We removed ads from OSNews. Donate to our fundraiser to ensure our future!
An internal Meta Platforms document detailing policies on chatbot behavior has permitted the company’s artificial intelligence creations to “engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are “dumber than white people.”
These and other findings emerge from a Reuters review of the Meta document, which discusses the standards that guide its generative AI assistant, Meta AI, and chatbots available on Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, the company’s social-media platforms.
↫ Jeff Horwitz at Reuters
The only way one can describe the examples of allowed behaviour towards minors is absolutely fucked up. If I’d find any person talking to my kids like Facebook and Zuckerberg apparently think it’s okay to talk to children, I’d be calling the police to file a report. I know I shouldn’t be surprised considering it’s Facebook and Zuckerberg, a company with a history of knowingly inciting violence and genocide and a founder who created his website to creep on women, but the lows to which this company and its founder are willing to go are just so unimaginable to even people with just a modicum of morality, I just can’t wrap my brain around it.
The treatment of people of colour isn’t any better. Facebook will happily argue for you that black people are dumber than white people without so much as batting an eye. Again, none of this should be surprising considering it’s Facebook, but add to it the fact that “AI” is the endgame for totalitarians, and it all makes even more sense. These tools are explicitly designed to generate totalitarian propaganda, because they’re trained on totalitarian propaganda, i.e., most of the internet. The examples of “AI” being fascist and racist are legion, and considering the people creating them – Zuckerberg, Altman, Musk, and so on – all have clear fascist and totalitarian tendencies or simply are overtly fascist, we, again, shouldn’t be surprised.
Totalitarians hate artists and intellectuals, because artists and intellectuals are the ones who tend to not fall for their bullshit. That’s why one of the first steps taken by any totalitarian regime is curtailing the arts and sciences, from Pol Pot to Mao, from Trump to Orban. Promoting “AI” as a replacement for exactly these groups in society – “AI” generating “art” to replace artists, “AI” doing “research” to replace actual scientists – fits within the totalitarian playbook like a perfectly fitted glove.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. This apparently also applies to “AI”.
Thom,
I don’t think this is true. What about Soviet art? Nazi art? Maoist Chinese art? Yes, some artists dared to speak against the oppressions, but most stayed silent, and a large group actively promoted these.
I think you might be jumping the gun here. Those examples are from where “people” using them or the trained from caused “questionable” content. And… even though they were vile (pretty bad) it is just a representation of humanity today.
(Garbage in garbage out)
As it is impossible to raise any humans to be perfect (what happened to sons and daughters or famous figures of piety?)… it is also impossible to do a “perfectly clean” AI as well. That is the wrong goal, a “red herring”.
This I agree, but for very different reasons. You can have your kids not engage with Meta or any particular AI. It is a free country after all (until state enforces them, like in schools)
But…
Did you hear about the term “resource curse”?
Most totalitarian dictatorships fail, because the public eventually revolts. Unless… they have resources that can be exploited with the help of foreigners.
Mussolini? Hanged by his people. Ceaușescu? Army refused to fire on civilians and was shot by firing squad later on.
However when you have oil, gold, diamonds, or other valuable resources you can be as bad as a tyrant as you want. As you can have foreigners extract those riches, and hire mercenaries to fire on your people, who would have no hesitation.
Venezuela for example is one recent example. They have one of the richest oil reserves in the world, the leaders are prosperous, but the populace have to eat from the trash.
And how does this tie to AI?
Well… if you cannot import workers, you can always import a certain amount of robots. The robot police will have much less ethical concerns. The automated bureaucracy will not listen to pleas, and empty plots could not be resource gathering areas for things like solar power.
This creates the potential for a perfectly stable, hermetically sealed, and perpetual tyranny, one completely decoupled from the will or well-being of its people.
Yes, AI, in the hards of the wrong people could be very dangerous.
sukru,
I agree that many of the generalizations presented are a stretch. I suggest we view AI more like a canvas, it’s not innately good or bad, but it can be put to both good and bad uses. Blaming AI is sort of like blaming the printing press for content one doesn’t like.
Hello
I was also going to reply about:
“Totalitarians hate artists and intellectuals, because artists and intellectuals are the ones who tend to not fall for their bullshit.”
Artists and Intellectuals, just like every other person, can be bought (with money or ideology) to support totalitarians. And people that are no necessary artists or intellectuals also can detect bullshit 🙂
But I agree with some other things on the article.
Don’t know about the artists, but I think the intellectuals are among the most susceptible. If you have a grand theory that leads to utopia, be it racial purity, perfect equity, the intellectuals are the most likely to “get it” and understand that “some sacrifices” need to be made.
