Should we fear being led down the garden path? Should we fear illusions? Should we fear lies? — Agent Smith

Do you?

Ok, does:
an appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative.

in your opinion, support or detract from a claim that some statements made by Plato and Nietzsche are fear based and if so, how many fear based statements do you have to make to be labelled a fear-based philosopher or a philosopher who mainly engages in brinkmanship scenarios. Nietzsche.....yes, Plato......sometimes?

Interesting names to identify. What about those I exemplified a little earlier on this page:

Friedrich Nietzsche
"God Is Dead"
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."
"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering."
"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Do you think Nietzsche should be categorised as a brinkmanship or fear-based philosopher?

What about Plato's:
"The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Is this fear-based philosophy? — universeness

Opinion?

they're already infected with toxic memes. — Agent Smith

Do you think 'good' modern philosophers have a responsibility to protect people from such or teach them ways to defend themselves against such?

s this thread about Jordan Peterson specifically? — Agent Smith

No, I simply used him for exemplification of the kind of philosophical fear mongering/brinkmanship I am requesting discussion/opinion on.

If you keep throwing fear and threat at people and you keep role playing brinkmanship then the reaction of some will get more and more extreme. From theistic terrorism (Islamic/Christian/supremist etc) to extreme versions of civil disobedience like some of those you mention. The tories were lucky today, that it was just greenpeace protesters that managed to get so near to MissTrusst, I mean Mrs Truss. It could have been the scarier type of extremist that got so close.
There are many people who are wound very tight and its not difficult to confirm their worse fears and then convince them that an extreme response must be delivered by them NOW!!!! To save us all.
It's an old tactic, isn't it? But how many current philosophers are explaining this, every opportunity they get? I think that such is needed now, don't you?

Indeed, you are right! — Agent Smith

But is this 'massage/manipulation/attempt to control and direct base human primal fear, not the basis of so much of what gnarls at the human condition and stifles its full potential and rate of progress?
Is this not an area that philosophers could really help everyone with? In ways that are just not happening right now, imo. Should good philosophers not start to describe the rich/wealthy/powerful few, as scared people? People who see what life can be like for some. The horrible, unjust sufferings etc and to prevent that happening to them or those that they love, they gather and gain control over as many resources as possible, withdraw to their castles, gated/secured properties and pull up their drawbridges and place their security systems/people all around themselves and live in their own little protected Oasis.
They don't, nor do they want to hear the screams of those dying of famine etc. The 15,000 children dying EVERY DAY! and if they ever do, they roll some gold coins into the collection box and that sates their conscience. :vomit:
So many get so distracted and duped by those who peddle fear and brinkmanship. The nefarious claim that we had better listen to the threats they peddle, because if we don't aspire to be exactly what they want us to be, then we will personally suffer a lot more than we suffer now.
The theistic nefarious threaten with hellish outcomes after death, so even death will not offer you the escape of oblivion. How f****** dare they!
If you don't do what they say, then not only will this life be shit but your life after will be shit, but if you do as they command then this life might be mostly shit but the next life will be glorious, you know, AFTER YOU ARE DEAD! :lol:
The non-theistic rich, gangster mob, who run most, if not all, countries, suggest that they are in charge due to birthright or the historical dynastic efforts of their ancestors or due to their superior intelligence/celebrity or their recent understanding/manipulation of the human invention of money/the money trick, etc
If we try to dissent or even engage in mass revolt/revolution, due to claims of a stacked deck or an inability to act like life is still exclusively under 'law of the jungle' rules, then they will employ the tactics they have used against all humanist/socialist movements in the past. Starve it of resources, focus global plutocratic forces on that particular country/group, pick off the leaders one by one, buy off as many of their top people as possible, let some of them join the nefarious rich, make them betray each other, divide and conquer, kill it, kill it kill it, kill their attempt towards a fairer system before it grows and threatens the continued supremacy of the nefarious few or more accurately the scared nefarious few.

It is surely the responsibility of good and decent philosophy and philosophers to alley the primal fears of the human race and encourage them to believe that we do not have to continue to accept that the position of the nefarious few who control the fate of the vast majority of the rest of the human race, is unassailable.

