Money is not motivation...

[Duality]

Trade only benefits both parties when it brings practical prosperity. When another has so much more to gain by exterminating the other party, they will instead do so. Especially when you are talking about governments. It’s all a silly power play for land, resources and especially currency.


Money is only a byproduct of your system. I don’t want to work within your system. I want to destroy your system like I would destroy a bad dream. By waking up from it. The market is a byproduct of a long gone era, one of which silly puppets are still deluded into thinking exists.

[Stoic Guardian]

You're a Crybaby.

[Carleas]

Trade only benefits both parties when it brings practical prosperity.

Voluntary trade does, ex hypothesi. If people are choosing to trade what they have for something else, it is because that something else is more valuable to them than the thing they have. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't voluntarily engage in trade. Even if their decision is made under duress, as in the monopsony example I mentioned earlier, they have the option of keeping the thing they have if it's more valuable to them than the thing they're receiving in return, so they still benefit, even if only marginally.

By waking up from it. The market is a byproduct of a long gone era, one of which silly puppets are still deluded into thinking exists.

Waking up to what? What's the real world that you see behind exchanges of goods and services? What era ended such that a common abstraction of value no longer facilitates mutually beneficial exchanges? I certainly don't think that the system we have is ideal, but it's a very different thing to say that the underlying idea of money is the root of the problem. Capitalism, for all its flaws, has done a great deal to advance humanity, and replaced significantly more abusive power structures.

[Duality]

You're a Crybaby.

JAN 1 - Death of The U.S. Constitution - HAPPY NEW YEAR: YOU CAN NOW BE DETAINED INDEFINITELY - "Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it. He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law”.


JAN 1 -Hollywood On Fire for Third Night in a Row - "City officials scrambled on a busy New Year's Eve to identify who was behind dozens of arson fires that have spooked the Hollywood area for two straight nights. The fires resembled more than a dozen set before dawn Saturday, mostly in North Hollywood, and nearly two dozen fires set in and around Hollywood a day earlier."


JAN 1 - Iran Nuclear Program: Country Proposes New Nuclear Talks With World Powers - "The U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions. Separately, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties. Last month, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledged that the current penalties were impeding Iran's financial institutions, saying, "our banks cannot make international transactions anymore."

The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't stop its nuclear program. But Jalili warned Tehran would make any aggressor regret a decision to attack Iran. "We will give a response that will make the aggressor regret any threat against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Jalili said.

[Carleas]

Anecdote. A broader picture looks very different. The world is not crumbling, it only seems that way because we have more access to information than ever before. Paradoxically, it's the triumph of peace, prosperity, and global connection that make it look like everything is falling apart.

[James L Walker]

Trade only benefits both parties when it brings practical prosperity. When another has so much more to gain by exterminating the other party, they will instead do so. Especially when you are talking about governments. It’s all a silly power play for land, resources and especially currency.


Money is only a byproduct of your system. I don’t want to work within your system. I want to destroy your system like I would destroy a bad dream. By waking up from it. The market is a byproduct of a long gone era, one of which silly puppets are still deluded into thinking exists.

I approve of this post. Destroy the system. Fuck the system and all those that either control or benefit from it.

Stoic: You're a Crybaby.

That's what wealthy people are along with benefiting people like yourself when confronted with in house invasions.

Quick! Somebody call 911! Save me! I'm too important to fail or be undermined like this!

These people aren't being fair or playing by the rules of law! Help me!

You little cry babies always want to socialize your losses even after your complaining about public socialism.

Carleas: Voluntary trade does, ex hypothesi. If people are choosing to trade what they have for something else, it is because that something else is more valuable to them than the thing they have. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't voluntarily engage in trade. Even if their decision is made under duress, as in the monopsony example I mentioned earlier, they have the option of keeping the thing they have if it's more valuable to them than the thing they're receiving in return, so they still benefit, even if only marginally.

This entire system is based upon manipulation and coercion. Both are enforced heavily. Quit trying to pretend that individual independence even exists anymore at this current historical stage of society or civilization.

You know that it doesn't exist.

People like you can fool most others but you can't fool me.

There is no voluntary engagement. There is only coerced social interactions that people like you try to fancy up as being voluntary engagement so that nobody asks questions.

