• interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This was the case before countries existed. The territories used to be limited to how far the human cattle could walk, be productive and walk back home in day.

      Freedom is only possible where the possibility of encountering other humans is negligible.

      Whenever humans aglomerate, non productive humans require handouts to live. If they do not receive then they die. If they don’t want to die, they will steal. If the other humans resist, there will be a struggle and whoever wins becomes the state.

      I think keeping population below 1 per square kilometer and spread out is the best solution to the state predation problem.

      • bermuda@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        1 per square kilometer is physically impossible unless you plan on finding a way to kill 7.9 billion people.

        Earth has 146 million square kilometers of land.

        It’s a neat idea but I think “the largest genocide in the history of humanity” kinda outweighs your solution.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          About 64 million square km is habitable. Everyone stop having babies until we reach this number. That’s how we can have a stateless borderless utopia.

          • bermuda@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You won’t see it in your lifetime. About 150,000 people die a day assuming no natural disasters or disease. 7.9 billion / 150,000 = 52,666 days. About 144 years for your dream.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      A government could be good. In theory:

      • one year terms for elected individuals in public offices
      • no second term
      • getting elected is a random draw (akin to jury duty) based on the individuals’ capabilities
      • authority limited in scope within city states

      I’m sure there’s other ideas regarding this.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some oppressors (indirectly, but essentially) started drawing lines one day and agreed that they would each get to farm the humans in their own territory.

      Control goes back further than just territories to tribes. The tribe identity is only later tied to specific locations. Tribes formed because pooling resources burdens and learning was more efficient than doing it all yourself. From there, the tribes expanded and joined together and eventually settled into one location. So I disagree that oppressors just decided one day.

  • Whimsical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once got in a conversation about nuclear power that hit the point of “Yes nuclear is safer and more efficient but what about the jobs of the coal employees? Do you want them all to starve?”

    Took a while to digest because there’s a lot of normalization surrounding it, but after a while I realized what I had been told was:

    “We have to intentionally gimp our efficiency in both energy production and pollution generation in order to preserve a harder, more costly industry, because otherwise people wouldn’t have a task that they need to do in order to feed themselves.”

    Kinda disillusioned me with the underpinnings of capitalism, just how backwards it was to have to think this way. We can’t justify letting people live unless they’re necessary to society in some way - which might’ve made solid sense in older, very very different times in human history, but now means that so much of our culture is tied up in finding more excuses to make people do work that isn’t really necessary at all.

    New innovations happen, and tasks are made easier, and that doesn’t actually save anyone any work, because everyone still has to put in 40 hours a week. New tech lets you do it in 10 hours? Whoops, actually that means that you’re out of a job, replaced with an intern or something. Making “life” easier makes individual lives harder, what the fuck? That isn’t how things should be at all!

    Not exactly an easy situation to crack, but to circle back to the point of the thread - I hate how normal it is to argue on the basis that we need to create jobs, everywhere, all the time. I wish we’d have a situation where people can brag for political clout about destroying jobs instead, about reducing the amount of work people need to do to live and live comfortably, instead of trying to enforce this system where efficiency means making people obsolete means making people starve.

  • Corroded@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How taxes are dealt with in North America. Just send me how much I owe. Don’t have me go through a service to figure it out

  • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Work to live.

    Edit: we have built a world where we measure success by money. This has meant we are all in pursuit of it all the time, even if we don’t want to be. The rich get richer by driving us to do more with less, which marginalizes those who cannot be a productive part of that. We supress our compassion because it isn’t making money. People suffer. Those of us who can contribute subject ourselves to a different kind of stress so we can enjoy a few hours of leisure here and there but we never really are free of the shackles of our employer. If you advance to a management position you are forced to evaluate and possibly fire people you could be friends with. When hiring you are evaluating how well people bend the knee. It’s not a great world we’ve made for ourselves.

  • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Over-reliance on proprietary, closed-source products and services from megacorporations.

    For instance, it’s really absurd that people in many parts of the world cannot function without WhatsApp, they can’t even imagine a life without it. It seems absurd that Meta literally has them by the balls, and these people can’t do anything about it.

    Also the people who base their entire careers on say Adobe or Microsoft products, they’re literally having their lives dictated by one giant corporation, which is very depressing and dystopian.

  • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Speed traps in the US. I had to explain to my son that the reason why we have to drive 45 mph for half a mile on an interstate is because there is a convenient side street in the middle of that stretch of road where the police can wait.

    • Hangglide@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I actually appreciate cops keeping people to the speed limit. It is much safer for everyone.

      Edit: While I appreciate cops doing this, I actually think it shouldn’t be their job. We have meter readers handing out parking tickets. I think non LEO civil servants could issue citations for speeding too. That would free up cops to be arseholes somewhere else.

  • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Support for communism. People somehow manage to wildly exaggerate both the evils of capitalism and the benefits of communism, even though we have plenty of contemporary and historical examples to refer to.

    • AstralWeekends@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I propose that human greed leads to the corruption of both capitalist and communist systems in actual practice. The difference is that in capitalism, greed is publically encouraged and publically rewarded, while in communism, greed is publically discouraged and privately rewarded. Inequality is present in both practices ostensibly (with few historical exceptions). Whatever economic systems are implemented by humanity, some people are winners and some are losers.

      The question of what system is best cannot be settled by only historical anecdotes. Historical record is too biased towards its own context, though we can look at patterns that have emerged through recorded history to try and achieve a more objective understanding; we have to examine a system as it exists right now. We must accept that no system will be exempt from human greed and focus our efforts on policies that fight against it wherever possible. This is not an enlightened centrist position; this is the position of someone who wants to maximize the number of societal winner and minimize the number of losers.