The individual, then, enters with a type of consideration that is no longer capitalist, but that is of a dynastic order. From that moment on, the approach that these people take of society no longer corresponds to a capitalist perspective, but to a perspective of aristocratic type. — Rafaella Leon

How can a perspective that is a natural result of capitalism not be part of capitalism? You're drawing an arbitrary line here between capitalism and the results of capitalism.

Here we see that in certain ways the monetary system possesses (as an extension of us) all the features of a living system. Can it be said then that we birthed an organism that is more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human? Or perhaps a virus of kinds that feeds off of us (a host) to survive and do it’s bidding? — Benj96

It's a bit of a human habit to imagine inanimate forces as living, usually even sentient, beings. This seems in line with conceptualising the planet as "mother earth" and humanity as a whole as a single organism.

The question I'd ask is less "can such a comparison be made" and more "what does it entail"? What new insights do you think this conceptualisation offers? What predictions result from applying it? Does it agree with the actual history of money?

Yes, and I think that'll have to be the crux of the matter: Did Donald do what Donald did in order to set up a violent insurrection by his supporters in the Capitol? And the answer ought to be that this cannot be established, further is unlikely to be the case. — Kenosha Kid

I guess the question is how much honest delusion we credit Trump with. If someone sees a possible consequence of their actions, but simply doesn't care whether or not it happens, that is usually sufficient to establish intent.

As I was just discussing above, this seems to me to be the crux of this entrenching. If a person who you think is not crazy tells you you're wrong, but you don't think you are, it surely demonstrates as clearly as possible that something's seeming to you to be the case cannot itself be sufficient evidence that it is the case. Yet, no amount of internal reflection is going to get any more than something's seeming to you to be the case. One cannot take another person's contrary position and examine it against one's own web of beliefs. It will as obviously fail such a test as taking a Land Rover component and bolting it to a Ferrari would fail. You have to create a virtual web of beliefs built around what your (non-crazy) interlocutor is saying - a kind of joint space which neither of you actually believe in. But since neither of you own this space, there's not much incentive to do so in a combative environment.

I know it seems rather fusty, but the process of citation and building very gradually and slowly on previous work is a grand scale manifestation of this mental process, the academic corpus in general being the shared web of beliefs which neither party completely believes. This is why I think that "I've re-written the whole of..." type posts are just combative from the start (no matter the intention of the poster). They eschew the shared space of beliefs we already have. Doing so is equivalent to turning up to a negotiation with gun and expecting that not to have any influence of the parties' approach. — Isaac

That's a very interesting take on the problem. Thanks for sharing it!

For my part, the thing that I tend to find stressful is the perception that nobody agrees with me. — Pfhorrest

For what it's worth, I agree with a lot of the things you write. I think you're a good thinker and you are an asset to this forum.

But it's better for my ego to disagree and prove I'm smart. So it's hard to suppress the urge to just do the quick, simple, combative replies to things I think are obviously wrong as opposed to trying to find something interesting to say about an already well thought out topic.

One reason it's more frequent - or seems that way - might be that if you get banned here, you get your very own gravestone in the form of a post in the "bannings" treat. Often even get eulogies from other posters. It's a lot more visible than just disappearing quietly into the night.

Other forums don't usually even allow discussion of such decisions, let alone invite it.

What are people thoughts on why they do that? — DingoJones

The people that I am aware of all had some peculiarity in their style or preoccupation that was evident long before the "suicide by mod". They all seemed to have a very rigid position with respect to some topic, or a style that would lead to never ending discussion.

My guess would be that getting banned was the only way they could claim they upheld their position "to the end", without giving ground. After all, when you're banned, you can't reply, even if you want to.

Adam Smith? Wealth of Nations? 1776? Thought God was producing and distributing goods and services? Did he? — counterpunch

No.

you say so dude! — counterpunch

I don't.

I thought he thought it was the rationally self interest economic decisions of individuals in a free market. — counterpunch

It makes no sense to refer to the rational self-intetested decisions of individuals as an "invisible hand". They're not invisible, for one. Nor would it occur to anyone to describe the individuals making up the whole as the "hand leading it".

Also the actual quote is this:

(...) by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Note that it says "as in many other cases", so it does not sound as if we're talking about something that's only relevant to markets.

It's fascinating, that you would comment on something you don't understand at all. — counterpunch

It's fascinating that you would write two paragraphs that have nothing to do with what I wrote.