Even if their decision is made under duress, as in the monopsony example I mentioned earlier, they have the option of keeping the thing they have if it's more valuable to them than the thing they're receiving in return, so they still benefit, even if only marginally.

Who benefits from this system or any organization of governed markets?

You and I both know that there is no such thing as equal benefit.

Waking up to what? What's the real world that you see behind exchanges of goods and services? What era ended such that a common abstraction of value no longer facilitates mutually beneficial exchanges? I certainly don't think that the system we have is ideal, but it's a very different thing to say that the underlying idea of money is the root of the problem. Capitalism, for all its flaws, has done a great deal to advance humanity, and replaced significantly more abusive power structures.

The real world doesn't exist anymore. Human beings destroyed that a long time ago in layers of concrete and mortar.

What era ended such that a common abstraction of value no longer facilitates mutually beneficial exchanges?

Agricultural era.

I certainly don't think that the system we have is ideal, but it's a very different thing to say that the underlying idea of money is the root of the problem. Capitalism, for all its flaws, has done a great deal to advance humanity, and replaced significantly more abusive power structures.

Advance who exactly?

Nothing advanced is free. It costs where you better hope you can afford it or else.

[James L Walker]

You're a Crybaby.

JAN 1 - Death of The U.S. Constitution - HAPPY NEW YEAR: YOU CAN NOW BE DETAINED INDEFINITELY - "Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it. He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law”.


JAN 1 -Hollywood On Fire for Third Night in a Row - "City officials scrambled on a busy New Year's Eve to identify who was behind dozens of arson fires that have spooked the Hollywood area for two straight nights. The fires resembled more than a dozen set before dawn Saturday, mostly in North Hollywood, and nearly two dozen fires set in and around Hollywood a day earlier."


JAN 1 - Iran Nuclear Program: Country Proposes New Nuclear Talks With World Powers - "The U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions. Separately, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties. Last month, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledged that the current penalties were impeding Iran's financial institutions, saying, "our banks cannot make international transactions anymore."

The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't stop its nuclear program. But Jalili warned Tehran would make any aggressor regret a decision to attack Iran. "We will give a response that will make the aggressor regret any threat against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Jalili said.

Don't try bursting their bubble Duality. They won't listen to you. They have already convinced themselves that their delusions is truth.

[James L Walker]

Human beings are not naturally inclined to work for others which is why currency was devised as a means of controlling the daily behaviors or activities of people by that of coercive motivation within it's abstract rewards and punishments.

Humans naturally engage in economic activity. The most 'natural' is bartering; many monkeys and apes (including humans) have instinctive intuitions about what constitutes a 'fair' trade, though to my knowledge only humans engage in spontaneous exchanges of goods. As someone has already said, money is just an abstraction of bartering, allowing the value of exchanges to be saved up or divided, and allowing people to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges even if they couldn't make a direct exchange of goods.

It's actually possible to re-appropriate monkeys' economic instincts to get them to use a abstracted means of exchange:

When taught to use money, a group of capuchin monkeys responded quite rationally to simple incentives; responded irrationally to risky gambles; failed to save; stole when they could; used money for food and, on occasion, sex.

There is no such thing as mutual exchanges in modern economics.

It's all about master slave economics anymore when it concerns manipulating people into the service of others.

By the word service I mean physical and mental bondage.

Modern economics is the complete opposite of mutual advantage.

Anecdote. A broader picture looks very different. The world is not crumbling, it only seems that way because we have more access to information than ever before. Paradoxically, it's the triumph of peace, prosperity, and global connection that make it look like everything is falling apart.

Peace is just neutralizing, silencing, or the getting rid of opposition.

Your 'peace' is hollow.

[Duality]

They probably wont hear anything you say because their mental stability relies on collective delusion to be able to function within the slave system. I would like them to know though regardless that there are always people waiting for any opportune moment to sabotage everything they have put in place and worked for. Love seeing people get exactly what they deserve.

Don't try bursting their bubble Duality. They won't listen to you. They have already convinced themselves that their delusions is truth.

Yep. I was think thinking of adopting as my philosophy the delusions of sheltered academics instead of reality, but then I realized that would make me an assclown.

[Stoic Guardian]

You know the truth!

Please, enlighten me sage.

[James L Walker]

You know the truth!