When Jordan Peterson first started to publicly philosophise, he was more guarded, I think. I was attracted to the various human dilemmas he posed such as being a guard at Auschwitz, etc (Certainly an on the brink job for anyone with a conscience) and how he thinks he would have lived through such.
His experience in psychiatry and his knowledge of how humans think is very impressive.
Then when he started to talk about how natural and essential power hierarchies were, I started to detract from him. His over-the-top attraction to all things Dostoyevsky, then his drug episode and getting his banned treatment in Russia, then his daughters various background money making schemes using his name, then his outbursts against his twitter ban and his obvious transphobia etc. So I now think he is a narcissist and probably a little mad.
But he is also quite dangerous as he is very intelligent and has the ear of a large number of people.
He could influence the political vote of many to vote for right wing policies.
His arguments against climate change are also worrying and BS. The main evidence for climate change is the continuing extreme weather events that are happening all over the planet and worsening every year and the FACTS of how much natural forest we are losing and how much plastic pollution is in the Ocean, how many species are in danger etc.
But perhaps I could be beat with my own stick here if I keep exemplifying fear and threat, just like Jordan does. I would of course claim that I am using fear/threat/brinkmanship to encourage change for the better however. But I suppose my dissenters can claim the same.

My laziest, exasperated, response to the name Nigel Farage, is just many many multiple: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit:

There is nothing in philosophy that could make a novice or a veteran in the subject a fanatic and you need to be one to find brinkmanship appealing. — Agent Smith

Yet there are many philosophers that many would describe as fanatics, yes?
You ask a very good question. I think humans are very attracted to brinkmanship. That's why the freak show was so popular and many people are themselves 'thrill seekers,' or are very attracted to the label 'adrenalin junkie'.
I would say early pioneers became so, out of necessity. They moved into new territories out of need rather than a wish to put their lives on the line but there does seem to be a part of the human character that feeds from the 'wow factor,' of putting your life on the line. All or nothing philosophy?
I think many philosophers have massaged those areas of the human character to suit their own ends.

So are there any particular philosophers you would name from the classical era in particular or from the post-classical times, that you think particularly pushed a purely fear/threat/brinkmanship philosophy.
Do quotes like: Friedrich Nietzsche
"God Is Dead"
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."
"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering."
"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Do you think Nietzsche should be categorised as a brinkmanship or fear-based philosopher?

What about Plato's:
"The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Is this fear-based philosophy?

A (true) philosopher wouldn't resort to brinkmanship - it's out of character. — Agent Smith

I am not surprised you bracketed (true). Do many philosophers act out of character? or are many philosophers, past and present, merely characters and some even more accurately described as caricatures.

I broadly agree.

:up:

I certainly consider extremes, but I don't choose to fully exist there.
Do you feel that the powers that be, the media and perhaps many 'philosophers' seem determined to push us all in the direction of focusing on extreme scenario's?

Here is a link to a compass website:https://www.compassonline.org.uk/about/our-story/
I include it just so you can perhaps read the brief contents of the 'our story' first page.

Are they capable to finish the bilateral system? — javi2541997

If by bilateral you mean two-sided politics, then combatting such, is certainly part of their agenda.
Both groups are certainly left wing imo but they are trying to attract as many people from as many political leanings as they can, on the basis of 'what are your biggest priorities/concerns?' and 'What common ground can we occupy to help change things for the better?' I fully support this approach.

Maduro was a leftover who turned gangster!
Hugo Chavez was the main instigator but like Casto's revolution etc it was attacked from all sides by outside plutocratic forces. The rich global elites like to punish all peoples who try to knock them off their perch and they always will. They have been doing so since we came out of the wilds but its a lot easier to do it to socialist movements in countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. Not so easy to do it to the large, politically progressive humanist/socialist movements currently growing in the UK and many other countries in Europe. A group called Compass in the UK is making some strong in-roads at the moment. Another group called momentum is also still doing very well.

Okay, I will try to explain myself a little better.
Brinkmanship is being used a great deal nowadays, agree?
Many doomsters try to convince the majority of others, to live their life as if they are on the brink. On the eve of the destruction of themselves and their species. Theism certainly employs this tactic as do anti-lifers and general pessimists/doomsters. Threats from madmen such as Putin and political rhetoric from vile characters such as Trump, Bolsonaro, right wing supremists etc seem to confirm this approach.
In my OP, I was asking the 'philosophers' here, (the academic ones and those who have studied the topic in-depth,) how philosophy/philosophers would respond to my 'philosophical brinkmanship,' term. @Count Timothy von Icarus for example offered 'ontological commitment,' and suggested (I think) that the concept of 'philosophical brinkmanship' was not something discussed much amongst philosophers. You seemed to suggest that there was some validity to the phrase.

