Well I get your point and I do agree with your logic. Your correct about capitalism and our system centered around exploitation for profit.
The reason I generalize is because, although capitalism makes it its center, personal gain and profit still exist nonetheless.
Exploitation isn't as new as capitalism, peasants under their king for instance was a major part of our history.
To me the more power an individual can get, the more he can serve himself, profit and exploit others. I believe this is the rule rather than the exception.
A lesser power would more easily lead to good actions because other incentives would compete with the smaller profit from your power. Hence why non profit organization are more free from corruption. As it's true for mayor compared to president for instance.
(This is why democracy is such an appealing concept, it divide power in such a way that no one as enough for corruption to exist.)
P.S. I'm ok with long reply, I hope you're good with that too...
Exact, and I believe most forms of power incentives bad actions and the worse individual to take it.
Wich would entail it comes from our nature, dictating the properties of power.
Good actions done by CEOs or the ones being loyal seems to me is coming from another facet of us.
When people are not brain dead by media, both in the US and EU we know all of our problems comes from our own government and fat CEOs.
Foreigners are just one of the many scapegoats they put the blame on.
What it reminds me of is Greeks and then Romans calling them barbarian, from barbar meaning foreigners. This isn't new...
The problem always was power and the unfit nature of human beings to possess it.
I don't know when we started using the word.
But switch is more about dom/sub. Whereas vers can be just about who penetrates who.
Just like top and bottom it can be a bit ambiguous sometimes between the position and the fetish.
To be honest it's not just patriarchy anymore.
Nowadays conservative agenda serves the elite only.
Meanwhile this controlling hurt most mens as well. Pushing them to only value themselves through work, to repress feelings for productivity... all of it makes for more servile workers.
In a universe that expand at an accelerated rate.
Watch out if you keep talking astronomy and i'm gonna ask you out!
The rock ain't floating, it's falling with some speed sideways.
And the absurdity of the universe, in wich your biomechanical functions are part of, shouldn't impact the value we make of us.
Interesting, well I do have a lot to read on the subject but i'll add it to my list, I might be pleasantly surprised.
It's a valid point. But if you want to juge the ideas of anyone I think you also need to educate yourself to a degree.
I do think discussion/debate are a good way to learn though. Although a good debate must be anchored in reality, established knowledge and studies...
In the end I think it comes to what are you gonna trust or challenge. In learning I don't think you can only rely on one, you need a healthy balance.
(I'd say the more you know the easier it is to challenge more often. A new student might trust his teacher often while researchers might always challenge their peers.)
And I don't think that apply only to economics or politics, although entertainments might be taken less seriously.
Alternatively I believe in politics there is also a part that's subjective, depending on your values and culture.
That's a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn't know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn't put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can't be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It's especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it's what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it's only a part.
I'd say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
My pleasure.
I'm a amateur bassist, so in the mock rivalry I'd say this is showing how much of the rhythm-section bassists can fill ^^
And we can also do some dope harmony. I love the jokes about how bassist are translators between drummers and guitarists.
Victor Wooten has lessons on YouTube where he does emphasize that a lot.
Yeah, It's a one time thing they did so it went under the radar of lots of people. Also why I shared it, glad I made you happy <3
So three bassists?
I propose to you one of my fav album, SMV, for Stanley Clarke, Marcus Miller & Victor Wooten :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf1fca_EWJg&list=PLG0VwCADigUCPqobFZW8PNtcoF8BbHLd_&index=9
I think my favs are Thunder, Pendulum and Los tres hermanos.
Maybe I should say I'm not in the US. Media literacy isn't brand new to me. But the CFR was completely foreign (pun intended), there isn't quite anything like it where I live.
Although the propaganda model of Herman and Chromsky quoted in your link is very much a mirror of our media too. (Most notably in our television network, own by a single group)
If I understood properly that was the point of your sarcastic comment on the CFR right?
I'm out of the loop what's the council for and why would they want people to think that? What's in it for them?
It also makes sens, if you're not knowledgeable on politics, your reasoning might rather resemble a philosophical one.
And philosophically speaking the basis of liberalism could means both left or right wing values depending on the philosopher.
For exemple Kant's philosophy was based on rational individuals to wich giving positive rights would permit to govern themselves. It also means laws would be universal wich would create equality. You can see how this could be compatible with some anarchist ideas or more generally with democracy.
In communism you would also have those positive rights. But you would also justify interventions to protect those rights, against lack of resources for instance (although that's outside of Kant's scope).
In the contrary, Lock's ideas is negative rights to protect people from the government and each other. Guaranteeing things like property. And ultimately wanting freedom. Thus giving the right wing liberalism it mainly refers to today.
Furthermore it's the basis of capitalism. Which, if i'm being honest, is mostly what's implied by liberalism when it comes to the economy, although i would argue against. With how defective capitalism is you could argue protectionism should be wanted by liberals to prevent all thoses monopolies we see everywhere. In this instance we could see a part of liberalism that tend more towards a leftist idea.