Please, enlighten me sage.

Why? You have already made up your mind.

A person will only enlighten and teach themselves. They cannot be taught by others.

I find genuine insight is found by oneself alone.

[Carleas]

Don't try bursting their bubble Duality. They won't listen to you. They have already convinced themselves that their delusions is truth.

Dial back the rhetoric. We can indirectly accuse others of all sorts of mental shortcomings, but we aren't very well placed to judged. Instead, let's actually compare the bases for our ideas in facts and logic, and see which world-view better captures observation. Refusing to play when a discussion doesn't consist of mutual ego-stroking is intellectually dishonest. We're each of us wrong about something, maybe it's this. Entertain the idea that when someone disagrees with you, it could be you who is mistaken; I will do my best to do the same.

This entire system is based upon manipulation and coercion. Both are enforced heavily[. . .] There is no voluntary engagement. There is only coerced social interactions that people like you try to fancy up as being voluntary engagement so that nobody asks questions.

These claims are too strong. You're telling me that when you go to the store and buy a soda, your decision is coerced? It doesn't seem so, unless we give advertising so much credit to think that it controls our lives, in which case buy a Pepsi and enjoy dancing on a boardwalk with a model in roller-skates.

Certainly some decisions are coerced, like, most recently, the decision to buy health insurance. But even then, you have a choice of what health insurance: you could buy cadillac insurance, or ideological insurance that doesn't cover birth control. Other coerced decisions are that you aren't able to buy a car without seatbelts, or to fly in a pilot-less plane. But these are distortions of the market, not its complete destruction. In many cases, there aren't even explicit laws defining how one must e.g. design a product. Instead, people are held accountable by law for the damage their products do, and as a result people choose to spend more time making their products safe. Does it distort a free market? Yes, but a completely free market fails when, as in this example, there is incomplete information by one party about the good or service they're getting. If people could cheaply obtain complete information about how safe a product is, products liability would probably be unnecessary. Instead, we have a system that assigns the cost of poor information to the person most in control of the safety of the product. Coercive, yes, but coercion for the purpose of internalizing a cost not captured otherwise in the exchange.

Actually, a general argument against money, which I don't recall seeing here, could be based on just this phenomenon:
One is generally much better informed about an abstract medium of exchange than about the good or service for which it's being exchanged. Money thus creates information asymmetry by making the consumer less informed than the seller. This will be true in almost every exchange for money, except when money is exchanged for other liquid or nearly liquid assets like commodities, or perhaps securities like stock whose value does not derive from their utility; in these case, the variation in the value of money will be about equal to the variation in the value of the thing being exchanged for money.

Who benefits from this system or any organization of governed markets? You and I both know that there is no such thing as equal benefit.

This is true, but equal benefit is not necessary for there to be common benefit. If I have a red ball and like green slightly more, and you have a green ball and like red a lot more, if we trade balls we both benefit, though you benefit more.

Nor is common benefit necessary for social benefit. If I am color blind, and you are not color blind and prefer red to green, you are benefitted if we trade balls and I am made no worse off. If you and I constitute a society, the society as a whole is better off, because this transaction has improved your situation without causing me any loss, thus increasing net value.

The worry I think comes in two parts. The first is that one person may be benefitting over and over again, while the other is not, such that society as a whole works to improve one person's well-being without improving the well-being of another. The second part is that the person who benefits more from one exchange will be in a place to rig future exchanges to increase her benefit. Together, these would tend to enhance each other, so that if the second is true, the first becomes more destructive. This I think is what you mean when you refer to economic slavery.

It's a problem, but it's partly why we have paternalistic governments. The best governments will help to reduce this rigging-of-the-game. But there's a fine balance to be maintained so that government itself doesn't become another way to rig the game. The transition from monarchy to democracy did a lot to reduce this, but it has not been perfect, and it seems that government is doing less now to prevent it. This is probably why Jefferson advocated regular revolutions to re-level society.

Further reforms can further improve the fairness of markets to maximize the spread of social benefits, and it is still the case, despite all this, that each such exchange creates more value for society, even though it means society does more for some than for others.

[Gobbo]

I think what Walker is trying to say is that, after you finish reading Carleas' well thought-out post, you are actually worse off than you were before.

These claims are too strong.