Philosophical brinkmanship as in calling for change/belief ... at any cost? That would be terrible indeed! — Agent Smith

So, amongst the ancient philosophers, who do you think most employed the brinkmanship approach?
Who used fear, threat, etc. A kind of "Listen, we are all utterly doomed, if you don't listen to me!' approach, as their 'philosophy,' when trying to communicate with the masses.
Which of the now dead philosophers used this approach and why do you think they chose to.
Which of the current philosophers use this and why do they choose to? (I think Jordan Peterson does, for example).
My final question on this is again, a why question.
Is brinkmanship used because if you win, you win big? but if you lose, you lose big?
Is it the 'all in' poker game?
If a person/group/movement wants to change things for what they think would be better.
Let's say I want to establish a humanist/socialist global system.
Is the most successful approach, likely to be, the application of a philosophy of brinkmanship.
You will get your system established much quicker and embed it much deeper and make sure it lasts much longer if you convince the people that all alternatives will result in their destruction.
Are there many 'philosophers' that support that approach? As opposed to those who would suggest that 'reasoned argument,' and 'convincing the people through honest discourse,' is the best way to get them to trust you and give your system a trial period?

Agree. But, paradoxically, socialist countries tend to be the less democratic possible. That's a fact we have to accept. Just look at China, Cuba, Angola, Venezuela, Belarus, etc... They are not democratic. The citizens of those countries cannot vote if they want socialism or not. Their dictators just imposed it. — javi2541997

You have named some interesting examples. How much do you know about the history of Cuba or Venezuela?
Venezuela if you study its history was one that was closest to a serious attempt at establishing a socialist/humanist system. The initial moves were very good imo, but the attempts to consolidate were crushed by outside plutocratic forces.
The details involved would again, take a long time to present and evidence and there would be a lot of fake claims to the contrary. That's the main problem we have. The rich and powerful plutocracies are not incompetent idiots; they are very powerful and very able. They have dynastic level historical practice at preventing humanist/socialist systems from getting established anywhere and they are ever vigilant/paranoid about losing their privileged status and will do anything and commit any atrocity, to maintain their dynasties.

I think your viewpoint on this issue is shared by many people. It's up to those, such as me, who label themselves using words like humanist and socialist etc to develop and create the system they envisage and then seek permission from the voters they represent to be in power and DEMONSTRATE that their system can do what they promise it will do. The burden of proof that socialism/humanism is the best way forward for the human race, is with all true socialist/humanists, not you, unless you use the same labels to describe your own personal politics.
If we cannot convince the people, then we cannot even try to gain power much less stay in power and that's the way it must be. Then, the people are left with what they currently have or any other alternative on offer. That's simply the reality of how human democratic politics must function.

Russia, China, USA, UK etc are all basically plutocracies.
In the case of Russia and China there is less democracy and personal freedom, but the main controls are in the hands of a privileged plutocratic few in all these countries. Russia and China simply have an autocrat at the top of the hierarchy, but imo, that's the only main difference between how the hierarchy of power in each of the countries above are structured and function.
Money is the main force behind plutocracies, so that invention, has to be reinvented or disposed of, if we are ever to rid ourselves of the horrific imbalances that the majority suffer, due to living under a plutocratic system.

I don't know a financial system which actually works apart from capitalism. — javi2541997

I could start to describe past and present examples and attempts and then we could discuss the pros and cons involved but that would probably be quite tedious for both of us and is more the purpose of the PM system on TPF. Suffice to say, I hope this can be demonstrated convincingly to you, within your lifetime but you have already responded to that with:

Nah, I am pretty sceptical on such scenario :mask: — javi2541997

So, that's about where we are for now!

I think that examples like:

Urgent notice!
Humanity is closer than never to the overall self-annihilation after mutual nuclear strikes!
All inhabitants of the Earth, be ready!
Now you have a good chance to fly to Heaven at any moment,
or, most likely, because of your total civil ignorance and social dementia - to Hell!
Most of Humanity has gone mad and is ready to die for nothing, therefore
WPF activity and guidance are intended only for those people, who still want to LIVE on this planet!
WPF invites such humans to join our universal community of Earth citizens,
aimed to live in the new, better World Order! — universeness

From a website called The World Philosophical Forum is much more akin to a term like philosophical brinkmanship than it is akin to a concept like '(moral) luck' but perhaps, it was not your intention to compare the two and you were merely offering your view about what the current philosophy community is discussing and offering their listeners.

