Ug it's bullsht, people are ridiculous

Apparently there's something called billionaires row where 50% of the apartments are by design, empty. The homeless and anyone else wouldn't want to live in it as apparently the trash chute makes trash go at terminal velocity and the wind makes the buildings sway back and fourth from how tall it is. But people purchase these apartments for 1 million dollars each for a security deposit.

Not sure why but apparently tax loop hole.

So again, we can't afford health care, we can't afford cheaper housing or to make the earth less polluted but we can afford to build several really skinny tall buildings by which trash goes down like a meteor and the building sways in the wind, then just leave them there.

Crazy.

And a few people live there but only like 5%.

[media=https://youtube.com/shorts/IlNFgf-2PRQ?si=l7YG3PW9ZFthqz6d]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M

The government :

A) likely wont ever do anything about this and

B) even if they do, whatever it is will create problems just as bad if not worse than this.

History has taught us this lesson so many many times now.

Local-scale solutions done by common people and for common people in a heterarchical and decentralized manner is the only lasting path away from one form of coercive and exploitative tyranny or another.

The problem was, and is, hierarchical and centralized power.

Try whatever combination of economic and political systems you want. So long as hierarchical and centralized power structures continue to dictate the rhythms of history we will be forever trapped in this repetitive cycle.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@CynicalSpaceMan Well it's an eye sore, the rich have guady tastes and that land should belong to people who need it. Also who builds something which trash reaches terminal velocity. As much as I find that entertaining, it's still annoying.

I do get that tearing them down might be more hassel than what it's worth but it's just the fact that people do this and then say things like we can't have good health care, decent child care, welfare and other things or higher wages.

Just the audacity of it really.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@CynicalSpaceMan In other simplicitic words, Capitalism is the problem.

Yet it is resolvable. Basic human rights (minimal housing) in the constitution.

If you don't work or retire there, you can't own anything either.

Foreign nationals or foreign corporations most especially shouldn't be allowed to own anything.

You put human rights into the structure, it no longer becomes hierarchical. You have effectively leveled out the top. And the bottom becomes less deep.

Hierarchy of capitalism is the problem. And the same with the hierarchy of communism.

It's the hierarchy that needs to be widen out.

BTW China is socialistic capitalism. Again the hierarchy being the problem.

CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M

@DeWayfarer yes. I think we are mostly on the same wavelength here.

I would also cite centralization being a major issue too.

Put more simply: In all cases, hierarchy is an accelerant and centralization is a multiplier.

I dont actually believe that capitalism, nor the government as it is, needs to be "done away with".

Both have been tried to no avail.

What i think needs to happen is that we need parallel, yet antithetical, institutions to be created all over the country (by common people, for common people) and on local scales.

Small, heterarchical, and decentralized, communities.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@CynicalSpaceMan Too close to a communistic model. I'm far more of a socialist yet with constitutional basic rights for individuals.

Key is individualism rather on the small groups.

Why that distinction?

No two people are alike is why.

CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M

@DeWayfarer

More socialist than communist actually.

If there is a clear distinction between what the community produces (essentials, that belong to everyone) and what people earn from the outside that is theirs alone (private property the community has no claim to)

Then that right there disqualifies it from communism.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@CynicalSpaceMan Hence the constitutional "basic human rights" .

CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M

@DeWayfarer

Right. Im basically taking a more structural, localized, and hands-on route to the place you're trying to go.

Most accurately put; what i am proposing is distinct from capitalism, socialism, and communism. It has no name other than what i currently call it.

HDCNs are their gross labratory designation. I havent thought of anything that rolls off the tongue yet.

[Heterarchical, Decentralized, Communal Nodes]

It’s voluntary, decentralized cooperation for essentials, with full private property and external market participation preserved. Participation is opt-in, not imposed.

Tax compliant as well. So we dont have to butt heads with the government nor reinvent civil law.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@CynicalSpaceMan When you say "localized, and hands-on route" that to me means communism.

Anything local will exclude the individual. The social dynamics will insist on it.

I've seen what social dynamics has done. It's not very pretty on any outside of the group. Even on small groups. Your basic terrorist cell group is a small group, to work in cells. And the cells network. Each with a different cell.

CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M

@DeWayfarer

Local doesn’t equal collectivist ownership or forced participation. The difference is voluntary entry and protected exit.

If someone can leave without losing their livelihood, it’s not coercive. And if private property and external participation are preserved, it’s not communism

Small groups can become unhealthy when they isolate, centralize leadership, or eliminate exit. The safeguards I’m describing

Freedom of movement

Heterarchy

are specifically to prevent those failure modes.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@CynicalSpaceMan I really believe you are forgetting social dynamics in any groups large or small.

I was once in a cult. The dynamics were both large and small celled. On multiple levels.

The only way out was to totally remove myself across the whole country where it didn't exist. And I was lucky even then. Just the right circumstances had to occur in a certain order.

The small cell was only four of us. Total strangers at first. We lived together. Basic commune.

CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M

@DeWayfarer

I'm really sorry you went through that. Being in a cult and having to uproot your life to escape would make anyone cautious about small-group dynamics.

You’re right that small groups can become coercive. That’s real. What I’m describing only works if exit is not just theoretical but practically easy; meaning people retain private property, external income, and full freedom to leave without losing their livelihood or identity.

If housing, income, or belonging are monopolized by the group, then it’s a cage. That’s exactly the failure mode I’m trying to avoid through decentralization, heterarchy, and preserved participation in the wider society.

If exit isn’t easy, the model fails