The claims are actually not too strong. They're perfectly stated.

The evidence for which is that all you did was rephrase what he said, but in a manner of speaking which seeks to alleviate the lack of free will evident in the logic here. It's a common tactic I see here: someone says something in a polemic/absolutist voice, and someone says 'No, there are actually exceptions' with that tone of voice that implies every person capable of reading this wouldn't have realized that.

Like buying a fucking soda at the store.

[Carleas]

I don't see the problem with pointing out an exception that defeats an absolute claim. Even if all I were doing was pointing out some minor exceptions, the absolute claim is false because of them.

Here, however, I take a stronger position. My position is that the cases where economic interaction is fully or mostly coerced and involuntary are the exception, and that most exchanges resemble the buying-a-coke case. There is some coercion in many exchanges, but in most it is not the salient feature; one is coerced only to the extent that one must have food and shelter and clothing to live.

Walker's claim, then, is true to the extent that manipulation and coercion exist and affect the market, but it is too strong when he says that they are the basis for the system, and that because they exist there is no voluntary engagement. Even if this should be read as saying that coercion and manipulation are a large part of the foundation of the market system, and that there are almost no voluntary economic interactions, the claim is too strong. Most economic transactions are for all intents and purposes voluntary, and the failures that exist affect the market most relevantly when taken as a whole, not at each interaction.

Furthermore, the manipulation and coercion are not due to the existence of an abstract medium of exchange, which is a further claim that Walker and Duality are making, which I dispute.

[tentative]

Carleas,

Why waste time arguing with a fence post? The Chicken Little people HAVE to see the sky is falling and we're all doomed. They are the "special" people who see what we can't see. They're just using ILP as a virtual soapbox instead of waving their doomsday signs on some street corner. We might as well be entertained watching them auger in - or grow up.

[Duality]

Furthermore, the manipulation and coercion are not due to the existence of an abstract medium of exchange, which is a further claim that Walker and Duality are making, which I dispute.

The problem is that you see the system as good whereas we dont. We dont want to have to rely on the system to be able to provide for ourselves; so obviously we see it as bad and oppressive. There is no uncoerced engagement for us.

The Chicken Little people HAVE to see the sky is falling and we're all doomed. They are the "special" people who see what we can't see. They're just using ILP as a virtual soapbox instead of waving their doomsday signs on some street corner. We might as well be entertained watching them auger in - or grow up.

Let me know when you actually see something. not holding my breath.

[Carleas]

Why waste time arguing with a fence post?

I have a lot of sympathy for their position. Not too long ago, I agreed with them, and if weren't for people willing to argue with a fence post, I still would.

Now, I see these ideas as destructive, not only to the system the criticize, but to all the good that system fosters. They are worth combatting at every turn. Even if it doesn't convince the principals in this discussion, if the arguments are going to stand on the internet in virtual perpetuity, they should be paired with their rebuttals.

The problem is that you see the system as good whereas we dont.

I see our disagreement differently. I don't think the system is a good in itself, but only as an effective means to the achievement of goods. As I've argued, the system creates peace, prosperity, stability, a more merit-based method of empowering people. If you disagree that these are good, that's a different discussion, but my reading of this thread is that you've disagreed that the monetary system helps to achieve these.

We dont want to have to rely on the system to be able to provide for ourselves; so obviously we see it as bad and oppressive. There is no uncoerced engagement for us.

But this coercion is just the unavoidable coercion of the threat of death by natural causes. You have to eat to live, and the only way to get someone to make you bread is to do something for them in return.

Many people have tried to establish societies without money, but they don't thrive. A monetary system makes getting food, shelter, clothing, and mates easier than does barter or communal ownership. You can provide for yourselves by hunting and live off the grid, make everything you use by yourself. But your life will be more difficult; you certainly won't have the time or resources to talk philosophy on the internet. To say it bluntly, because you want to minimize your suffering and maximize your happiness, you do want to rely on the system.

[Duality]

But this coercion is just the unavoidable coercion of the threat of death by natural causes .

I'll take my chances with that but thanks anyway

To say it bluntly, because you want to minimize your suffering and maximize your happiness, you do want to rely on the system.

This is completely wrong but there's no point in discussing any further in this thread. The system creates incomprehensible suffering and human agony.