Look at AI deployment for example. Do you think people pushing this stuff are stupid?
drstorm,
It seems like missed that part.
I agree.
Many of those so called “intellectuals” are still pushing for Socialism or even Communism today in various forms, even though all experiments in the past ended in misery (except for one).
If they are not, they have another “pet ideology”. It is very rare to have an intellectual that is open to honest criticism.
sukru,
While I’m not a fan of Communist dictators, I think too often they’re used as justification for unfettered capitalism, which brings just as much misery. Capitalist tyrants don’t give a damn about the people either.
Unchecked capitalism translates to people with the most money running everything.
The happiest countries on earth have socialist policies with a safety net and they can take some comfort in that. Here in the US, despite higher average wealth, the great economic gap means that not everyone is able to share in a high standard of living, which has been falling. Lower and middle classes stress out over medical expenses, rising price of food, unaffordable housing, childcare, and so on. Meanwhile the billionaires keep getting richer while the government has been cutting their taxes to the lowest on record at the expense of everyone else. This is miserable too.
Socialism isn’t the problem, authoritarianism is. Under authoritarian rule, it doesn’t matter if the economy is based on communism, socialism, or capitalism, the masses are going to be exploited and miserable either way. Authoritarianism and not socialism is ruining the world. Protecting democracy and having governments that genuinely represent people needs to be the priority (and no corporations are not people). There is room to debate the merits of various economic models, but if we loose democracy then none of it matters, we’ll be the subjects of regimes that people have no say in.
Alfman,
While it is true that other systems might lead to tyranny, Socialism consistently does so. Except for one single example, every attempt of Socialism eventually led to a authoritarianism, needing a bloody intervention to end.
And… while rich might be getting richer, it has zero direct consequences on me. (Except when is it those like Warren Buffet that gobbles up homes in distressed times as “investment”). I frankly do not care.
However government meddling with my business always leads to bad consequences. The examples you listed like medical, food, childcare, and housing are direct results of terrible government “help”.
The fact that I cannot build on the land I own without spending significant amount of money is troublesome. For example:
https://www.threads.com/@thekindjoe/post/DMYW6mPoTDc/video-a-woman-who-legally-owns-37-acres-of-land-was-shocked-when-the-government-told-h
… or being unable to order drugs by mail from Canada or Mexico. … or seeing bans for existing cheap medicine: https://a4pc.org/news/fda-issues-notice-on-animal-derived-thyroid-products (don’t need that one fortunately, but if I did, my costs would have soared) … or spending almost $20k per pupil in schools that fail students: https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics#:~:text=California's%20federal%20education%20funding%20is,billion%20or%20$1%2C595%20per%20pupil, …
Again, the problem is our government has slowly became tyrannical on many small things. And every now and then they release the leash a little “you no longer need to remove shoes entering the airplanes”, and we feel happy about it.
Hmm…
I might be a bit harsh here.
sukru,
Wow you brought up a lot of topics. I will try to diligently respond to all your points.
Edit: yeah I probably should have cut things out but I’m just going to leave it as is.
While I’d accept that a socialist country can become overtaken by tyrannical rulers, I don’t think you’ve made a strong case that capitalistic countries can’t be. Many socialist countries are not under tyranny today. If you are going to suggest we just need to wait longer for it to happen, well I think it may behoove us to look in the mirror. It might even be our generation that ultimately proves that capitalism doesn’t protect us from tyrannical control.
Some people are doing well, but don’t ignore the sizable populations who aren’t. The significant increases in GDP & productivity in our time get canceled out by the fact that our working classes keep getting a shrinking share and the standard of living is dropping at the whims of corporations. None of this is remotely surprising when you look at the data. but it’s just frustrating to see intelligent people write it off because it doesn’t affect them directly. I don’t want this to come off as blaming you for the problem, but I am a bit disheartened that you wouldn’t care about the problem just because it doesn’t affect you directly.
Government coverage is popular if you can get it, the vast majority of working age people don’t qualify though. And the recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill” is set to purge many more recipients off the rolls after the 2026 elections. The hatred for our private healthcare system is so pervasive that Luigi Mangione, the healthcare CEO killer, has gained a lot of fans. He does not represent the animus towards socialized medicine, but rather the animus towards capitalistic medicine. Look at the kinds of policies that these private healthcare companies have been trying to implement:
https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2024/11/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-will-not-pay-complete-duration-of-anesthesia-for-surgical-procedures
They reversed this particular policy when it hit the news but it still speaks to their mindset.
