Is bee smarter than human?

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

That's just my opinion. It could be wrong, and it could change over time.

If you have such time? Because:

Then came a gun-men in your office and pinpoint your body.
And then came government and protect your dead golden teeth fillings.
And then came your successor and all the story is repeated.
And then came by natural lawfulness revolution.
And then came by natural lawfulness counter revolution.

Revolution is only part of evolution.

Evolution is free market for those capable to survival.

Free market is free only for strongest player, it can not be free for all.

So, Free market must fall, nevertheless by selfdestruction, by revolution, or by evolution.

Then comming gun-mans.... and .... R Hunting started ...

And then came History and Story repeated.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

If you have such time? Because:

Then came a gun-men in your office and pinpoint your body.
And then came government and protect your dead golden teeth fillings.
And then came your successor and all the story is repeated.
And then came by natural lawfulness revolution.
And then came by natural lawfulness counter revolution.

Revolution is only part of evolution.

Evolution is free market for those capable to survival.

Free market is free only for strongest player, it can not be free for all.

So, Free market must fall, nevertheless by selfdestruction, by revolution, or by evolution.

Then comming gun-mans.... and .... R Hunting started ...

And then came History and Story repeated.

Hi WM6,
I don't understand what you are saying or asking.
My posts are replying to the posts that Ivconic and Fred made to tell them how their ideas are seen from the perspective of a USA citizen who knows the history of events that concern the things they posted about. This is the off-topic forum where we talk about things different than treasure hunting.

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

" You are exactly right.

In the USA, a candidate does not have a chance in hell to become president unless he is supported by one of two political parties. A third independent party candidate may have a chance if there are serious problems with the two main parties. The result is there are two choices to vote for who you want to become president. And the choice is not so much about the person, but the political party idea you want.

That is the simple version. The citizen also has thier chance to vote to decide who will be the single choice for each party. But the bottom line is The USA citizen generally has a choice to vote for political party-A or political party-B to put their candidate in the position of president. Voting for anything different is useless. And this exists for the reason you gave. "The primary task of the party is to subsist on top by any means". This forces any candidate who has new innovative ideas for government to change their ideas so they conform to one of the two political parties, so they have a chance of becoming elected. Then, if they are elected, they must carry out the objectives of their party, and only if they are lucky, they might be able to enact some of thier new innovative ideas. The political pressures on elected officials is very strong, so we generally do not see much innovation other than what their party approves of. I can imagine the choices aren't much better in other countries that have this kind of representative government.

But think of the technology we have today... There are online robots watching millions of websites to see who clicks on different links, and spyware watching people's habits of web-surfing, and buying. These robots automatically report back to servers that collate all the data to make very accurate surveys of what people want so they can advise advertisers what products to expect a profit on and what products to forget about.

These robots are a lot more advanced than what it takes to find out what the majoriity of a country wants for laws.
You are correct... there is no science fiction here. We have had the technology for awhile.

So what stops us?
"party itself has primary task - to subsist on top by any means"

Best wishes,
J_P "



Exactly!
Now that returns us to the begining of the story; how to beat those?
Well...first we should see who's behind the 2 main political parties.
I know, you know, everybody knows. It is not secret.
So how to beat those?
How to beat and conquer those without real fighting?
Easy.
Do not put you hard earned money in their pockets.
Do not buy thier products. Buy products made by some small independant enterprises. Mix. Change habits.
....
I will again take Coca Cola as an example ( sorry Coca Cola!).
Let's take that Coca Cola has 2 million careers. So...2 millions of fees per month. 2 million taxes. Each employee has familly. Usually 4 members of that familly. So 2*4= 8 millions. 8 millions people are affected if something goes wrong with Coca Cola!! Right?
So...
if 50% of Cola drinkers change their habit and void to buy that product...at least for 2 weeks...! What should be overall losses?
Because Coca Cola must spare significant funds on monthly bases to cover all the expenditures.
Coca Cola will bust. 8 million destinies will be affected. Politic party which was financed from those money will also shake!
......
Take a list of all the daily products you've been buying. Analyze which products were made by which company. Analyze which company is financing which political party.....and you will have complete picture of real situatuon.
Once you do that you will find out the best possible way how to beat the system. Easy and with so less efforts.
System will crash.
What we need is only to synchronize and start acting at the same time.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

I don't understand what you are saying or asking.

This is the off-topic forum where we talk about things different than treasure hunting.

Dont worry J_P I am posting off topic too.

If you fear of a revolution, be on her side and you get a monument in bronze. For your monument will have the government confiscate all bronze and copper coin findings. So started counter revolution. Do you understand?

[Fred]

Hi J_P,

I know there is a difference between candidates and democracy , IMO it is precisely in that difference that resides the problem: as long as you are a candidate, you are willing to obtain power thus you cannot be a good president (or whatever)
I know it is utopia but maybe it could work like this: the leaders of each departments could be sorted between a sample of population of different ages,(higher % of new people if we want evolution ) and between each group decisions would be voted.
Similar in a way to obligatory military service of ~1 year that was active in many European countries.
Of course when i talked education i didn´t mean high grade,( i don´t really believe in education either), but just a minimum level that will allow the "chosen" to comply their task. (reading and righting correctly for example )

And about bees i don´t see many places in the world where they can work without a beekeeper stealing their honey... they are all counted...

[ivconic]

Originally Posted by Fred

Hi J_P,

I know there is a difference between candidates and democracy , IMO it is precisely in that difference that resides the problem: as long as you are a candidate, you are willing to obtain power thus you cannot be a good president (or whatever)
I know it is utopia but maybe it could work like this: the leaders of each departments could be sorted between a sample of population of different ages,(higher % of new people if we want evolution ) and between each group decisions would be voted.
Similar in a way to obligatory military service of ~1 year that was active in many European countries.
Of course when i talked education i didn´t mean high grade,( i don´t really believe in education either), but just a minimum level that will allow the "chosen" to comply their task. (reading and righting correctly for example )

And about bees i don´t see many places in the world where they can work without a beekeeper stealing their honey... they are all counted...

