• @sorval_the_eeter
        link
        -4
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Every US presidential or congressional candidate need to hire interns to open up all the checks from aipac, for starters. And then they need to hire someone to watch those interns. And a full time nurse to treat paper cuts. Pretty soon its a staff of hundreds of people. These candidates arent going to ‘bribe themselves’ you know. This is big business.

    • @disguy_ovahea
      link
      171 month ago

      I would’ve gone with “most important job in the nation,” personally.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -191 month ago

        That implies that youcan expect the US president to be able to do a good job. I’ve yet to hear from a president who actually did du a good job.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -171 month ago

            No, I don’t think that the position is actually able to do good. You could say that being an emperor is hard, too. But I think that emperors are a bad thing to have.in general. Just like presidents.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              71 month ago

              But I think that emperors are a bad thing to have.in general. Just like presidents.

              Why is that? And as a follow up, what would you have in its place?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -21 month ago

                What do you mean? Presidents or Emperors? Either way: monopolisation of power corrupts both the ruled and the rulers.

                One example of an alternative: Democratic confederalism

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 month ago

                  Presidents don’t have a monopolization on power (in the US); they don’t get to unilaterally order anyone to do anything. The US has three governing bodies which are ideally supposed to balance each other out. Also, the US already had a confederacy, and it didn’t work out so well (even ignoring slavery).

                  This is beginning to look a lot like it relies upon human goodwill and good faith participation, and it appears like it would be easy to exploit by a bad actor feigning innocence; as we’ve seen throughout history, there’s no shortage of selfish opportunists.

                  There will always be a leader(s) at the top, even in a confederacy or a union. You need visionaries, and humans, like other apes, are naturally inclined towards having leaders and being told what to do (it saves mental energy for survival).

                  I’m not saying we should all be mindless slaves—even gorillas and chimps don’t have that—but the way you and others are describing it, it sounds like it isn’t offering anything particularly different than the failed US Confederacy, minus the impotent government at that time.

                  Anyway, I’ll check out the podcast you suggested. I’m always up for learning! Thanks for the replies, and have a nice day.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Presidents don’t have a monopolization on power (in the US);

                    Of course they do. Just because they “share” their power with a government, doesn’t mean the government doesn’t monopolize power.

                    Also, the US already had a confederacy, and it didn’t work out so well (even ignoring slavery).

                    Please read up on what “democratic confederalism” means. It’s not comparable to what the so-called US did (at least after Europeans arrived - the Iriquois confederacy is more like it).

                    The so-called US was always focused on giving power to capitalists, while democratic confederalism is fundamentally socialist/usufruct.

                    This is beginning to look a lot like it relies upon human goodwill and good faith participation, and it appears like it would be easy to exploit by a bad actor feigning innocence; as we’ve seen throughout history, there’s no shortage of selfish opportunists.

                    You’ve got to realize that the current system is de facto succeptible to these bad actors by enabling them to amass power, right?

                    There will always be a leader(s) at the top, even in a confederacy or a union. You need visionaries, and humans, like other apes, are naturally inclined towards having leaders and being told what to do (it saves mental energy for survival).

                    I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s a narrative that’s very convenient to the powerful but not at all necessary. And there’s anthropological evidence that political hierarchies aren’t necessary in society.

              • @rockSlayer
                link
                -81 month ago

                Not the same person, but my vote is for nothing. No government. Maybe a national workers council during the transition to no government. Before you ask, no capitalism either. Just a library economy with production managed by worker-led unions

                • @draneceusrex
                  link
                  61 month ago

                  I told you! We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We’re taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week–

                  • @rockSlayer
                    link
                    -11 month ago

                    Funny you reference that, because I’m actually an anarcho-syndicalist and that’s actually the system I want to replace our government with (not as described in the skit, but still) The joke is good, but the politics are better

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  31 month ago

                  It kind of sounds like a confederacy. Also, each union would have its leadership with someone or a few at the top, so what you’re advocating for is a confederation of smaller governing bodies, yes?

                  Also, this isn’t a gotcha, but how would you ensure certain unions don’t take advantage of their market position? Would there still be national regulatory bodies?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    31 month ago

                    Also, each union would have its leadership with someone or a few at the top

                    Ideally, there wouldn’t be someone like a representative or president at the top

                  • @rockSlayer
                    link
                    21 month ago

                    I think you’re imagining these unions to be bigger than what they would be. A library economy is where all nonperishable goods are exchanged at a library. There’s no market to be positioned in. Each union represents their workplace, and these unions coordinate their production to meet the mutual needs of both communities. The unions have a very narrow scope, limited to what the workers produce and have the right of free association. The work needed to protect the environment would be managed by the entire community based on their ability to do so.

            • @Cryophilia
              link
              -11 month ago

              I have an additional question: are you even old enough to vote?

    • Flying Squid
      link
      21 month ago

      Have you seen how much a president ages over four years? It may not be a hard job, but it sure as hell isn’t easy. Unless you’re Trump and you don’t do shit.