[Carleas]

I'll take my chances with that but thanks anyway

I haven't made myself clear. How does a system that uses an abstract medium of exchange coerce more than one is coerced by what is required for humans to live? As far as I can tell, the coercion you claim existed before money, and money, by speeding progress and empowering humanity, has reduced the coercive effect of nature.

The system creates incomprehensible suffering and human agony.

You say there's no point in discussing this further, but you haven't given any support for this claim; certainly such support is still worth giving. What about money do you assert exacerbates the suffering and agony that all animals experience?

[Duality]

I'll take my chances with that but thanks anyway

I haven't made myself clear. How does a system that uses an abstract medium of exchange coerce more than one is coerced by what is required for humans to live? As far as I can tell, the coercion you claim existed before money, and money, by speeding progress and empowering humanity, has reduced the coercive effect of nature.

money is a symbol of society. society is built only upon violent coercion and oppression. Also specifically for the benefit of few at the expense of the majority. You never addressed this topic but instead used weasel tactics to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Which is why me and walker stopped replying to this thread.

Then I posted that society is beneficial for you due to your personal agenda, whereas we dont see it as beneficial. It had nothing to do with the previous issue.

This occurs frequently on here where people dont seek to do philosophy to find truth, but instead use it to support their own biases. Typical gutlessness prevalent in a noxious society.

[Carleas]

You never addressed this topic but instead used weasel tactics to avoid addressing the issue at hand.

I apologize, it escaped me that we had moved on from money to money as a symbol for society at large. I assure you my weasel-ness is only a result of my ignorance.

money is a symbol of society. society is built only upon violent coercion and oppression. Also specifically for the benefit of few at the expense of the majority. [. . . S]ociety is beneficial for you due to your personal agenda . . .

I still disagree with your description, although perhaps I am using a different understanding of "society". Can we agree that in simple, tribal societies, individuals are not violently coerced to participate, other than by threat of being left alone? Certainly a small band in a forest is unable to prevent the defection of every individual, and most individuals stay because the alternative, trying to survive on ones own, is worse? Humans are pack animals, and we benefit from numbers and coordinated action. Is this a point of agreement?

Even if you agree on that, we are unlikely to agree about the nature of modern, global society. I see the benefit of coordination and strength in numbers to be something that scales very well. After all, I am typing a computer manufactured on the other side of the world, designed on the west coast of the American continent and delivered to my home on the east coast, and communicating with you wherever you are. The science behind what I'm doing is a product of large scale cooperation, and the leisure of doing it is enabled by the massive efficiency that that cooperation has enabled. Certainly many people around the world working harder than us were necessary to afford such leisure, but the efficiency of even their work has increased, so that less sweatshop labor produces goes further than it used to.

Is our disagreement simply one of narrative, then? When one person has the upper hand in an exchange, I describe it as a voluntary exchange that benefits both parties, and you describe it as a coerced exchange in which one party is under duress. Are these descriptions mutually exclusive?

[Duality]

Can we agree that in simple, tribal societies, individuals are not violently coerced to participate, other than by threat of being left alone? Certainly a small band in a forest is unable to prevent the defection of every individual, and most individuals stay because the alternative, trying to survive on ones own, is worse? Humans are pack animals, and we benefit from numbers and coordinated action. Is this a point of agreement?

There is a huge difference between tribes of a few and the large-scale oppressive and violent imperialistic systems prevalent in the modern fascist states you see today.

Certainly many people around the world working harder than us were necessary to afford such leisure, but the efficiency of even their work has increased, so that less sweatshop labor produces goes further than it used to.

I disagree. the distribution of wealth certainly doesnt indicate that. automating things and getting rid of need for human physical effort doesnt mean its not oppressive. In fact it allows it to be more oppressive where wealth can be controlled by even less people and non skilled labor specialists can be left to die off since less people are needed to run the system.

Is our disagreement simply one of narrative, then? When one person has the upper hand in an exchange, I describe it as a voluntary exchange that benefits both parties, and you describe it as a coerced exchange in which one party is under duress. Are these descriptions mutually exclusive?

government on a large scale is not mutually exclusive it just is what it is. A symbol of violent coercion on a large scale. as opposed to violent coercion on an individual scale. I just see it as worse because industrialism and post-industrialism creates alienation between humans within societies, between humans and their labor, and technology creates more oppression because wealth and resources can then be controlled by even fewer people and more laws/controls are necessary to consolidate increased centralization.

plus I am an anarchist so I prefer the coercion on an individual or tribal scale at most as a personal preference.

