The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=969		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
At least in regards to to the death of the system?
Author:  Micheal [ Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'll prrobably learn something worthwhile when I get home and look him up. Not going to do it on my iPhone. No idea Elmarnieh, care to summarize the concept rather than tease?

Happy Thanksgiving to you, hugs to Foamy, Oonagh and Sean
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
That was my last post right when I left work. Right now I'm too sleepy to post. He shouldn't be hard to look up what with the internets.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Post shower...
Quick version: He predicted the fall of capitalism would be marked by a rise of corporatism that will cause the election of socialists to construct a welfare state until the primary mechanism within capitalism for innovation is halted.
Author:  Micheal [ Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dang, not sure if we're to the last phrase yet, but the rest of it sounds way too familiar.
Author:  Rynar [ Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Post shower...
Quick version: He predicted the fall of capitalism would be marked by a rise of corporatism that will cause the election of socialists to construct a welfare state until the primary mechanism within capitalism for innovation is halted.


The harsh irony being that the rise of corporatism has little to nothing to do with laissez faire markets.
Author:  Hannibal [ Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Post shower...
Quick version: He predicted the fall of capitalism would be marked by a rise of corporatism that will cause the election of socialists to construct a welfare state until the primary mechanism within capitalism for innovation is halted.


So whats after innovation halting? Do I get a save point before I fight the evil Che/Stalin/Mao-beast? Is another Toad in the castle or finally the Princess? Why did they call the Princess "Peach"? Did you know Castor Troy could eat a peach for hours?
Author:  Rynar [ Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rand, Marx, Hayek and many other have written about this extensivly. What happens next is the fall of a civilization. Not nessecarilly globally, but atleast domestically. Others will learn by watching our mistakes, and walking a different path.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Rynar wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Post shower...
Quick version: He predicted the fall of capitalism would be marked by a rise of corporatism that will cause the election of socialists to construct a welfare state until the primary mechanism within capitalism for innovation is halted.


The harsh irony being that the rise of corporatism has little to nothing to do with laissez faire markets.


Its the social reaction ans as I've seen its the realistic result from success - jealousy.
Author:  Rynar [ Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
The uneducated social reaction, given that American corporatism itself is a result of forced wealth dedistribution.
Author:  Xequecal [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
A free country where everyone can vote will always result in socialism. Bill Gates might have $100 billion, but he still only has one vote. Eventually people figure out that they can vote themselves his money. The only way to maintain economic conservatism is to have a highly repressive authoritarian government that enforces it at the point of a gun. This is how China can maintain a conservative economic system. It's also why libertarianism can never work.
Author:  DFK! [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
Xequecal wrote:
A free country where everyone can vote will always result in socialism. Bill Gates might have $100 billion, but he still only has one vote. Eventually people figure out that they can vote themselves his money. The only way to maintain economic conservatism is to have a highly repressive authoritarian government that enforces it at the point of a gun. This is how China can maintain a conservative economic system. It's also why libertarianism can never work.



Or, you know, to not allow everybody to vote. Like our founders didn't.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Make me dictator - you'd get libertarianism - or else!

I actually think the solution is somewhere near having a Praetorian guard. When the leaders get too far out of bounds they just kill them.
Author:  Rafael [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
The paradox is you cannot force people to choose freedom.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
DFK! wrote:


Or, you know, to not allow everybody to vote. Like our founders didn't.


And who decides that? And why should they?

Isn't an Electoral Elite just a bigger Government?

And how is it different from the from of Liberalism many main party lawmakers practice? You know the "We know better than you so we have to protect you from yourself" concept.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
DFK! wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
A free country where everyone can vote will always result in socialism. Bill Gates might have $100 billion, but he still only has one vote. Eventually people figure out that they can vote themselves his money. The only way to maintain economic conservatism is to have a highly repressive authoritarian government that enforces it at the point of a gun. This is how China can maintain a conservative economic system. It's also why libertarianism can never work.


Or, you know, to not allow everybody to vote. Like our founders didn't.


You mean like, most black people?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that a goodly portion of the founders represented states that really had no interest in equal rights for all or in allowing people to vote based on any sort of actual merit.
Author:  darksiege [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
I like the idea that if you do not serve in the military.. you get no say in the vote.

Or... every name registered with a drivers license is put in a pot. Come 'election day' a name is drawn at random from the populace... that person now serves a term in the government.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
I know some ex-military people (and scores of licensed drivers) I wouldn't trust to take my garbage to the dumpster, let alone vote effectively

Yes the electorate has been asleep at the wheel for the past several years. I believe the answer isn't to change the electorate, but to limit what any one term of government can do and how long people can have their hands in the government.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Repressive regimes that don't allow the entire population to vote do not last. What happens is civil rights movements and popular uprisings until the system is changed. Then, once everyone can vote, socialism sets in. This fails, there are economic hard times, then it swings the other way. All you can do is influence the duration and depth of the swing.
Author:  Hannibal [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd say it's Starship Troopers time. Something earned has value.
Author:  darksiege [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Hannibal wrote:
I'd say it's Starship Troopers time. Something earned has value.