It is so frustrating, doesn't it? There are a lot of people trying to improve the world but the politicians do not care. This is why I don't want to be a public representative. — javi2541997

It's an interesting point you raise here. I tried to become exactly what you are describing from around the age of 18. I was a member of the labour party, the young socialist party and the cooperative labour party here in Scotland. I also felt many politicians did not care which is why I wanted to be one as I really did care and still do. I just did not know enough about enough at that time to progress within the parties I was a member of.
Now I know a lot more, I am against the existence of political parties and believe that representation should be based on individual local independent candidates and not a political party. I can't now join a political party and be true to that viewpoint.

Believe it or not, it is the better possible system. The different generations have tried different systems of organisations along the centuries and most of them end up failing except capitalism. It is true it is a flawed system but it is not that bad because most of the people tend to win under it. — javi2541997

Words are limited to express how much I utterly disagree with your above quote.

I live under a socialist country and I don't see any kind of intentions of changing all the mechanism. — javi2541997

Well, I don't think you do, there is no socialist country in the world at the moment imo, but that's just a problem of labels and definitions and interpretations. Most socialists argue vehemently amongst themselves, about what actions or policies are or are not socialist. If:

Rather than trying to develop a resource-based economy, they are getting rich doing literally the opposite. — javi2541997

is true, then that is not socialism.

To be honest, your arguments of resource-based economy could only be applied to small countries with reasonable citizens. It is impossible to implement this in big chaotic countries like India or Mexico. — javi2541997

I fully appreciate that point of view. All truly socialist/humanist systems are more difficult to maintain as the population gets to a number like 8 billion globally. I think such a system would always creak at points and the protections may even fail at times, perhaps only ever locally but perhaps sometimes on a much larger scale. I am not naive enough to suggest that we can create an impervious, fair, sociopolitical system where 'all individuals are equal,' every moment of every day, but I am fully convinced, that we can vastly improve on the human condition as experienced right now by the vast majority of those who currently experience it. I am also convinced that the capitalist 'money trick' imposes great harm on our species and on our planet, and it is a clear and present danger that must be effectively dealt with for the sake of all future generations.

It is a very complex situation which seems to be irretrievable — javi2541997

Before your generation ends, I hope your fellow humans provide you with some positive surprises as good examples of what humans can do to make improvements on how they live. Humans love to understand complex systems, and many are compelled to retrieve that which some claim is irretrievable. I am happy to wear the 'wishful thinker' t-shirt fashioned for me by @Tom Storm.

My point was we shouldn't take the moral high ground because luck/chance has a significant role in our ethical lives. — Agent Smith

But there has to BE a moral high ground or else what do we aspire to? If we present a moral high ground then it has to be 'occupied,' otherwise it becomes farcical.
In a classroom, would you, as an adult, speak out against the use of any recreational drug or underage drinking etc, even if you did not follow such guidelines yourself, when you were their age?
You may be a judge, who truly feels that all paedophile's should simply be shot in the head in the local public square or burned at the stake and the local children allowed to watch whilst eating free popcorn.
We all have to listen very carefully to the 'better angels of our nature,' or else we all turn back into jungle style ferrule creatures. You can't build a good and progressive society based on personal instincts.

Watching News at 10pm on BBC1 and Ukraine is reported as having taken back, two villages near Kherson, in one of the annexed regions. How the Russians respond now will reveal how this horror will develop, I think.

still cannot see "production, distribution and exchange" as "priceless". — javi2541997

We used to be nomadic hunter-gatherers; we had no use for money then. We learned we could stay in an area if there were enough resources nearby, we learned how to farm and how to barter with other settlements, we needed no money then. Small groups merging to become large groups meant local resources could no longer support the human populations involved and barter became too inefficient and impractical for trade purposes. Money was therefore invented. That's all it was ever meant to be, a practical exchange mechanism but it became a horror. A way to support the concept of a chosen few who by birthright or law of the jungle or level of intelligence etc felt entitled to live highly privileged, self-indulgent, narcissistic lives by means of 'the money trick.'
Now, instead of paper money and coin for your labour, you get numbers in your bank account.