[Carleas]

I also lean anarchist. However, since the government we have arose out of the anarchism of the natural world, I see some form of government as inevitable. As I've argued, humans are pack animals; without a universal government, we will have gangs who will fight or compete until some gang grows so large and powerful that it becomes a de facto universal government. Since we will end up with some government anyway, the trick is to identify the best way to structure government to minimize coercion, and maximize prosperity. I think the anarcho-capitalists make a compelling case for the market as an anarchist system, though they would go farther than I think possible.

...non skilled labor specialists can be left to die off since less people are needed to run the system

The important question is whether these non-skilled laborers would be better off in another system. After all, this is the majority of the population. If they could do better by returning to tribal, hunter-gatherer society, it at least requires an explanation as to why they don't. Furthermore, it seems that when they do form semi-autonomous tribes, as in inner-cities, they still get more value preying on the excesses of society than they would e.g. by eking out subsistence living. Certainly, people are deluded, but with most of the worlds population increasing in prosperity as global trade increases, it seems like the reason they stay is not only delusion, but that, bad as this system is for them, it is still better than the alternative.

[Duality]

If they could do better by returning to tribal, hunter-gatherer society, it at least requires an explanation as to why they don't.

Because the government appropriates all land and most natural resources within a state and forces people to function within its economy to be able to gain food housing clothing etc.

Furthermore, it seems that when they do form semi-autonomous tribes, as in inner-cities, they still get more value preying on the excesses of society than they would e.g. by eking out subsistence living.

Inner cities are forced into that lifestyle due to government coercion. I doubt anybody would choose to sell drugs and get shot mutilated or killed or prostitute themselves in order to survive if they really didn’t have to. They need it to survive on a daily basis. People who choose to fuck for money do porn they don’t go into inner cities to make a living.

Certainly, people are deluded, but with most of the worlds population increasing in prosperity as global trade increases, it seems like the reason they stay is not only delusion, but that, bad as this system is for them, it is still better than the alternative.

We will certainly see but I see society growing more and more desperate based on what I see in daily life and reading news/media, etc. I think people just now see the system as not being worth the effort anymore based on cost-benefit analysis. hunter-gatherers/pastorals worked less and had alot less daily stress/conflict also.

[Carleas]

the government appropriates all land and most natural resources within a state and forces people to function within its economy to be able to gain food housing clothing etc.

Two thoughts:
First, if it weren't for governments and the economic markets they create, people would need to make their own clothes, grow their own food, build their own houses, or trade their skills for these goods directly. In other words, these are goods that only exist because of the global, coercive, violent government that enables the rich to oppress the poor into making them.
Second, in an anarchic world, nothing would stop government from doing the same thing. There is no universal law, so the actions of government are exactly those of any powerful coalition that would form in the absence of government.

I doubt anybody would choose to sell drugs and get shot mutilated or killed or prostitute themselves in order to survive if they really didn’t have to. They need it to survive on a daily basis. People who choose to fuck for money do porn they don’t go into inner cities to make a living.

The conclusion that I draw from this is that, taking the coercion and violence of government as a given, people choose to be the bitch of society rather than to go against government. By and large, it's better to be the lowest member of the in-group than any member of the out-group.

There is the question of whether there should be such an in-group, but I think it's moot: there will be, no matter what. The best that can be hoped for is that the largest most powerful group include as many people as possible, and regulate itself to prevent abuses.

We will certainly see but I see society growing more and more desperate based on what I see in daily life and reading news/media, etc. I think people just now see the system as not being worth the effort anymore based on cost-benefit analysis.

There does seem to be a revolution stirring, but I predict it will not be a very destructive one. I foresee a peaceful transition of power out of the first world into the developing world. Already, much discontent in the first world is over the deceleration of growth relative to the developing world, as it's fine being the bottom of an ascendant society, but when that society as a whole stagnates, the poorest members are falling. The trend will continue, but it will ultimately empower many more people than it dispossesses, and produce more value that it destroys.