Points to the first part of my post a few places above... Like that? 8-)
Author:  DFK! [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
Rorinthas wrote:
DFK! wrote:


Or, you know, to not allow everybody to vote. Like our founders didn't.


And who decides that? And why should they?


The representatives of the people set up the government. In the law that sets up the government, you decide who votes and who doesn't. You create a method of change.

Rori wrote:
Isn't an Electoral Elite just a bigger Government?


Not at all. Having the people exerting influence actually either have something at stake or know what's going on does not simply create a "bigger government" unless total democracy also can be said to simply create a "bigger government."

Rori wrote:
And how is it different from the from of Liberalism many main party lawmakers practice? You know the "We know better than you so we have to protect you from yourself" concept.


Because those voting aren't voting to look out for others. They're looking out for themselves.

Diamondeye wrote:
You mean like, most black people?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that a goodly portion of the founders represented states that really had no interest in equal rights for all or in allowing people to vote based on any sort of actual merit.


Strawman?


The merits (or downfalls) of a limited voting group should not be confused with the merits (or downfalls) of legalized slavery. The two issues are entirely separate.

The people who wrote the Constitution, such as Madison, as an example, were against direct or total democracies because they believed it led to tyranny, not because of beliefs on slavery. Furthermore, backlash from ethno/gender/racial voting discrimination is what got us to the point where people believe in a right to vote, imo. A right that doesn't exist.

Voting should be limited, but it should be limited in a way that the obstacle to voting can be overcome by any average person, such as owning property or acquiring a basic education.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Have we proven Schumpeter correct?
DFK! wrote:
Strawman?


I don't believe pointing out something you seem to have overlooked is a strawman.

Quote:
The merits (or downfalls) of a limited voting group should not be confused with the merits (or downfalls) of legalized slavery. The two issues are entirely separate.


I don't see that they are, at least insofar as the reasons for the voting structure in 1787 is concerned.. Legalized slavery limits the voting group, but not in any way related to merit, and presumably you favor limited voting based on some sort of meritocratic basis?

Quote:
The people who wrote the Constitution, such as Madison, as an example, were against direct or total democracies because they believed it led to tyranny, not because of beliefs on slavery. Furthermore, backlash from ethno/gender/racial voting discrimination is what got us to the point where people believe in a right to vote, imo. A right that doesn't exist.


The people who wrote the Constitution were not all in favor of or against any one idea about how things ought to be, hence the number of crises and compromises during the process. Moreover, since the Constitution had to be agreed to by a lot more delegates than just those who had a major hand in actually penning it, we cannot limit consideration to their views.

Quote:
Voting should be limited, but it should be limited in a way that the obstacle to voting can be overcome by any average person, such as owning property or acquiring a basic education.


I have no objection to this idea, but that is not what the founders were limiting voting for. They were limiting voting in order to preserve the economic status quo, especially hat in the South. This was an overarching need because the country had to be kept together. If it fragmented, the states would be relatively easily gobbled up by the British or someone else.

In other words, while limited voting on some meritocratic basis has good arguments in its favor, the fact that the Founders didn't allow everyone to vote is not one of them. Aside from the fact that merit was at best a secondary motive for them, they provided a method to amend the Constitution for a reason. There is nothing inherently superior about the Constitution as originally written compared to its current state. Each change should be evalutated on its merits; the mere fact that it is a change is neither positive nor negative.
Author:  Aizle [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
darksiege wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
I'd say it's Starship Troopers time. Something earned has value.

Points to the first part of my post a few places above... Like that? 8-)


For all that Heinlein spins a good yarn, I'd submit that being educated goes much further towards providing good governance than joining the armed services.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Aizle wrote:
darksiege wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
I'd say it's Starship Troopers time. Something earned has value.

Points to the first part of my post a few places above... Like that? 8-)


For all that Heinlein spins a good yarn, I'd submit that being educated goes much further towards providing good governance than joining the armed services.

I'm not sure.

Education, for instance, does little to instill real, meaningful discipline. It also doesn't require much in the way of sacrifice or personal risk. It's no wonder, then, that the educated understand so little of how the real world works when compared to even your average grunt.

And I say this as somebody who is probably pretty objective, being neither invested in higher Academia nor having any military service.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/