I agree that there must be some form of rule-manufacture for society to continue existence; likewise, if a wealth based oligarcy were truly meritocratic (every person involved made their own money through legal means), it would probably be a better way than numerous other ways (any form of single man rule, for example).
The first problem is that wealth is not always earned by the person bearing it: I do not mean playing the stock market, rather than working at an 8-hour a day job; rather, I mean some people inherit wealth which they may not otherwise have the chance to accrue. Undoubtedly, there are some inheritors who turn out to be effective administrator and able businessperson; however, they would most likely have been able to create a new fortune from the metaphorical sweat of their brow. The persons not so adept at such administration, yet believe they have been entitled this mass fortune due to accident of birth, are those who could easily fall into this oligarchy, and not necessarily have the competence to administrate well.
The second problem consists of the problem that adeptness in the creation of wealth by no means correlates to the wisdom to create good laws, or the fitness to administer these laws. Again do not misread me; many people of wealth and considerable means exist who would both write good laws and carry them out effectively. Many other people of the same social and economic status should stay well away from politics and administration. And many people who would not qualify for membership in this oligarchy could also administrate and give law well.
In which case, I dearly hope that he has indeed found a proof. Again, however, it is best to remain skeptical until peer review has signed off on this paper.
But I think a real argument can be made that one of the reasons pseudoscience has become so popular these days (to the level of informing at least two presidents) is that so much of real science is published in journals that you have to pay big bucks to read.
Yes, this is most assuredly part of the problem. Personally, I believe science has reached the stage where the vast majority of the public must become familiar with how science works, and understand both the scientific process and current scientific ideas today (and the reason they are used).
Either this will take place, or else the governments will remove themselves from the science business as people who do not understand it will pull its funding out from under itself; then corporate science shall alone remain, which (since the corporations are trying to keep it secret to better compete in the marketplace, and do not wish to compromise their "advantage") is an oxymoron; science requires peer-review for its efficacy, while the corporations will attempt to squash this, to prevent their knowledge from becoming well known and thus no longer a competitive advantage.
How can these be socialist? These are CORPORATIONS shoving restrictions on liberty down our throats. The state is merely aiding and abetting this process.
Likewise, this treaty enshrines private property to the detriment of public liberty. Socialists typically make the reverse mistake: they go so far in ridding private property they do detriment to public liberty.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You seem to imply that government has a monopoly on power, and that a world government would have a greater monopoly than, say, the government of Singapore.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that there must be some form of rule-manufacture for society to continue existence; likewise, if a wealth based oligarcy were truly meritocratic (every person involved made their own money through legal means), it would probably be a better way than numerous other ways (any form of single man rule, for example).
The first problem is that wealth is not always earned by the person bearing it: I do not mean playing the stock market, rather than working at an 8-hour a day job; rather, I mean some people inherit wealth which they may not otherwise have the chance to accrue. Undoubtedly, there are some inheritors who turn out to be effective administrator and able businessperson; however, they would most likely have been able to create a new fortune from the metaphorical sweat of their brow. The persons not so adept at such administration, yet believe they have been entitled this mass fortune due to accident of birth, are those who could easily fall into this oligarchy, and not necessarily have the competence to administrate well.
The second problem consists of the problem that adeptness in the creation of wealth by no means correlates to the wisdom to create good laws, or the fitness to administer these laws. Again do not misread me; many people of wealth and considerable means exist who would both write good laws and carry them out effectively. Many other people of the same social and economic status should stay well away from politics and administration. And many people who would not qualify for membership in this oligarchy could also administrate and give law well.
It means that you should care as much about a person in another country as you would a random person in a town two miles away.
Of course, if you don't care about a random person two miles away, then there was no need for me to comment; I simply misunderstood you.
And that makes it acceptable that the rich write the rules?
In which case, I dearly hope that he has indeed found a proof. Again, however, it is best to remain skeptical until peer review has signed off on this paper.
Yes, this is most assuredly part of the problem. Personally, I believe science has reached the stage where the vast majority of the public must become familiar with how science works, and understand both the scientific process and current scientific ideas today (and the reason they are used).
Either this will take place, or else the governments will remove themselves from the science business as people who do not understand it will pull its funding out from under itself; then corporate science shall alone remain, which (since the corporations are trying to keep it secret to better compete in the marketplace, and do not wish to compromise their "advantage") is an oxymoron; science requires peer-review for its efficacy, while the corporations will attempt to squash this, to prevent their knowledge from becoming well known and thus no longer a competitive advantage.
How can these be socialist? These are CORPORATIONS shoving restrictions on liberty down our throats. The state is merely aiding and abetting this process.
Likewise, this treaty enshrines private property to the detriment of public liberty. Socialists typically make the reverse mistake: they go so far in ridding private property they do detriment to public liberty.
This is insightful, on top of being accurate!