Extra points for writing “verisimilitude” several times. You sound wicked smart. — Xtrix

And the name dropping about the Frankfurt school. Superb. It's very avant-garde to blame the Frankfurt school instead of the Jews, the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers.

I mean everyone can run the world if you have control over a whole religion, a secret society or just a lot of money. But to rule the world with just philosophical works most people have never heard about - that takes some skill.

There is a significant percentage of the black community that are already there, so it's just a matter of time before the rest are pulled-up, but it is the black community that will do the pulling. — synthesis

I just wonder why you'd be against helping them? Like we can disagree on the right approach, but certainly there is something that can be done.

Adam Smith described it as an invisible hand. It would be madness of the highest order to dispense with it. — counterpunch

And Adam Smith was referring to God. He was a religious person, and it's not exactly subtle.

No. I don't suggest there's anything supernatural going on, but it's strange and wonderful how the rationally self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce and distribute the goods and services people want and need without any over-arching authority. — counterpunch

The thing is, though, that there has always been an over-arching authority since capitalism began. Capitalism developed under historically strong states.

You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable. — synthesis

But noone succeeds all by themselves, do they? They all rely on good parenting, education, opportunity afforded by outside sources.

People can make more or less out of what they're given, but no-one is an island.

that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom — counterpunch

Do you mean a literal miracle, i.e. an act of God? Do you consider the literal hand of God to be involved in the market?

Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. Just because it's not racist - that doesn't make it okay, you can still be angry just, maybe stop diluting the meaning of important words for political benefit? — Judaka

This brings to mind a more general question: I have often felt that when discussing with people who appeared honestly have a different opinion on social issues that the main disagreement was about what could reasonably be concluded from events. What happened was not in doubt, but what it means was.

So, do you think people you characzerize as "left wing", or who are engaged in "social justice" movements often have bad epistemological standards?

That is do you feel they're overinterpreting events? See intent with insufficient evidence? Conclude systemic issues exist based on anecdotal evidence?

More generally, do you feel like the "left wing" tries to make the world more complicated than it is - that things are more often what they appear, and common sense works? Or is it the opposite? Neither?

Sure, I don't disagree. Just wanted to point out that even if one were to disagree, and argue that there really isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that e.g. Biden or Pelosi are beholden to their backers, you can still make an argument. Unlimited money in politics would still mean that ideas that aren't supported by monied interests get way less exposure. And this would lead to them being less likely to be adopted, even if everyone's integrity was flawless.

Presumably, if corporations can find loopholes to fund candidate campaigns, those candidates are beholden to those corporations, and will be in their pocket.

The other side is that spending money is the same as other choices that are supposed to be allowed in a "free" society. — schopenhauer1

One doesn't actually need to conclude that the candidate is beholden to the source of the money. It'd be sufficient to observe that only candidates which can raise sufficient money have a chance to win, and you wouldn't spend your money on someone who supports things you dislike.

So the point of limiting monetary contributions would not just be to prevent corruption (though it might help) but also to allow ideas that aren't popular with rich people the same chance as those ideas that are.

This would seem to be entirely in keeping with the actual reason we want "free" speech, and so would be a measure to make (political) speech more free, not less.

How would your rank them? — khaled

Based on relevance to continued practice of one's freedom, so life would rank highest, as the conditio sine qua non, then bodily autonomy, since you can only act through your body, and so on.

Not necessarily. You could argue that weakening property rights in this manner does more harm than good since you can't really tell who has the strongest emotions, and use that as justification to keep them the same. — khaled

But if we're willing to allow such general and abstract notions of suffering, we might as well throw the entire principle overboard and go with "whatever we thinks is best for everyone".

As I said before, you use actual, emotional suffering as your standard for the clear examples, but as soon as the water gets muddy you fall back on more generalised notions of "danger" and "harm" to shore up the holes. And that you need to do that is exactly the reason I find your approach not convincing.

Seeing as you are happy reaffirming your view with @schopenhauer1, I think I'll leave it at that. This discussion has gone on a long while, and I think we're past the point where any of us will learn anything.

I do appreciate the calm and honest debate from your side though, thanks for that!

The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage. — synthesis

As I have said before, the idea that the market is some kind of "force" is unfounded. There is no such thing. It goes back to Smith's "invisible hand", by which he meant: God.

Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy). — synthesis

That depends on how we define "free" as well. So it's one of those statements that's true by definition, but the devil is in the details.

I cited anecdotal evidence for the idea that resisting arrest is more likely to get you shot. — counterpunch

You're not answering my question, but then this seems something that people who agree with you always seem to do - never answer the question, but always repeat your claims.

