A Boring Dystopia

15661 readers

551 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

givesomefucks@lemmy.world

200

California’s billionaires pour cash into elections as big tech seeks new allies (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Outcry over taxes is just one of the ways the tech sector is ramping up its influence campaign. Several Super Pacs have popped up over the past few months and tech is injecting these committees with tens of millions.

McCuan said this strategy is helpful for the ultra-wealthy because it allows them to stay behind the scenes, while donating limitless money.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Babalugats@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You're looking at it wrong. If your understanding of theocracy has never been seen in history, that only means that your understanding of theocracy is flawed.

Give me an example of true theocracy being used in history. One where the governments ruled by a holy scripture or Bible, and the citizens lived by the same script..

More generally, we need to accept that all systems evolve and change, and account for that.

Yes, and democracy has evolved even moreso into a one sided scales. Other options have not been attempted in a modern westernised world and we already know that they have evolved.

So the solution is to prevent that - either prevent people becoming that rich in the first place, or, as a compromise, regulate political donations, media ownership and the assets of judges and other regulators.

Aren't those things already in place, to a degree, yet proven to be easily circumvented, as those same people create and uphold the laws regulating them. - Not working.

Anarchism is the removal of such regulations, and any public authority that can enforce them. As such, it will only make things worse.

No. Anarchism is not the removal of regulations, it does remove central authority, the coercive and corruptible bodies in control. It is based on the belief that we can govern ourselves as a whole. So rather than then being imposed regulations, they would be agreements that communities as a whole have planned together through natural occurring issues as they come up. So universal agreements would become a law through mutual respect and cooperation with each other.

Before you go any further into this, I want to reiterate my point from the beginning.

Democracy in all of its current forms, in the world that we live in today, is not working. It is badly broken. There is far too much to fix, even by your own admittance. It has grown into the very ugly behemoth that we see today.

I am not saying that any and every other system is better or perfect, I am saying we need change to fix the things that are broken. That will not happen within the democracy that we currently have.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Give me an example of true theocracy being used in history.

The theocracies that actually existed - the caliphate, or imperial Japan - are the true theocracies. In general, whatever exists is real and true; if our expectation does not match up to it, then it is our expectation that is flawed or incomplete.

Aren't those things already in place, to a degree, yet proven to be easily circumvented,

If they were easily circumvented, you would not hear billionaires crying about progressive taxes or labour standards.

as those same people create and uphold the laws regulating them.

And that's the problem with a completely free 'democracy'. The rich will use their greater wealth to buy politicians or spread disinformation. We need to either remoce wealth inequality, or at least prevent it warping democracy. This requires rules, and an authority to enforce them.

Anarchism is not the removal of regulations, it does remove central authority, the coercive and corruptible bodies in control.

If rules are not enforced, they might as well not exist.

Democracy in all of its current forms, in the world that we live in today, is not working. It is badly broken. There is far too much to fix, even by your own admittance. It has grown into the very ugly behemoth that we see today.

I agree with all points except the third. A truly democratic state - one in which all people have equal voice - is the only defence against the rich and powerful abusing their wealth and power.

That will not happen within the democracy that we currently have.

I don't know. I hope peaceful change is possible. But those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.