Incidentally this is the same insurance company that refused to pay for my wife’s ER visit leaving us saddled with $7k hospital bill. We were shocked. Capitalistic medicine does not have patients’ backs!!!
It’s clear she doesn’t understand how flood projections work. Also the video actually talks about three additional houses, not just one. Anyway I agree with you it’s crappy for government to deny people their property rights. However, do a search on youtube about HOAs in the US where private property owners are contractually obligated to give up their property rights to non-governmental entities. I won’t link a specific HOA video because it doesn’t matter, just about all of them make one’s blood boil. The majority of houses on the market in the US now come with HOA strings attached. It’s ruining home ownership. If anyone is wondering how this happens: property builders take kickbacks to place properties under HOA contracts that bind future homeowners. Is this normal in other countries? IMHO the US government should step in and put a stop to private contracts that cut away owner rights on their own property.
I agree, at times we pay magnitudes more for the same medicine that is cheap and affordable over the border where they have socialized healthcare. However I find it ironic that you cited this. An apples to apples comparison of medicine prices is typically provided as a reason for socialized healthcare. Our private healthcare system is the reason we pay more.
According to your link the spending per pupil isn’t drastically different. If we’re disappointed by US education, maybe there is some other cause that’s not revealed by spending statistics.
Hmm, I was also making the case that authoritarianism is on the rise, so in that sense we agree. Although it seems like you are using the word “tyrannical” as a substitute for “over regulated”., which to me doesn’t quite mean the same thing. “The problem with living in North Korea is that it’s over regulated” 🙂
@Alfman,
in my opinion, Democracy becomes toxic as soon as people become lazy and comfortable. In my opinion, people are not equally capable or motivated and so giving all the same power and rights is a flaw in the design.
In capitalism, the same mechanism of becoming too old, too lazy and comfortable typically gives a chance for renovation of powers. Republics were invented for a reason: Democracy sounds nice until you meet common Joe.
@Alfman,
Of course I am sorry hearing about that and I hope your wife is fine.
But at least you had the chance of getting the ER at your own will and decision.
In socialist countries you pay approx. 30% of your salary for an health insurance and then won’t get any appointment at any hospital or specialized doctor — unless you pay out of your own pocket also. Have been there, have done that.
The problem is less about socialist vs. capitalist, but more about saturated markets vs. emerging markets. I learned to prefer the later: yes, I do stand on my own but at least I am in control. Anything else is an illusion because good intentions won’t change human nature.
@Alfman
I’d challenge that: in history, tyrants and despots came to power when the middle class chose “right wing” because “left wing” became too extreme. Trump/Orban are great recent examples.
Andreas Reichel,
To be clear when I use “democracy”, I use the term inclusively of democratic republics, which is what the US is.
Yes thank you we’re well. You are wrong about us having a choice though. In the US it’s the employers who chose both the insurance company and coverage. I absolutely hate the lesson we take away from the experience because now, god forbid something happens, we have a new dilemma. Next time there is a medical emergency do we dial 911 and have ambulances drive to the local hospital with out of network providers, like we did? Or do we skip 911 and drive ourselves to a farther hospital because it is in network? I don’t want to play this medical roulette game, I hate every bit of it.
Here obviously the price gets factored into salary also. Often the coverage doesn’t start strait away. My last full time job withheld insurance for six months before kicking in. They paid half and employees needed to pay the rest for full coverage. Also there were different plans for different tiers of employees at the company. Management had better plans than regular employees.
South park made a relatable parody on US health insurance
“Navigating The American Healthcare System”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAfy26xs6e0
The pendulum swinging back and forth was always normal for politics though. It went from democrats to republicans to democrats at regular intervals. I didn’t like president Bush, but I didn’t fear he would bring the collapse of US democracy. What we are seeing now is very different and today’s republican party is actively using their power to curtail democracy.
Take the extreme gerrymandering that’s taking shape in the US at this very moment. Gerrymandering threatens to permanently cancel out votes for opposing parties, permanently shifting and solidifying the balance of power in congress. Similar to what you describe, right wing extremism is now prompting left wing states to use the same tactic in reverse. This is absolutely awful for democracy regardless of who does it. Yet it’s a case of if Democrats don’t cheat today, the Democratic voter base could become permanently gerrymandered into oblivion tomorrow. Democrats deciding to gerrymander is a kind of “Sofie’s choice” for democracy, both are terrible options. Previously supreme courts helped provide a hedge against gerrymandering but now that the supreme court is overtaken by Republican judges, they’ve struck down challenges to their own party’s gerrymandering.