The question is, how do we turn the absence of knowledge (are we in a simulation or not? What are the simulators like?) Into knowledge about the likelihood of a specific scenario?

I cited evidence; albeit somewhat anecdotal. — counterpunch

You can ditch the "somewhat". The reason I ask is this: since the evidence you have is not different from the evidence some random person in a BLM protest is likely to cite, what makes you so certain you are correct (certain enough you're willing to "look like a bastard", in your words)?

But again, it's not the crime - it's the arrest. — counterpunch

Which raises the question of why you bring up the murder rate. Do you have an argument to make there?

The crime is irrelevant - except insofar as it indicates a propensity to resist arrest. — counterpunch

The implied claim here is that the disparity can be explained by different behaviour when faced with arrest. Do you have evidence for that?

The same explanation applies. The systematic racism of political correctness is a consequence of the individualism and cowardice of white people; that they don't have a collectivist sense of identity, less yet racial identity, and individually, fall victim to left wing ideologues who seek to make them ashamed of their history and skin colour - not least to justify mass immigration. — counterpunch

In your estimation, do the wealthy nations that struggle with the problem of mass migration also exploit the countries that the immigrants are coming from?

In fact, white people should be proud of the massive contributions they have made to the world. They invented damn near everything - from the scientific and industrial revolutions, to modern democratic governance, rule of law, medical science, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, flight, radio, television, computers, the internet and so on and on. — counterpunch

I don't really get that notion of pride. I don't contribute to my own whiteness, so it doesn't seem to be something I could be proud of. If I wanted to be proud of, say, past inventions, I'd at least have to consider my conduct to be in some way a continuation of the inventors ethos / methods.

Like you can be proud of furthering the development of science in the tradition of past scientists, but I don't get where skin colour enters into it.

And in case you want to reply "well why are black people allowed to be proud of their blackness", I'll just concede for the sake of discussion that the same problem applies.

What exactly is the negative consequence of owning rather than renting that you're trying to avoid? I have my suspicions but rather than just give my answers to all of them at once I'd like to know what in particular you're concerned about. — Pfhorrest

Well you have to pay for maintenance, so if something major breaks just after you bought, you might then not be able to easily afford the repairs. Which is worse if, say, you were only planning to stay for a few months and need to sell the property afterwards, which will not recoup the expenses for the repair.

In addition, selling a property does itself require time and money, so depending on how long you stay, this might not be worth it.

But if you were to rank these abstract values wouldn't they be ranked by the strength of the associated emotional reactions anyways? — khaled

You could, but I wouldn't. I suppose that'd be some kind of moral realism or evolutionary morality. I'd consider that an is-ought-fallacy though.

In other words, when both doing and not doing something will result in some suffering, you obviously pick the version that results in the least suffering. I wouldn't even mind valuing your own suffering above that of others when doing this. — khaled

I think that this would result in us having to pay way more attention to the emotional reactions of others than is reasonable. Certainly, as we have already alluded to, property rights would be a lot weaker, since mass produced stuff would be legal to take if you really needed it. Not necessarily a terrible outcome, but I don't see why we should hand over moral authority to those with the strongest emotions.

Not really. The extent to which I wish not to die easily trumps the extent to which I wish it doesn't rain tomorrow. — khaled

What's the "extent" here? The strength of the associated emotions?

How so? Sounds practically like the same thing to me. — khaled

In one case you have something that's measurable - like an emotional reaction. In the other, you have abstract values like "bodily autonomy" or "self-determination" which have no intrinsic scale.

You take it too far. Just apply the principle as it is. — khaled

I can't, though, if there is no method, or algorithm, if you want, which tells me what kind level of justification I need, or how different kinds of suffering relate.

For example: not having children also causes someone to experience something they'd rather not experience. So we have a conflict here, how is it resolved?

The way I define “harm” is “Doing to someone something they wish isn’t done to them”. And “suffering” is simply the thing you don’t wish is done to you. Idk if that answers your question.

So you are harming the homeless person even if it’s a painless death (because they don’t want to die I presume) — khaled

So, suffering is deontological? Only a relation between a person's will and some state of affairs, or even perhaps just another person's intentions? If so, that'd actually be pretty close to Kant. But I don't see how it squares with the way you have been using the terms.

For one, the suffering you outlined isn't quantifiable, since it's a binary relation (something is either what you wish or it isn't). So this principle needs to be backed up by some hierarchy of interests to resolve conflicts. That isn't necessarily a problem - a lot of legal systems work that way - it's just different from merely tallying up empirical suffering.

