Probably because there is some inherent flaw in human psychology that pushes many to hoard wealth and material objects to the point of absurdity, and somehow they or their like minded humans corrupt the system to allow more power and control consolidation. I don’t think we’ve manage to come up with a system that contains enough stabilizing rules to prevent wild excesses to damage the whole over time. There’s always going to be a segment that views themselves as exceptions and they will reshape, bend, and break rules to their advantage, and they’ll have their supporters.
I don’t think there’s any way to prevent people like that unless we have such rigid controls that society begins to look a different version of totalitarian, so is corruption, collapse and rebirth of all large systems inevitable?
I wouldn’t say it’ll always be inevitable, but I don’t think any current systems in place or theorized are the answer. I think so long as people try to think of developing a system of government with that in mind, there will be many answers presented and we’ll eventually find one that works.
Personally, I think one way forward is to use both UBI and capitalism for necessities and luxuries. The UBI gives everyone what they need - utilities, food, basic shelter, supplies like mattresses and toothpaste, healthcare, transport, fuel, ect. However, all material objects are generic in appearance and function. Corndog #1 (Jumbo), all clothing is white and boring, ect. Capitalism is used for buying interesting items, bigger housing, and so forth.
People like their individuality, which is something that capitalism is terrific at supporting. Unfortunately, capitalism is also terrible at allowing people to survive and establish a foundation for success. Thus, separation of necessity vs luxury. All work is for earning the money to upgrade lifestyle.
There are other things that I have in mind for making things more egalitarian, such as making schooling into a paid job. Many seemingly weird reforms like that would be needed to make economics work for society, rather than the other way around.
Probably because there is some inherent flaw in human psychology that pushes many to hoard wealth and material objects to the point of absurdity, and somehow they or their like minded humans corrupt the system to allow more power and control consolidation. I don’t think we’ve manage to come up with a system that contains enough stabilizing rules to prevent wild excesses to damage the whole over time. There’s always going to be a segment that views themselves as exceptions and they will reshape, bend, and break rules to their advantage, and they’ll have their supporters.
I don’t think there’s any way to prevent people like that unless we have such rigid controls that society begins to look a different version of totalitarian, so is corruption, collapse and rebirth of all large systems inevitable?
I wouldn’t say it’ll always be inevitable, but I don’t think any current systems in place or theorized are the answer. I think so long as people try to think of developing a system of government with that in mind, there will be many answers presented and we’ll eventually find one that works.
Personally, I think one way forward is to use both UBI and capitalism for necessities and luxuries. The UBI gives everyone what they need - utilities, food, basic shelter, supplies like mattresses and toothpaste, healthcare, transport, fuel, ect. However, all material objects are generic in appearance and function. Corndog #1 (Jumbo), all clothing is white and boring, ect. Capitalism is used for buying interesting items, bigger housing, and so forth.
People like their individuality, which is something that capitalism is terrific at supporting. Unfortunately, capitalism is also terrible at allowing people to survive and establish a foundation for success. Thus, separation of necessity vs luxury. All work is for earning the money to upgrade lifestyle.
There are other things that I have in mind for making things more egalitarian, such as making schooling into a paid job. Many seemingly weird reforms like that would be needed to make economics work for society, rather than the other way around.