This is just one of so many attacks on democracy. They are successfully intimidating the press, building up censorship on the internet, squelching free speech at universities, rewriting historical exhibits at museums, taking control of police, detaining people without crimes and depriving them of due process rights. This is all very alarming and it’s so disappointing when I see people dismiss the Fascism as normal politics. I worry this is what ends up overthrowing democracy.
@Alfman,
you are not wrong with your assessment and I share your sentiment.
However, it falls short of an analysis., how we ended up here? How come the Democratic parties all over the developed/saturated world suddenly perform so poorly while baboons like Trump faring well? I mean, Trump is so obviously an idiot, that it should have been easy to outperform him, right? So what went wrong? And how come that he still enjoys quite a strong support?
I don’t really think blaming Trump here helps. Instead I wonder if the other side has worried about the right things in the past?
To me at least the answer is clear: some people have tried too hard, too loud to shove down too extreme positions into the throat of the middle class. Like 1933 middle class and capital got scared and chose “the lesser evil” (for them).
Now the shit hit the fan, almost literally. But how come there is just nobody in the democrat party able to exploit this bad situation and rise like a shooting star? Should be easy to be the one eyed among the blind, but pardon my ignorance: I don’t see anyone (please help me out and drop a name of hope here).
So as sad as it is: the baboon won. Because everything else appeared even worse.
Alfman,
I think I miscommunicated.
I’m not saying “if (free market capitalist) then (no tyranny)”. I would expect there is no relation / correlation between them. Of course some free countries can fall into anti-democratic traps via populism.
What I said was:
if (Socialism) then (Tyranny)
This is not a “usually” relationship. It is a built in requirement.
Why?
Free markets build on the very fundamental right of freedom of association and freedom of trade.
That means freedom of disassociation as well. I can choose to live a hermit life in the mountains and stay away from civilization.
Socialism, on the other hand, requires coercion, and would put me in a labor camp.
Why?
You cannot have a Socialist country where you allow productive people choose their occupation, or where they will stay.
There is no example where a Socialist country allows people to “exit” freely. They don’t even allow you to move inside the country either. You need permission to leave your post.
If you think about it, it becomes apparent why this is a hard requirement.
Anyway…
Andreas Reichel,
Ha ha… when I point this out, my friends (falsely) think I’m a Trump supporter. It is very difficult to discuss second order effects when people just want to look at the surface of the things.
Alfman,
Yes, it would be nice to discuss these. However we probably need an ability to split this into multiple threads, it would be very difficult to follow them at the same time.
sukru,
But that’s objectively not true, even in the context of following paragraphs. Plenty of socialized countries today are not tyrannical. It could make more sense to say “Socialism + Time = Tyranny” Even so, I don’t think that’s any truer than “Capitalism + Time = Tyranny”. It might boil down to “Time = Tyranny”, meaning Tyranny eventually happens.
I’ve read capitalism’s promotional literature too, but in practice things are very different than the theory. Proponents are always ignore self reinforcing power imbalances and perpetual exploitation. Corporate capitalists might say of people who can’t provide for themselves as undeserving, but the secret they don’t want to admit even amongst themselves is that they didn’t actually earn their wealth. Under late stage capitalism, corporations are effectively taxing the working class to the benefit of the owners, taking money out of the pockets of those who do the work and shifting it into the pockets of those who run the corporations.
Bill Gates wouldn’t be a billionaire if he was worth what he worked. He’s clearly a billionaire because he’s siphoned money from the work of others. And it’s the same gimmick for nearly all of them. Capitalism’s dark secret is that nearly all the money in the top echelons of capitalist society is stolen from those below. And then they have the audacity to cut social programs in favor of even more tax subsidies for themselves. This is all highly unethical, but their greatest trick is convincing people that socialism is the problem.
Alfman,,
I think you would be including the “Social Democratic” countries in the list, which the Socialists are aiming us to do.
Socialism is state ownership of means of production.
Since that always failed, they wanted to “soften the blow” by expanding their definition to be more nebulous.
That is why they always edit the Wikipedia page to change the definition. And they want to basically take praise for successful free market economies and want to avoid responsibility for all their failures. That is disingenuous.
Here is how it looked in 2003. Even back then they wanted to shift the definition:
With the original definition of Socialism the statement:
Is true. No question about it.
That is why they always shift the definition.
I did not say I liked it. The discussion was about Socialism, which is always bad.
Corporate capitalism, or maybe “crony capitalism” as we have today here in the USA, the results are not good either. I don’t think people are happy with what we have. And it is clear.
However we disagree on what direction we want to go.