More to the point of the decision, if suffering and harm are ultimately about a violation of your will, and your will is how your self realizes itself in the world, then what you seem to be concerned is not so much suffering, but freedom or dignity. The quality of the subject to decide their own path as free from outside interference as possible. I just don't see how this squares with anti-natalism, because obviously to protect freedom and dignity, someone must exist to possess them, first.

In theory, the market should control the capitalists. If they do something wrong (economically), the market should punish them. — synthesis

"The market" is not something that exists like a market in your local town. It's a theoretical model that explains the formation of price according to supply and demand, if certain conditions are met.

In another sense, a "market" is just a descriptive term for transactions that happen in a specific region or concerning a specific ware.

In either case all that a market can be said to control is the price and distribution of goods, but not who profits from their production, how they use those profits etc.

It would seem that the most productive form of capitalism is where resources are being used optimally, that is, the correct marriage of resources and labor. — synthesis

Who decides how to define productivity and what the optimal use of resources is? In capitalism the only systemic motive is profit, so it'll be set up to optimise for profit. The idea that by striving for profit we ultimately benefit everyone is a religious one, going back to the protestant work ethic.

As well, wouldn't accumulation slow innovation/productivity through anti-competitiveness — synthesis

Yes, and this is in fact what happens unless there are other forces - like political ones - involved. Under capitalism, you don't want to innovate or be competitive. You want to have a monopoly that makes you money with no effort involved. As an economic system, it only works so long as you can keep competition alive.

I would be interested in a couple of examples. Thanks. — synthesis

There is the cooperative, where everyone owns an equal share in the company - there are some rather large and old ones around right now.

There is the "purpose company", which works like a normal company, but isn't owned by a person, but by a trust that is legally obligated to use it's resources towards a given goal. So instead of aiming for profit, you could have companies with aims like cleaning the ocean or planting trees (search engine Ecosia is an example and does the latter).

Sure, it was the mindscape podcast, with guess Joseph Henrich. He has written a few books on the topic I saw. — ChatteringMonkey

Thanks!

The question then presumably is how much is hard-wired and how much is left to culture? — ChatteringMonkey

Difficult to answer, certainly, but I see no indication stuff like the scientific method requires a specific cultural background to understand. And in terms of morality, there is some significant overlap in ground rules. You'll find very similar structures of mutual assistance in band-level societies across the globe, rules of hospitality, limitations on violent conflict within groups. These seem all based on basic logic.

I do tend to throw that word around semi-consciously.... but they are indeed something more general and abstract. Examples would be something like freedom, security, quality of life etc. These are general ideas that capture the things we find the most important, and we use them as standards to measure other things by... and we also weight them against eachother to order them in some kind of hierarchy. That's where people typically will have different opinions, one person will value security over freedom, and another the other way around. — ChatteringMonkey

Could we say these are related to the "meaning of life"? That the values, insofar as they're not cynically used, are what you actually consider the conditions for your life's "success"?

Yes ok, I agree with this insofar reason definitely plays and should play a role, but that role is I think ultimately only instrumental and not the bases of our valuations. So if you value X, then by way of correct reasoning you would get an objective answer to the question of how to act. But that value X is not objectively derivable from the world or reason alone, but comes from our affects. I'll try to explain what I mean with value below... — ChatteringMonkey

I think that there is one exception to this, and that is basically the principle to respect other valuations as equal to yours. Or put in other words to treat every other subject as an end (ultimate value) in itself. That's a position you can adopt regardless of what it is you value, because we can logically recognise that everyone could simultaneously adopt it without compromising anyone's values.

Are you referring to a scenario where you wish someone harm, but don't actually do anything you expect to harm them?

In that case I'd agree, such wishing is without moral relevance.

I don't just deem it arbitrarily. You haven't actually engaged with the argument. When do we label people as "mentally ill"? It is precisely when they start becoming a danger to themselves and others. For cases of mental illness where we find it appropriate for forcefully intervene, we are interfering because the person in question is threatening someone or is being suicidal due to impairment.

Find me a situation where we find it acceptable to label someone mentally ill and forcefully intervene in their lives when they are:

A- Not dependents.
B- Not being harmful towards anyone or themselves.
C- They did not ask us to do it. — khaled

My point is that you don't show how any of this is related to "suffering" in the usual sense of the word. You talk about danger, harm, being suicidal. But what's the relation with suffering here? Are these all synonyms for suffering? Why is there no reference to the actual suffering of the person in question?

