A friend recommended to me the interview below that featured Russell Brand and Candace Owens. Even though I still have 17 minutes to go, I think I have enough to say a couple of things about it.
From my perspectives, the two people in the clip came from two opposite extreme positions in a variety of topics, whether it was about the role of governments, the entitlement mindset, socialism, capitalism… The issue with coming from an extreme position is that it is too generalizing and often times it is right in a few scenarios. Take socialism. Candace cited multiple times Venezuela as the proof of socialism as a failed social system. On the other hand, Nordic countries have thrived in the past decades because of governments and societies that are more socialist than capitalist. Yet, such cases are conveniently ignored when critics of socialism take a stage and voice their criticisms.
Decentralization vs Centralization
Decentralization has become increasingly popular nowadays whether you talk about governments or cryptocurrency. Fans of decentralization don’t hesitate to criticize governments and centralization. Don’t get me wrong. A lot of governments fail at their jobs and deserve criticisms. Essentially, governments are run by human-beings and we are naturally flawed. We tend to succumb to excessive greed and thirst for power. That’s why we need checks and balance.
Nonetheless, centralization has been there for centuries. And it happened that way for a reason. If it were so bad, why wouldn’t something like centralization happen earlier? We may have the technology in what powers bitcoin or cryptocurrency to actually have a shot at scaled decentralization. When that will happen remains unclear, but I am amazed at the tendency to dismantle completely centralization by some crypto fans.
I believe it is a more efficient way between the two concepts at hand (centralization vs decentralization) to distribute resources and run societies. If there were no banks, how much less efficient would our societies be? If everybody had to keep his or her record and there were no trusted intermediary, how much more time and effort would be wasted to do what we normally do with government agencies and banks.
Additionally, many are concerned about growing influence of big corporations on our societies. Yet, without governments, who would be able to keep those corporations in check?
The interview itself is a refreshing one that features a civilized argument littered with disagreements. A rarity nowadays.
There are points from each side that I agree and disagree with. One of the things I have learned in the past two years is to have strong opinions and loosely held views. Or in layman’s terms, I avoid extreme positions. Particularly, regarding very complex issues such as socialism, centralization vs decentralization and macro-economics, just to name a few, I believe the extreme perspectives are even less accurate or helpful. You can’t tell me a government-led society won’t work when there is Singapore. You can’t tell me socialism won’t work when there are Nordic countries.
Each country is very different. One concept that works for one country is not guaranteed to work in others. Using one particular failure/success to dismiss/over-hype that concept is, in my opinion, not right. What is failing is the execution. Not the concepts. What matters is reality. Whatever works works, regardless of what it is called.