I’d say we should go somewhat in the direction of Scandinavian countries…
Which are much better in the Free Market Capitalism (or the better term “Economic Freedom”) index:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_economic_freedom
* Much less regulation
* State mandated “social security” with privatized investment options (not our terrible 0% over inflation “returns” of the trust fund)
* Commitment to free trade
But I would like to keep our better worker protections (not “work” protections, the worker protections as in OHSA and stuff), and entrepreneurial spirit.
The taxes? I think that is the main difference, and the main reason people are objecting here (including myself) the returns are terrible. They collect tax on gas, but the roads are crumbling. They collect tax on homes + special bonds but our schools are third world quality. They add programs for nutrition and healthcare but people are extremely unhealthy. That is why people dislike the system.
And yes, it is crony capitalism.
A gentleman like OpenAI CEO can advocate for “sensible regulation on AI”. The problem? He was all in “no restrictions, wild west style expansion” until actual competition arrived. So he decided to do a rung pull behind to make sure no one can climb the ladder after them.
This pattern happens so many times. A real free market economy would put these people in jail for attempting to manipulate the markets.
sukru,
Yes, there’s degrees of everything. What I’ve been calling for is a balance to maximize collective human happiness. Pure capitalism doesn’t get us there and neither does pure socialism, what I call for has always been more balanced and sublte. Yet so many people are programmed to shun socialism as the devil even though capitalism is a devil too.
We fundamentally disagree then. I know socialized countries can be non-democratic but I think you are way too focused on soviet socialism with crushing levels of authoritarian control, I acknowledge that’s a problem. However that’s not what modern socialists want, it’s more about achieving a better balance that doesn’t give corporations so much power.
Stop blaming socialism!!! That’s been a huge part of the reason we’ve been unable to balance out the excesses of capitalism. This obsession with letting corporations do whatever they want because of free markets is exactly why the US has such exploitative corporations.
Ok that’s good, but corporations are constantly fighting that and the bias against socialism has been a huge obstacle to genuinely achieving a better balance.
“Coal miners speak out as Trump strips away health protections”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWUkwu1CEI8
One might be forgiven for thinking this can only happen in socialist USSR, but no they’re the conditions of workers in capitalist USA. Instances of black lung in miners is pervasive, the data goes back forever, but rather than improving protections, it’s actually getting worse. The ongoing goal has been to constantly lobby against worker protections to protect corporations instead. We give so much to corporations, and in return they use their power to exploit more and more for their own gain. This is what’s wrong with capitalism.
Studies have shown socialist leaning countries are happier than the US and the people are better protected against the abuses of corporate power. We need to stop shunning that. To genuinely improve the human condition here at home, we need to take the best parts from around the world and stop this regressive “oh no that’s socialist” bias. I readily concede the capitalists are in control and they are successfully blocking socialist policies from working here, but that’s why things keep getting worse for new generations. I predict things will continue to get worse, not because there are no solutions, but because the solutions go against corporate interests.
Alfman,
I think we have a disagreement on what Socialism is. And that makes it very difficult to discuss the issues around it.
Since it is counter-productive, we might better stop here.
I agree, we should not let corporations do whatever they want.
Trump is a symptom, not a cause. We can dig deeper, but that goes into politics, and I would like to avoid that.
People are more “religious” with their “favorite politician” (or the anti of it) than many other categories, maybe even including futbol (but that would be a close one)
I agree. But neither side is helping.
When we say “let’s take something from Sweden” both left and right will call that “Socialism”.
Even though I might be asking “their state pensions did not work and they heavily privatized the investments. And now it is in good hands. People there can choose better investments for their retirement. We should do the same to Social Security to keep it solvent” (and the pitchforks will come quickly)
Or “let’s have free higher education in State colleges, but… have strict entrance exams based on merit like Europe”… nobody will like it (the left will disagree on exams, the right on free tuition).
That is why we should be ready to hit the bottom, unfortunately. People speak past each other, and “neutral” grounds to discuss are all gone. Everyone wants ideological purity and even the smallest disagreement is harshly punished.
sukru,
Well, which is more helpful is naturally relative to the context we find ourselves in. In the USSR, a reasonable personal could rationalize “we need more capitalist policies”. In the USA, a reasonable person could rationalize “we need more socialist policies”. It’s about balance, and the arrow pointing to what we need more of changes based on where we are currently at. In the context of of a capitalistic society where corporations get everything and the lower & middle classes are loosing wealth, safety nets, representation, etc, the needle actually will point to more socialism to become balanced.
At this point, if you’re still using Meta products for anything, you’re complicit.