False. Try using my system to justify murder or theft. You will fail. — khaled

For murder: someone might really enjoy murdering someone, and painlessly murders a homeless person with no relations. But I admit this is a fanciful and unrealistic example.

For theft it's actually really easy. A hungry person steals bread from a large company store. It seems pretty evident that the suffering of being hungry outweighs any suffering anyone who works for the company feels due to the theft.

When we can't defeat the point, try to defeat the person. — Hippyhead

That is a good description of your recent posts, including this one, yes.

There's a very rigid group consensus here. Readers apparently wish for me to join in the self serving chanting, to go along to get along etc. If I was smart I'd do that, and then I'd have friends. — Hippyhead

Or perhaps the arguments you are making are simply not very convincing. But I get it's much better for one's ego to imagine oneself as the lone warrior for truth, martyred by group consensus.

That's not because I'm smart and you're stupid. Not that. It's because I'm 68 and you're probably 22. That is, I've been doing this since before your parents were born, and you're just getting started. — Hippyhead

I mean clearly it's not because you're smart and he is stupid, since everyone can see that you're not smart. But good job turning those 68 years of experience into one post that establishes that fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Is there a situation where we do something that does NOT minimize suffering of others (including yourself) and find it acceptable unless it’s dependents and it’s being done for their own good? — khaled

It seems like we're going in circles here where I give some example, and you then reject it because you deem it to minimize suffering.

Since you're willing to class everything as "suffering", including abstract and generalised harm caused by jaywalking or similar acts, it seems to me you can justify any arbitrary result. I can see no principles behind your argument other than that whatever you have already deemed to be acceptable must therefore be what minimizes suffering.

Actually that was the reason and which shows that politicians that supported a monarchy and see the needs of the people and react to issues before they turn into open revolution. — ssu

It strikes me as unnecessarily risky though, to hope that when things get really bad, someone will step in in time.

Yet doesn't unrestrained socialism lead to unrestrained power? — ssu

That depends on what you understand by "socialism". But I don't really want to debate the merits of either system in the abstract. I just think it's worth looking at other motivations apart from profit. For example, there is a growing movement of "purpose companies", like the search engine "Ecosia". These operate in the market, but their capital is held in a purpose-bound trust (in the case of Ecosia that is planting trees). It has all the advantages of a market economy, but instead of measuring it's success in terms of profit margin, it does so in terms of planted trees.

There are interesting approaches out there. One doesn't need to drag Stalin's corpse out of the closet in any discussion about economic reform.

And I simply don't buy it. — ssu

"It" being that only leftists argue for economic reform and welfare? I'd agree with you. Plenty of the new right wing parties across Europe promote redistribution, usually explicitly for the benefit of specific nationals.

If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. Bismarck wasn't a leftist, but he went on with social-welfare legislation. — ssu

Bismarck is not perhaps the best example you could pick here, since the reason he added the "drop of socialist oil" to the mix was to avoid a socialist revolution.

But yes, capitalism has been successful. Quite remarkably so, in fact. But that doesn't mean there isn't always the inherent danger of unrestrained capital accumulation leading to unrestrained power. I think the struggle between welfare, unions and regulation on the one side and the profit motif on the other is hard to overlook.

You are absolutely correct, but corruption is part and parcel of all human activity. I do realize that the temptations are perhaps greater when wealth (power) is involved, but it's everywhere (all the time). — synthesis

Then you do realize the problem. I don't claim that any change would lead to a perfect system.

The fact that capitalism does appear to result in increasing concentrations of wealth can be attenuated by keeping the system as "honest" as possible, i.e., maintaining competition, keeping the politicians somewhat under control, using real money, etc. At present, it's a complete mess. — synthesis

You seem to be under the impression that the politicians need to be kept "under control", but they aren't the ones who have all the capital, are they? What about keeping the capitalists under control?

And I am not convinced that all but the few have such a maniacal propensity to go towards avarice. Just the same, keeping those things that can be regulated (within the context of freedom), regulated, you will get the best result possible. — synthesis

What I am talking about is not really avarice. That would imply that the problem is specific people of bad character. But accumulation of capital is part of capitalism, regardless of individual greed. It's the force driving the expansion of the economy. Capitalism takes the very natural inclination of humans to accumulate resources and turns into a tool to drive the economy.

This has worked very well for some time, but the problems keep mounting. Regulation helps, of course, but unless you are regulating with the goal of actually fixing the problem, instead of just addressing the symptoms, you'll always risk to be too late.