To be honest, if we don't put some value on them, the people would waste the mechanism. — javi2541997

Surely the value should be put on the person not the resource. A human can ask and answer questions, they can work and create things. They can give meaning and purpose to the existence of the Universe. A wheat field, a tree of apples, a herd of beef cattle, 100 tonnes of gold and diamonds can't do any of those things. You can't eat money or plant it.
The past 5000 years of using it demonstrates very clearly that it causes many more problems than it solves. I am sure there were wasteful people in the settlements that existed before money existed and we seemed to have survived them, so we just need to learn how to make a moneyless resource-based economy work.

Whenever I read your arguments I imagine you as a good reasonable person who acts with common sense. — javi2541997

Thank you for those kind words I hope I can live up to them.

But, sadly, not everyone understands how complex is to redistribute all the chains of the "status quo" — javi2541997

It is complex and only the most technically advanced country and imo, only the country closest to achieving a humanist/socialist political system will be the first to switch to something akin to a resource-based economy, or at least a much fairer system than we have now.
Other countries will follow suit over time if they see the first country to do it, flourish.
At some point after that, we may finally become a united planet and start to leave the nest and become truly interplanetary.

If we implement this doctrine how would you pay to your workers? (for example). Imagine you have 5 workers in your office and you pay them 1.000 € per month because you consider it sufficient in terms of hours of work, tasks, benefits, bonuses, etc... But how can you measure all of these factors with resource-based economy? You will always need a basic number or digit to do it. — javi2541997

Exemplification is always a good place to start. The idea of an 'office,' as somewhere you travel to for your days' work, is diluting and changing. Teleworkers are becoming more and more common. The idea of 'Your office' and Your workers,' and 'You pay them,' is also not chiselled in stone.
In a resource-based economy, you would have local, national and international issues that need to be dealt with at a local, national and international community level. As many systems and services as possible, would be as automated as possible. Humans would fill in the gaps where required, they would do the jobs that needed doing. Who would do what? Well, I have my own socialist/humanist ideas of how I think people could live day to day in such an economy and how production, distribution and exchange would function. I doubt that any of them are original, and I don't have expertise in all the areas I would touch upon, but I am sure you agree that technology is changing the means of production, distribution and exchange, in many significant ways and I do not see any benefit to maintaining the status quo.
I agree with how vital personal freedom is and that all individuals must be as free to do what they want as is possible within the restriction of the existence of 'other people' who also want to be free to do what they want. That's the biggest issue. Your freedom cannot prevent or subjugate another's.
I have not figured out quite how to achieve that without causing dissent somewhere in some people.

What do you think of points such as:
The Mesopotamian shekel – the first known form of currency – emerged nearly 5,000 years ago. The earliest known mints date to 650 and 600 B.C. in Asia Minor, where the elites of Lydia and Ionia used stamped silver and gold coins to pay armies.

5000 years is 11.43 seconds in the cosmic calendar. Money as a system of exchange is not that old, when we consider how long humans have existed on the Earth.
You might be correct that we cannot completely get rid of money, but it is already being irrevocably changed. It's becoming fully electronic for example, no paper and no coins really required anymore.

So, do you think we could get rid of all national currencies and just exchange goods and services using numbers/credits?
We could also do that now, yes? So, what would we be left with if all paper and coin money was globally withdrawn?
A 'total,' that would go up and down in your bank account, based on your 'earnings' and or benefits/pensions/investments etc. How far is it from there to effectively, no money. In other words, a resource-based economy. Technology seems to me to be taking us inexorably in that direction whether we want it or not. I think that future tech may offer us more and more ways to reduce the need for a concept such as money and be able to offer all humans the services they need free, from cradle to grave based on their willingness to contribute to the society in any way they are able to and based on what that society needs humans to do for its maintenance, security and growth. Why do we need wealth hierarchy? Has that system produced more good or evil for the human race in the past 5000 years?

I am in favor of universal healthcare, but the fact is we do not have it in the US. In the absence of what should be we must act on the basis of what is. — Fooloso4

I support your fight for free at point of delivery, universal health care in the US.

I try to judge others on a case-by-case basis. I will accept mitigating circumstances, sure but there are very definite levels of personal responsibility that cannot be shirked even when considering every aspect of the circumstances you find yourself in. Again, I am reminded of the muse song I posted on another thread. How many people could be made into the following and for how long?