Andreas Reichel,
(Responding here because of poor wordpress handling of deep threads)
It’s populism, using the very same populist strategies that Hitler himself used. I don’t blame Trump for populism, but blame populism for Trump. Unfortunately both times Trump won, the democrats put up weak candidates. And I hope this isn’t a reflection on me personally, but I am convinced Hilary lost because of how misogynistic US voters are. I saw so many people come out and explicitly say they could never vote for a female president. Hillary absolutely trounced Trump at the debates. She was clearly more intelligent, more prepared, more experienced. The election was so close, if Hilary were a man she would have won. Of course it’s easier to call it in hindsight. This is probably more towards your point though: progressive causes have consistently performed awfully at US polls and its opening up the path to electing a Tyrant.
@Alfman,
thank you for going to the length of opening a new response, I appreciate.
I fully agree with all what you say but unfortunately in a democrazy you need majorities and you can not exchange your voters easily. (As a vendor I am pretty much in the same situation with my customers btw.)
Of course I would hope for a world, where just everyone works hard for a sustainable better future for our grand grand grand children. I love `StarTrek Next Generation` (the good old one) for exactly this narrative.
But unfortunately we are not there yet and ignoring the facts and reality on ground does not win elections. Calling out the majority of deplorable also does not help.
If you really want to improve the situation, then you need to stay in power. You can’t help when you are weak.
I actually do believe that Thiel, Zuckerberg, Besos, Altmann and even Musk (when he is sober) understand that and play by this book. While I do not align with many of there ideas I do not see any of them as evil. Instead they have understood much better than the extreme left that in a democrazy you need to be in power to keep the deplorable at bay.
Please ask yourself: what exactly is the difference between democrazy and populism. My answer was: its about education and also hope. Because educated, hopeful people will stand a better chance to resist the temptation of short term selfish particular interest.
Now, please do look at the state of the western world: education is declining, hope has faded and we have turned into oversaturated lazy and old who argue about genders instead of studying math.
Andreas Reichel,
I think the reason things are so messed up in politics is because lying is advantageous. Trump’s a prime example. More than anything else lying is Trump’s modus operandi in business and now in politics. The unwillingness of honest candidates to cross that line puts them at a disadvantage because voters would rather hear lies than the truth.
You are referring to Hillary. This was a huge blunder, opening herself up to be misquoted. But at least between us we should be able to agree that in context this isn’t what she was actually saying.
I think the unpopularity of both Hilary and Trump broke records. Polls at the time revealed that 2/3rds of voters disliked both. This should have been a good opportunity for an independent party except that US elections are stuck with the notorious electoral college and lack rank voting, which means independent voters get no representation in elections unless they vote for the duopoly candidates. 🙁
I agree that’s the problem democrats face. Gerrymandering is objectively cheating, but the refusal to cheat will loose seats in congress. As much as I want all voters to be fairly represented, I have to acknowledge the mathematical fact that if honest people refuse to gerrymander and cheaters embrace it, it’s the cheaters who will gain power even though it’s not fair.
I’ve heard some people say that we don’t deserve democracy because people are too stupid to make good choices. It would be better to have an all powerful monarchy. But I really resent the idea of being ruled over by a non-democratic government. Even with the faults, democracy and freedom stills ranks highly for me. Authoritarianism is antithetical to the values I believe in.
Well said, kudos.
Hold on, the last one though: Monarchy is out of question but I wonder if “contributing to the defense of the attica” was a bad requirement after all.
Disclaimer: I rarely comment on the site, but I do read comments from time to time. So, I’m fully aware I’m about to espouse some unpopular views. But, I think they need to be said…
Thom,
I don’t mean this to be harsh or sound dismissive to your concerns, but your views sound unhinged.
I agree with others in that AI *can* be used by totalitarians. So, can nearly anything else. Most totalitarians have never had access to AI and yet still managed to control the populace for a while.
Alfman,
I agree unfettered capitalism can be a problem for society. But socialism and communism *always* lead to problems for society. If they haven’t fallen *yet*, I say it’s only because of the US propping them up with how much money we’ve sent those foreign socialist nations. If you have such an external stimulus, of course you can keep it going. But, once that money runs out, then a fall is inevitable. It’s a shell game IMO.
But, I believe the root problem was addressed by John Adams when he said:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”
If a society is immoral, it will always, *eventually*, collapse. If we cannot trust one another & are dishonest with one another, then we cannot have & keep a just and cohesive society. That’s true of capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.
It’s just that socialism and communism are built off the idea of taking other people’s money and resources by force, whereas capitalism is about *cooperation*. The fact that some abuse it, isn’t a failure of capitalism itself, but more of a society becoming increasingly immoral.
cacheline,
I acknowledge democracies can fail, but nobody’s made the case that it falls because of capitalism or socialism. It fails because authoritarianism takes root. Capitalism doesn’t shield anybody from tyrants.