Capitalism (like all human systems) has it's issues, but it's so incredibly efficient and has lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty. It also a system that rewards merit, hard work, and most importantly panders to the market, where it is the masses [mostly] that decide what is going to be a successful product/service.

Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster. — synthesis

There are, however, other approaches that are also meritocratic and market based and not top-down economies. There are already businesses right now that are not capitalist and yet compete in the same market as everyone else.

Non sequitor. "With any certainty". Really? Be reasonable. With some certainty. — khaled

You can predict the outcome of an indefinite chain of events with "some certainty"? I don't see how you could.

That is literally the same thing as the above. You just changed "be sure" to "forseeable". Again showing that you can predict these things with some certainty. I don't understand why you insist on pretending we can't. — khaled

And "foreseeable" was the word I used to denote exactly the things we can predict. But you can't predict whether the person whose life you saved today has a grandson that murders millions, nor would anyone feel obligated to calculate the odds.

We already do that. Unless they are dependents or they consent to it we do not interfere with others, furthermore we consider it immoral to do so. Doctors don't go around forcefully "curing" people, people instead come to doctors. And if a doctor was going around forcing people to exercise for their health, we'd think he's being immoral, and he'd immediately get his license revoked. It's none of his damn business. — khaled

We interfere with others constantly. Casting someone a sideways glance is interfering with their emotions. Police patrols interfere with people traveling. We expect people to abide by all kinds of laws and social norms regardless of how they personally feel about doing so.

The one are where we uphold your principle is bodily autonomy, but this is a special case of strict non-interference, not the norm.

NOT having this principle would mean that if I deem you "unstable" I am allowed to do whatever to you to "stabilize" you without your consent, and without you being my dependent. Give me one situation where we consider that acceptable. — khaled

Mentally ill patients.

So which is it that’s wrong, our actions, or their causes? — Pinprick

The two cannot be disentangled for the purpose of morality, but if we're talking about selecting a moral course of action, then right and wrong must already apply to the selection process.

I do agree with you that capitalism is not only not the problem, it's the only game in town, as socialism is simply a re-distribution scheme and communism, a pipe-dream.

It's just a matter of rooting out the corruption which has pretty much paralyzed all systems. — synthesis

What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer.

It's obvious that the massive concentrations of wealth this produces come with associated power, and this power then competes with political power. The result is corruption, as politics becomes a tool for economic gain and vice versa.

Hard to see how to get out of that spiral without some kind of reform.

And which of those does mine produce? — khaled

That depends a bit on the exact exceptions you're going to make. I don't think "never take an action that you know will cause suffering unless you can be sure you're not going to cause net suffering" works at all, since it would make all actions impossible. There is no cutoff to causal chains, so you're never going to be able to predict the suffering you cause with any certainty.

If we're going with something more malleable like "never take actions that will cause forseeable suffering greater than the forseeable suffering they prevent", it's not going to result in something obviously self-defeating. It still fails the secon test in my opinion, since as I pointed out it'd obligate us all to avoid causing any kind of emotional distress to each other that is avoidable, and if we applied that rigorously we'd be forced to do whatever the most emotionally unstable people wanted in order to avoid causing them any distress, unless and until your distress overrules theirs.

Right, but intentions aren’t acts, so how can the be called right/wrong? — Pinprick

Intentions are what determines your actions though. You have a principle (or maxim) by which you select outcomes, and then you select a specific path for you to take from the current status quo to the outcome, and that is the intention.

I've been through a lot since then, but long story short, to me, everything, especially that in relation to human society, seems absolutely absurd. What do you think? — Ellis

I think it's quite soothing, at times, to think it's all absurd. In the words of Monty Python:

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow
Forget about your sin
Give the audience a grin
Enjoy it, it's your last chance anyhow

Yes, it seems difficult to avoid this point, also made by unenlightened, that ultimately his racism is attractive because they are racists, his misogyny attractive because they are misogynists, his irresponsibility attractive because they are irresponsible. And after decades of being made to feel bad about this, along comes this person who exemplifies and therefore exonerates them. — Kenosha Kid

I think it's not just that. It's also that, in our world and perhaps especially in America, the standards projected by media (and politicians - often falsely) are often far removed from the standards you can reasonably expect someone to uphold. You get constantly bombarded by incredibly beautiful people who appear to lead incredibly fulfilling lives all while being woke on race, helping poor children in Africa and only eating organic, ethically produced food.

If you're scraping along on the edge of poverty in some area culturally very removed from any of this, it doesn't take a particularily viscious person to develop a whole lot of resentment.