Where there is not universal healthcare the accumulation of wealth is a reasonable defensive strategy. — Fooloso4

Seems like a good argument for demanding free universal healthcare for all from cradle to grave.
The human invention called money seems an unsatisfying reason given by those who don't support such.

Yep, I agree, too much to know and not enough personal brain space to store it nor time to assimilate it.
Maybe that's part of the problem, we have so much getting thrown at us that it's tough to even know where the real threats are coming from.

Yeah, but my focus is more about what makes people 'commit' themselves today to a particular point of view.
Okay, so we have ontology as a method of categorisation and of listing propositional logic scenarios such as x ⇒ you accept y ⇒ you must accept z. You also exemplified a personal choice scenario by typing 'don't go down x.'
So, if a person who deserves the title philosopher either due to academic qualifications or through personal publishing's decides to 'manipulate' (either positively or negatively) by offering the example you suggest in a brinkmanship style such as x ⇒ you accept y ⇒ you must accept z, where x, y, z.
power ⇒ responsibility ⇒ consequences.
Brinkmanship scenarios seem to be, employed a lot today.
How do you counter those who employ such brinkmanship philosophy?
Surely philosophers must have discussed this in depth.
Is rule by fear/threat/terror a legitimate philosophy? Basic Nazi philosophy for beginners.
Take people to the brink of their fears! That's the way to get them to live as you dictate.
Does that philosophy work?
Promise people anything they want until you get power! Take them to the brink of their desires!
Does that philosophy work?
Do these approaches only work for so long but ultimately fall.
Gandi said that all tyrants eventually fall. History suggests that he was correct but the 'we are on the brink' approach, still seems to have a great deal of power and attracts so many into knee-jerk voting such as in the elections of Trump, Bo Jo, Bolsonaro etc

Surely it is wiser to see the car coming from a great distance away and then you have plenty of time to plan how to avoid getting killed by it.
Even the recent Nasa effort to divert asteroids from hitting the Earth by crashing a satellite into it etc is a good idea. 'Future proofing,' is the best response. A clear and present danger may require some kind of brinkmanship when there is no time to do anything else. But philosophical brinkmanship is in general, a bad approach in my opinion. People should pay attention to what is going on and educate themselves, socially, politically and historically. The fact that far too many people, are still so easy to manipulate and dupe, is the problem. Philosophical brinkmanship is still far too powerful a weapon imo.
It's unbelievable that "More than 120 football fans have reportedly died after chaos and violence erupted following an Indonesian league football match." and "If Bolsonaro does not win then there might be civil unrest in Brazil," Etc The rest of the world should be screaming at them instead of merely shaking their heads. 'SHAME ON YOU PEOPLE OF BRAZIL AND INDONESIA!"

You remain non-committal Mr Smith. You seem to agree that philosophical brinkmanship is a valid term but is it merely a blunt tool to 'inflame' the masses and it often backfires and often becomes the cause of your own demise? Or is it essential if you want to cause significant change as quickly as possible?
A line from the Prince song 'sign o the times'
"A man ain't happy Unless a man truly dies.'
I always took this as a line about brinkmanship.
Is this what humans always need? Brinkmanship? before they change their ways?
Otherwise, they become apathetic and change only happens at much slower than a snail's pace.
Is this the philosophical/psychiatric reason why voters in so many countries seem to be choosing 'extreme,' 'wacky,' 'colourful,' 'slightly mad,' leaders?

So for a human beings brief and short existence on this planet the accumulation of such wealth can become an unhealthy obsession.

To what end ? — Deus

A very ancient question. Even the bible has 'easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.' I use this, just to suggest that even the ancient theists didn't have many positive things to say about rich people. Typing as an atheist, I concur with those who hold that the existence of the 'rich, powerful and sycophantic few,' is one of the main causes of the threat of extinction, currently faced by the human race.

Fair enough!

what are the best ways of combating modern day cartels/monopolies who don’t have the best interests of the common man as their driving principle… — Deus

A long-term plan to get rid of money, starting with a UBI(universal basic income). So, we move towards economic parity for all and then get rid of money and switch to something like a resource-based economy.

Not sure what you mean by the brink word and too many pointless questions there. — Deus

I corrected some of the language errors I initially made, did that help? If not, what do you mean 'pointless questions?' Do you mean you don't understand the questions? or you don't think they are worth answering?