Indeed. Tyrants who undermine democracy are the real enemy regardless of capitalism or socialism.
It takes a true asshole to believe personal and corporate wealth takes priority over others who are starving, bleeding, without shelter etc. I will concede there are people who think this way, but you have to concede they are assholes and morality isn’t really their thing.
@Alfman,
as usual I am willing to play the advocatus diaboli and pick up your compliment: The first thing you have to learn as a rescue swimmer is to stay alive and stay strong. If don’t put yourself first, two people will drown instead of one.
So in my book indeed its me, my families, my communities, my country, In that order.
I have traveled the world, lived in more than 6 countries for more of 3 years each. And I found this working best across cultures, religions, climates and political orientations — even genders (that’s for you Thom, with compliments).
Andreas Reichel,
I accept your point. But I think it would be more fitting against someone calling for full out communism. For most modern countries with socialist policies it’s about establishing basic human services, health, and safety nets. If you want nice properties, things, etc you still have to work for them. I think it’s a good balance that maximizes collective human happiness. Having government ballooning the national debt by giving more handouts to the multi billionaires while others live in squalor nearby seems like a bastardization of adam smith’s vision. He wouldn’t approve of this capitalism.
Yes and this makes sense even in a capitalistic society because the whole of the population can work more efficient and competitive when such simple provisions are in place.
What it needs though is a continuous balancing and re-alignment with the goal to keep welfare as efficient as possible, And at this point Democracies unfortunately tend to fail because they depend on short term populist schemes instead of long term sustainability.
Monarchies planted Oak forests, which only their grand grand grand children would ever benefit from. Show me just one Democracy that has ever done anything beyond as scope of 4/5 years (election term).
Andreas Reichel,
I fully agree with this. However it wasn’t for the lack of trying. ACA was delivered with problems because that was the only way to pass it at all. One of your posts alluded to there being little a party can do when the party’s grasp on power has become so marginal. This is why congress is the least productive it’s ever been.
“118th Congress on track to become one of the least productive in US history”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/118th-congress-track-become-productive-us-history/story?id=106254012
McConnell, the republican leader, made it his job to stonewall absolutely everything democrats do. It impacts legislation, but perhaps the most consequential result of all this was denying democrats a position on the supreme court. This has lead to all manors of executive orders being allowed to stick in Trump’s 2nd term over constitutional objections.
Congressionally passed laws do tend to stay on the books for much longer. But it’s true that executive orders flip flop with every president.
@Cachline
I am with you, but want to add one clarification: laziness is as immoral as greed and thus corrupts any attempt of socialism and communism. Democratic socialism runs on populist schemes which will turn people into welfare beneficiaries who finally will have voting power over those few who contribute to the show. Corruption and decline is inevitable.
Don’t forget that democracy was invented not as a “everyone has a vote” system, but was restricted to men contributing to the defense of the attica. What we see today is an abomination.
An old woman in Kenya once told me: some people must not have more than they need for bare survival. Otherwise they will cause only trouble. True wisdom and very eye opening.
Andreas Reichel,
One common problem is assuming past Socialism attempts were not in fact “Democratic”. I could even go one step further and say “Democratic Socialism” in an oxymoron.
Yes…
Even the very early attempt, “Soviet Socialism” was “Democratic”. They all start out that way (except few cases), and they all lead to totalitarianism in a few short years.
And it is not about “laziness” or even “greed” either. It is about freedom and ability to disagree.
If a “central planning committee” (which always happens) requires a town to plant tomatoes as part of a “5 year plan”, but the farmers living there wants potatoes… how do you resolves this in a “Democratic” way?
Or… the town council is asking for a specific plot to be used for grazing while the “owner” wants something else. How do you resolve disagreements with “Democratic” plan without coercion, or giving up on that plan?
You cannot…
You have to give up either Democracy or Socialism. They cannot coexist together.
@Sukru,
you have a point although you focus too much on the more dictatorial experiments like East German GDR while I was more talking about the more modern “Social capitalist” style of the modern German republic.
GDR, though started hopeful and with the best intent after the horrors of WW2 failed fast simply because it bled out and had to cage its people for bare survival.
Modern Germany was quite successful for a time and is still very free and democratic. Politically one of the freest countries you can live in at the expense of economical caging. But trust me the decay is accelerating exactly because the beneficiaries of the welfare state now vote over the few contributors — preventing any reform or realignment to realities.
