Deaf or hard of hearing? Using euphemism here make the story hard to understand.

Dude, when you buy their stock, you force THEM to give YOU money via dividends. And you didn’t give them nothing, you just bought the stock from another trader.

Even better, if you and a band of other manages to buy 50.001% of the total stock, you are now majority shareholders and can reform Fox as the workers coop it always should have been.

Hey, it’s so flexible!

That cow is probably worth more than you or me

People want revenge, people want honor, people want justice, people want food. War is merely the method of obtaining any one of those, all you need is a leader to convince the people it is the best way to go about it, and that is extremely easy. It was true two thousand years ago, and is still true today. People wanted the Afghan Invasion.

Swiss democracy in no way « solves » this problem.

« We can’t compare two different systems with different context » that both had the same result

Maybe because the point was that there was a third exterior factor « skewing » the results, like that people often want to go to war.

OP’s Thesis: People would not want to vote themselves into a war.

Facts: people did 2000+years ago, they would now, and will always be willing to do it.

OP is acting like Switzerland is Neutral because of their political system, when in fact it has no bearing on it, and the relevant analysis is through a geopolitical lens.

Which means it didn’t « solve » war.

The other countries are not starting wars now either

>Swiss democracy solves the war problem. Do you think people would vote for war if asked in a referendum?

Yes. Yes they would, if the casus belli was good enough or the target abhorrent enough, in a heartbeat.

In ancient Athens, where direct democracy was in place, all wars were declared by a vote of the citizens. They often declared disadvantageous wars because people aren’t strategists and feel strongly in the moment.

« Macedon demanded a higher tribute » « How offensive/disgusting! War it is! »

« Afghanistan did 9/11! » « We must avenge ourselves! »

« Poland hold our ancestral land » « How horrible! We must Free our Folks! »

I'm sorry, but you were the reductionist there. Objecting to the proposal of a system seeking to minimize corruption by stating it would be too ressource expensive, when in fact, in no way is the ressource cost a limiting or major factor here.

It is entirely possible for a society to exist without corruption without any records existing. It may be unrealistic in today's society, it does not mean it is impossible. As I said, ressource management is merely an aspect of the solution, better record-keeping is a plus, but they can always be falsified, numbers fudged, accounting mistakes made.

As for the example of corruption not existing despite any records keeping, you just have to think about a small hunter-gatherer community. What would corruption looks like in such a society? Assuming the existence of a patriarchal group with "traditionnal" hierarchy, an example of corruption would be a young hunter killing a prey, eating parts of the liver before bringing it back. This is corruption because the tribe leader would be the one to have first pick, and distribution rights over prized meat & offal. The youngin just bypassed that and declared that his arrow damaged the liver, hence why there is a part missing.

Corruption is a moral, conceptual problem, not a physical, material problem. It exists because there exist a predetermined code of conduct, rules to follow and social order, and that some people decide not to abide by it.
It is entirely a social problem, with ways to attempt to manage it that can manifest in the physical world, with records-keeping, but is not dependent on the existence of such records keeping, but purely on the moral fiber of the population.

If taking money from the coffers while you are in charge is the expected behavior in a society, can you really say you are being corrupt by doing it?

You can't just reduce corruption & fighting it to a material problem, when it is a much bigger problem of how human being acts in society & how this rewards him.

>Complains about people not understanding the paradox of tolerance while not understanding it themselves

Reddit moment

The paradox only refers to violence specifically. What is intolerance? Intolerance is the refusal to engage in dialogue to influence society and instead turn to violence, agression on others & terrorism.

A tolerant society indeed cannot tolerate such acts, because they indeed threaten its very existence. As such, they must be punished appropriately under the law.

There is no extension of this principle to ideas, because doing so results directly in the breach of the right to freedom of speech, expression, thoughts, etc.

When you punch a Nazi, you are being the intolerable intolerant, because you are abandoning dialogue and resorting to violence. When that Nazi is gonna punch a Jew, he will be the intolerable intolerant, and appropriately punished for assault.

The ACLU in the 1940s or 50s defended the KKK and nazis going into a Jewish neighborhood holding a rally saying how they should kill all Jews and fucking won the case. Because such is Freedom of Speech. At the rally, there was no violence nor imminent threat of harm to any individual. They went there, spoke, and left.

And we protect that because we want to protect communist going at the door of Wall Street and protesting against the existence of the rich and the whole system.

You cannot be a liberal society when you abandon liberal principles. You are how you act, the end does not justify the means, and unjust/evil means can never result in good in the end. The only way forward is to focus on establishing just means, and the end will follow.

No. You are just flat out wrong here, you are using the term energy incorrectly, using both the colloquial meaning and physical meaning at the same time.

Entropy mitigation in a moral system is not an « energy intensive » process. No raw ressources are needed, no power consumed. No physical energy is needed nor wasted.

However, « mental energy », as ill defined as it is, is needed. But mental energy is not the correct term to use here either, but mental & moral fortitude is what you really mean.

This is fundamentally a cultural & psychological problem, not a ressources management problem. Ressource management may be one way to improve the problem, but it is not the solution, only an aspect of it.