An 89 year old man was seen pushing an ice-cream cart in Chicago. A good Samaritan pulled over, took a photo, then bought 20 ice-creams and gave him 50 dollars. The good Samaritan posted the photo online and was so impressed by people's reactions, he setup a GoFundMe page https://www.gofundme.com/2am4q7kk to raise 3,000$ for the 89 year old man and his wife, who just lost their only daughter. The campaign achieved 384,290$. Fidencio Sanchez no longer has to sell ice-creams for 1.50$ anymore.

In other news, I hear there is an ice-cream cart now up for sale somewhere in Chicago. Could be a good investment. I hear you can make around 50-60$ a day. Now if you could just make it driverless with a cashless kiosk interface (before Uber does it), have several and you can just sit back and watch the money start pouring in.

okay, that doesn't work, let's hand over the decision-making to private corporations and their executives, whose only accountability is presenting nice quarterly year reports to the board and stockholders"?

They are still legaly responsible, both sides of a corupting event. At least they won't sleep that good.

In your utopic state-run-everything system, there would be individuals literaly standing over law, untouchable, accounting you have already restricted people from earning money, other totalitary stuff can be set free.

You have appointed folk as the last controlling instance- please....

This greatly contradicts your hopes for, not too powerfull individuals affecting society in wide ranges.

In your utopic state-run-everything system, there would be individuals literaly standing over law...

You really didn't bother to read what I *actually* wrote, do you? You just heard "socialism" and bells started ringing :P

Again, I will review your post slowly then.

Those who are advocating for "small government" are basically advocating that the decision-making for important issues should be moved from public entities that are *somehow*, to some extent at least, accountable to the people, to private entities that are accountable only to their internal processes. How does that make any sense exactly?

I have mentioned legal responsibility for anything those people do, you repeat over and over that they are accountable only to share holders numbers. Those people are subjects to even any regulating responsibility that can be held by any law, initiated by law-giving power.

I don't know how many times can I re-iterate that I'm arguing about both socialism *and* a more open democratic system where people are even more active in participating in decision-making of any kind, as much as this is possible at any given circumstances. Personal property is guaranteed, private property is abolished, the means of productions are socially owned, and the decision-making on how to use said means of production is taken through democratic processes and with the explicit goal of making life better for everybody, and utilize technological advancements with the purpose to arrive to the post-scarcity society that is the topic of this thread.

The money earning subjects are already sharing their cut through taxes, you speak of some naturalies sharing, or distributing entire cut solely to its employees, or what? You refuse to realize, that law-giving power is already in the authority of folk, the result is not too positivily over-whelming either, yet you still even want to create a higher authority whose deeds and moves would be backed by decision-making on how to use said means of production is taken through democratic processes.

If people would want more instant and influencing power over the public funds, I see no problem there. But your numbling about free-of-consequences corporations and corupted byrocrats being replaced by a supper-appointed authority free to "work for people's interest" is what I find as too "experimental", a literate statements full of ... untruth, pardon me, backed-up by your nice view of public fund share, public fund income, which don't need that to exist at all.

Again, people have their law-giving institution, and their police and army that is supposed to force their laws.

You repeat over and over about subjects that are rich and immune to that- and if the reason it's not working idealy is corruption, you offered even more ridiculous solution.

Again, I will review your post slowly then.

Those who are advocating for "small government" are basically advocating that the decision-making for important issues should be moved from public entities that are *somehow*, to some extent at least, accountable to the people, to private entities that are accountable only to their internal processes. How does that make any sense exactly?

I have mentioned legal responsibility for anything those people do, you repeat over and over that they are accountable only to share holders numbers. Those people are subjects to even any regulating responsibility that can be held by any law, initiated by law-giving power.

I don't know how many times can I re-iterate that I'm arguing about both socialism *and* a more open democratic system where people are even more active in participating in decision-making of any kind, as much as this is possible at any given circumstances. Personal property is guaranteed, private property is abolished, the means of productions are socially owned, and the decision-making on how to use said means of production is taken through democratic processes and with the explicit goal of making life better for everybody, and utilize technological advancements with the purpose to arrive to the post-scarcity society that is the topic of this thread.

The money earning subjects are already sharing their cut through taxes, you speak of some naturalies sharing, or distributing entire cut solely to its employees, or what? You refuse to realize, that law-giving power is already in the authority of folk, the result is not too positivily over-whelming either, yet you still even want to create a higher authority whose deeds and moves would be backed by decision-making on how to use said means of production is taken through democratic processes.

If people would want more instant and influencing power over the public funds, I see no problem there. But your numbling about free-of-consequences corporations and corupted byrocrats being replaced by a supper-appointed authority free to "work for people's interest" is what I find as too "experimental", a literate statements full of ... untruth, pardon me, backed-up by your nice view of public fund share, public fund income, which don't need that to exist at all.

Again, people have their law-giving institution, and their police and army that is supposed to force their laws.

You repeat over and over about subjects that are rich and immune to that- and if the reason it's not working idealy is corruption, you offered even more ridiculous solution.

The reason isn't "corruption", per se, on behalf of the capitalists. It's not that they're bribing politicians or judges, though that happens too.