Similar things can be said about France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and even the UK. Old, saturated lazy societies w/o hope.
Andreas Reichel,
I think you mean “Social Democracy”, which is an entirely different concept with similar naming.
That does not have (to the most part) state or collective ownership of means of production, which is the main idea of Socialism and Communism, respectively.
That is an entirely different discussion, and should not be confused with “so called Democratic” Socialism.
This is a tough one because I have seen “central planers” failing all over the world.
However, I still believe that a (world) government will need to take up some central responsibilities since resources and pollution and war are global problems.
Personal freedom after all ends where it inflicts harm on others.
I have no good answer how to balance it well, unfortunately.
Andreas Reichel,
A “central world government” is the worst thing that can happen to humanity. Fortunately it is also the most difficult, practically impossible project to achieve.
You mentioned Star Trek, but the better analogy here would be the Star Wars and their completely ineffective Galactic Republic and their Senate.
A bureaucrat in Shanghai deciding how many children you can have and which crops you can plant, and what food you can consume… is this something you really desire?
Andreas Reichel,
Btw, don’t get me wrong, I agree with most of the things you said except the points discussed above.
@Sukru,
all good, I am here because I enjoy the discourse and the exchange of ideas, not to fish for compliments. I’d rather read a well crafted disagreement than another appeasement press article.
I have been a subject to central planing in my younger years and I am certainly no big fan of it and see the danger. However, I also see certain problems of global scale. Plastic waste is one of it, I mentioned other examples.
How do you think can this be effectively taken on without a central authority?
I have lived as well in East GDR as well as in the modern Democratic Germany and I can assure you: its just different shades of grey, not entirely different things. Have been in Germany just recently, and most people seem to consent that we drift into GDR like circumstances: the welfare state is bankrupt but tries to stay in control by tightening the screws, patching rule on regulation. Exactly like the GDR went down: they started with good intention but ran out of money due to inefficiency fast and then went more and more dictatorial to forcefully convince people of their ideas. Sounds exactly like what SPD/Gruene and even the CDU is doing right now.
Andreas Reichel,
Thanks, as long as it is civil, discourse helps improve ourselves.
This is a discussion on “what ought to be” vs. “what is actually possible”
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/visualized-ocean-plastic-waste-pollution-by-country/
Top waste polluters are Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, and Indonesia. None of the Western democracies are even in the top-10. In fact the rest of the world combined produce less plastic waste than these ones.
And none of these countries would “bend the knee” to any international mandate, except (a) they are in charge of it, or (b) they have something massive in return.
What can you do:
1) Hope for an utopia where a “world government” with teeth can enforce rules against this (and hope it won’t become a bureaucratic tyranny)
2) Improve our technology so that we no longer need to use as many plastics as before.
I’ll tell a story that was surprising to me as well. The “big bad industrialist” Rockefeller has saved whales.
Before the proliferation of petroleum oil, people used baleen oil (whale fat) for heat and lighting. It meant lots of whale hunting and popular stories back in the day like Moby Dick. Today almost no one hunts whales, and their population is once again thriving. (Except Japanese, who nobody seems to be able to stop).
Similar things can be said for air pollution, food scarcity, many crippling diseases, travel, and so on.
Most of the “solutions” come from not society but the technological advance.
(Most, not always. For example fixing the ozone hole was a combination of societal will and technological advance).
So, want to fix plastic pollution? Find a better alternative so that people no longer use plastics.
(Or undo social change where we went from paper bags to plastic ones, and glass bottles to single use. Like margarine they were well intentioned, but extremely harmful “progress”)
I’m sorry to hear this. Seeing the state of Germany today is disheartening. I don’t want to go into politics (though I like discussing policy). So I will not point fingers.
However as you said “Social Democracy” can in some cases slide into “Democratic Socialism”, which is a bad thing. That is another discussion, and this is not a set path with only one destination.
Unfortunately this happens too often. Here we have issues with Social Security (“last stop pension insurance”) and similar things happened. When in good weather they misused the funds to buy votes… and when stressful times came back, they did not undo those “unfunded liabilities”
(For example promised to pay for certain medication where there was no money allocated for it. How did they do it? Stole it from the larger pool)
Wow, there’s a lot of “whataboutism” in these comments, making excuses for totalitarianism by complaining about socialism. And it’s all missing the point.
Whatever you think of socialism, the important part *now* is that people like Orban, Trump, Musk and Thiel, who clearly aren’t socialist even by the incredibly broad definition the right wing uses of “anything the government might do to help people who aren’t already wealthy,” are pushing us toward (or actually carrying out) authoritarianism anyway.