However, there's still some movement for those who are scrappy enough to raise funds to escape these countries.Ībsolutely unacceptable: State socialism (Stalin's USSR, Mao Zedong's China, North Korea, Rákosi's Hungary). This is now highly collectivistic, any resistance to conformity is struck down. You are either in-line with the oligarch's moral views and succeed (Mészáros), or oppose them and suddenly go from making 400M profit a year to losing 200M annually (Simicska Lajos). In these systems, conforming is mandatory for any success. Unacceptable: State capitalism/Hungarian/Russian model of oligarchies. Still, the free-market model still allows some opportunity However, if there's charities - those who conform do better economically, making your ability to raise wealth to fulfil your identity less probable. If there's no charities, at least you don't have a worse life by not conforming. This is worse than the above, as it now introduces collectivist means of enforcing conformism. Unacceptable: Free-Market Capitalism with charity and no social safety nets. At least, in this scenario there are no parental/religious/community pressures to conform, and an individual can amass wealth in any way possible to achieve their identity.
Take the least-bad, and make its borderline aspects worse. Least-bad: Free-market Capitalism with no social safety nets, no charity structures, no infrastructure. Consider for example: Children being told they won't receive financial assistance by their parents for university education if they transition or have a same-sex relationship. Being forced to appeal to groups is a collectivist requirement, and it forces conformity to with the ideals of those one appeals to in order to earn assistance. This forces individuals to rely on their ability to appeal to family, church or community. In this society, there's a very high risk of oligarchies like Hungarian/Russian forming, and the lack of employment protections lead to numerous abuses towards neurodiverse individuals (Personality tests where autism leads to discrimination being abundant for low-skill works, anti-LGBT discrimination in red states both lead to collectivism and stifling of freedoms).įurther, while there are indiscriminate social safety nets and state-provided infrastructure, austerity and laissez-faire capitalistic tendencies lead to these institutions being grossly inadequate. Lack of appropriate regulations and protections and lack of adequate social safety nets/infrastructure create a flawed social democracy. The German "Co-Determination" model is comparable.Īcceptable: Capitalism in the american model. In scandinavia though, there's a cultural element against "rocking the boat" which makes Scandinavia worse than their model would imply. Lack of reliance on charity means individual freedom to express self. While there's a risk of individuals with large wealth purchasing many companies' voting shares to impose their moral values onto others through changed hiring/employment/promotion practices, strong unions and regulations protect against that.
Ergo - Well-regulated free-market, indiscriminate state-ran social safety nets and infrastructure fund. Good-enough: Capitalism in the scandinavian model aka: social democracy. This does not presently exist, but we must strive for this
Furthermore, indiscriminate social welfare and infrastructure ensures everyone can be who they truly are without being forced to adhere to parental moral demands, church moral demands or cultural moral demands to receive that (great for LGBT people, women, men with "feminine career interests", neurodiverse individuals.) Most individualistic: Mutalism/Free-market socialism with indiscriminate state-ran social safety nets and infrastructure fund(Healthcare, education, emergency services).ĭemocracy is maximized, and no group of individuals with excess wealth can control multiple companies through voting shares, preventing Hungarian/Russian style oligarchies from forming.
0 kommentar(er)
