that have nothing to do oppression and fight for homeland.
People underestimate what a clusterfuck of ethnicities pre WW2 Eastern Europe was. Resettlement after WW2 created much cleaner ethnic maps and arguably the reason we had 80 years of mostly peace (Yugoslavia was last country with mix of ethnicities and wars in 90ies cleaned up it too).
reply