Socialism versus Capitalism, solved

As a democracy becomes larger and more complex voters rely increasingly on experts to figure out what is in their interest and for every expert there are 10 lobbyists posing as experts. As such there are limits to what can be decided "collectively" before corruption sets in, there is no fruit loop utopian vision that can simply wish away corruption and enable everything to be managed perfectly.

Thus it makes sense for socialists to think like capitalists, to recognise the limits of democracy and not overextend the limited administrative capital of voters, this would probably result in some kind of direct democratic system and strong local government taking care of welfare and public safety with otherwise unfettered capitalism everywhere else.

>>7
No, that movie talks about exactly what I was thinking about and exactly what I was saying wouldn't work.  It presents a decent argument for it, I will admit that, but it's entirely based on idealistic hope.  Regardless of how affluent the first world has become, intelligence breeds both elegant solutions and a higher-criteria of problems, but also the old problems remain.  People are people and naturally divide into camps; that's why conflict is unavoidable.  Our brain naturally categorizes things into a series of "likes" and "dislikes" and that is how it processes information.  You can make them as logical as they want but give them something they are divided about and time will create it owns flanderization with time.

Additionally, such idealistic postulations also suggest that people enjoy being capricious goldfish who will drop ideas, practices, and philosophies at the drop of the hat of "fact" and "logic."  Even what we would call smart people today aren't like that when not willing.  People do not like their lives overturned because someone proved a new theorem and, heaven and hell be damned, it's going to be used, whether or not they want it.