The real reason is that the capitalists are the ruling class. They possess most of the world's wealth, resources, means of production, and thus power. Real power. They are in charge of how the economy runs. If they decide it should go left, it goes left. If they decide it should go right, it goes right. They don't have to break the law to do that, they just have to own most of the planet's resources, which they do. Governments exist, and are supposed to regulate them somewhat, but are relatively powerless compared to capitalists, which affect and influence everything in capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#Wealth_distribution_in_2012

0.6% of the population holds 40% of the planet's wealth. 5% of the population controls more than 75% of the world's wealth. When we say wealth we don't just mean paper money, a percentage of which they give to taxes. We mean everything: land, resources, means of production. Even people's time and labour. Everything that makes societies and economies function and shapes the history of the planet and the human kind. Their fate is literally on this minority's hands. This isn't just to buy Ferraris and diamond rings for themselves. They're literally running this joint, dude. You tell me how this is supposed to be "democracy" - which means "power/state of the people".

I have mentioned legal responsibility for anything those people do, you repeat over and over that they are accountable only to share holders numbers. Those people are subjects to even any regulating responsibility that can be held by any law, initiated by law-giving power.

Wait, so you're saying decisions that affect us all should only be made by self-appointed corporate controllers with no collective oversight, but that's OK because there will be collective oversight to control their decisions?

That's some catch, that catch-22. Some catch indeed.

It's not a coincidence that one of the most popular conspiracy theories is "Big Pharma has the cure for cancer, they just don't release it because it's more profitable to treat it than to cure it once and for all".

Now, of course I think that's way too far-fetched, like most conspiracy theories, because I find it really hard to believe all those researchers and generally people that work there and are paid with wages like everyone else keep such thing a secret, but the instinct behind this "theory" is kind of correct : Since companies are here to make profit and are not "charity organizations", why *should* they choose to make *some* money instead of *all* the money, if they could pull it off? People are simply asking "what would be in it for them, if they cured cancer and not treated it for years"? As I said, actually having the cure and keeping it "secret"...nah. Not being in a terrible hurry of throwing more resources and people into a cure since they already make very good money treating it? This...is kind of harder to rationalize, even to myself.

It's not a coincidence that one of the most popular conspiracy theories is "Big Pharma has the cure for cancer, they just don't release it because it's more profitable to treat it than to cure it once and for all".

Now, of course I think that's way too far-fetched, like most conspiracy theories, because I find it really hard to believe all those researchers and generally people that work there and are paid with wages like everyone else keep such thing a secret, but the instinct behind this "theory" is kind of correct : Since companies are here to make profit and are not "charity organizations", why *should* they choose to make *some* money instead of *all* the money, if they could pull it off? People are simply asking "what would be in it for them, if they cured cancer and not treated it for years"? As I said, actually having the cure and keeping it "secret"...nah. Not being in a terrible hurry of throwing more resources and people into a cure since they already make very good money treating it? This...is kind of harder to rationalize, even to myself.

Because markets.

The whole point about making all of the money instead of some of the money is what drives this system.

Let's say we have two major players in this sector: PharmaCorp and AxoPharm. While they might both be making a tidy profit treating cancer, the second one of them actually cures cancer, they will take all the revenue away from their competitor. After all, who's going to pay to be treated when you can pay to be cured?

And that's discounting the possibility of another player with no cancer treatment entering the market.

Even as someone who views modern capitalism with a healthy dose of disdain, it's pretty simple. If you could develop a cure for cancer, you would make an absolute fortune.

It's not a coincidence that one of the most popular conspiracy theories is "Big Pharma has the cure for cancer, they just don't release it because it's more profitable to treat it than to cure it once and for all".

Now, of course I think that's way too far-fetched, like most conspiracy theories, because I find it really hard to believe all those researchers and generally people that work there and are paid with wages like everyone else keep such thing a secret, but the instinct behind this "theory" is kind of correct : Since companies are here to make profit and are not "charity organizations", why *should* they choose to make *some* money instead of *all* the money, if they could pull it off? People are simply asking "what would be in it for them, if they cured cancer and not treated it for years"? As I said, actually having the cure and keeping it "secret"...nah. Not being in a terrible hurry of throwing more resources and people into a cure since they already make very good money treating it? This...is kind of harder to rationalize, even to myself.

Because markets.

The whole point about making all of the money instead of some of the money is what drives this system.

Let's say we have two major players in this sector: PharmaCorp and AxoPharm. While they might both be making a tidy profit treating cancer, the second one of them actually cures cancer, they will take all the revenue away from their competitor. After all, who's going to pay to be treated when you can pay to be cured?

And that's discounting the possibility of another player with no cancer treatment entering the market.

Even as someone who views modern capitalism with a healthy dose of disdain, it's pretty simple. If you could develop a cure for cancer, you would make an absolute fortune.

Right, fair enough. I'm admitting this was a fairly bad and not well thought-out example on my part. :) What those conspiracies have in common is that they claim the cure is "natural", cheap and available to everyone so it would put *everyone* out of business - of course that is fairly laughable.

Disregard this post and let's move on. :P

Wait, so you're saying decisions that affect us all should only be made by self-appointed corporate controllers with no collective oversight, but that's OK because there will be collective oversight to control their decisions?

I am not sure I did comprehend. I cannot react a bit :(

Why is someone reactable and solvable to marketable power of money- it is a comunist who forbids them, yet empowers very them, is trying to rule them!

Leviathan six rules:

-This shared will raise a folk for whom money is an ultimate acquire- (rule number one)

- the marketable money will rule work and share (rule number two)

- The money will gain ultimate power ower any executing power out there (rule number three)

- The money will rule over justice, execution, and will market out any aspect of a living being (rule number four)

- An ultimate apointed authority will fill the ultimate manipulating power of money (rule number five)

- The Leviathan standing over law of supreme manipulation will build ultimate rule and perspective and justice and functional moralty (rule number six)

Welcome to Leviathan.

(You fight against monetary authority by stealing it and redistributing it?) Ha ha haaaa?