That is descent but won't work.
As long as we have large powerfull (private) companies we will have to obey their will.
Obama for example; educated, good, very descent, human, with nice intentions. Once he became president he simply must "play" as "they" want.
Why? Simply because "they" hold the money (power).
Once he start to play against their interests he will end up like JFK.
Hopefuly this will never happen!
But point is that as long as politic is dependable on money - that long we will have same situation.
Politic is bussines. Bussines is politic. To own large and succesfull company you must be politician 100%. Those 2 are inseparable in todays occurences.
........

"And about bees i don´t see many places in the world where they can work without a beekeeper stealing their honey... they are all counted.."

Oh don't worry, they can! It is just a matter of ruined natural conditions at some areas. In areas where nature still exist, bees can work and live much better and much easier without beekeepers!

P.S.
I live is such area - untouched nature. While walking through the forests, mountains, fields (with my detector) i oftenly meet wild bees. Plenty of those!

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

Dont worry J_P I am posting off topic too.

If you fear of a revolution, be on her side and you get a monument in bronze. For your monument will have the government confiscate all bronze and copper coin findings. So started counter revolution. Do you understand?

Not really.
I have no fear of revolutions or counter revolutions. I am answering Ivconic's questions from the viewpoint of of a person who knows the history that led to changes in the way democracy is implemented. I listed revolution as one possible solution among many, but fear of revolution is not really what we are talking about. Ivconic is talking about what is a good way to remove corruption from government. Democracy, in particular.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Fred

Hi J_P,

I know there is a difference between candidates and democracy , IMO it is precisely in that difference that resides the problem: as long as you are a candidate, you are willing to obtain power thus you cannot be a good president (or whatever)
I know it is utopia but maybe it could work like this: the leaders of each departments could be sorted between a sample of population of different ages,(higher % of new people if we want evolution ) and between each group decisions would be voted.
Similar in a way to obligatory military service of ~1 year that was active in many European countries.
Of course when i talked education i didn´t mean high grade,( i don´t really believe in education either), but just a minimum level that will allow the "chosen" to comply their task. (reading and righting correctly for example )

And about bees i don´t see many places in the world where they can work without a beekeeper stealing their honey... they are all counted...

Hi Fred,

The idea of having leaders to represent different groups is similar to the congress and senators representing different states. But your suggestion is they are no longer elected, and changed more often. I guess this is in hopes they will not be owned by political parties or business interests. It would be nice if everyone could read and write correctly -- not just politicians. Maybe this is the purpose of requiring basic school attendence in most countries.

Interesting about bees. Last year I was involved on a construction project where we had some concrete forms stacked up at one side of a large plot of land. These forms were 4 ft x 8 ft and were like a shallow box or tray that was 4 inches thickness so when you stack them you have a series of 4 inch hollow air spaces. Each one had a number of holes the size of your finger in the edges. One day we noticed some bees coming out of the holes. Nobody paid much attention or cared. But after a few months there were a lot of bees coming out. It finally got to a point that you could not walk near those forms, or a swarm of bees would chase you away. Eventually we sent somebody with a bee suit to take a tractor to unstack the forms. What we found is one of the hollow spaces was completely full of honeycombs, and two others were more than half full. There was enough honey combs that could fill maybe a 55 gallon drum. Nobody was stealing their honey, but they found a convenient home. They were removed because nobody wanted to work at that construction site with bees chasing them away.

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

"...or a swarm of bees would chase you away..."


Oooh! I had simillar experiences many times! Once i fall over Troy X3 shaft and broke it on half!
Wild bees are more agressive than "domestic" ones.
That's why i don't worry about bees, they can manage very well without human help!
...
But their organisation is splendid! Perfect society! I reffered title of this thread exactly to that. Man can learn much from those.

[Fred]

Hi,
First of all my reference to bees was an analogy with us, we are the bees ruled by the "beekeepers". Our honey is the money we can keep, taxes are adjusted so we need to work hard enough and don´t have too much time to think, except to watch TV so we can watch adverts.and most important to profit to the beekeepers.
when you take the honey from a (real) hive, you cannot take it all and must let part of it for the bees to survive ...

Originally Posted by ivconic

[/color][/i]

That is descent but won't work.
As long as we have large powerfull (private) companies we will have to obey their will.

This is why by making a group o average citizens over a period of , say, 1 year, (as a civic duty), we could avoid that.Even if some could get influenced, they are not alone and the effect would be averaged.

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Fred,
... But your suggestion is they are no longer elected, and changed more often. I guess this is in hopes they will not be owned by political parties or business interests.
J_P

-Not changed all at a time, but progressively substituted on a rolling basis.
-Yes, not owned , and the most important in my point o view not serving teir own interests. I think this is (unfortunately) the reason for many politicians to candidate .
Resuming, anyone as long as they are not volunteers. If they are, by definition they will suck.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Fred

Hi,
First of all my reference to bees was an analogy with us, we are the bees ruled by the "beekeepers". Our honey is the money we can keep, taxes are adjusted so we need to work hard enough and don´t have too much time to think, except to watch TV so we can watch adverts.and most important to profit to the beekeepers.
when you take the honey from a (real) hive, you cannot take it all and must let part of it for the bees to survive ...


This is why by making a group o average citizens over a period of , say, 1 year, (as a civic duty), we could avoid that.Even if some could get influenced, they are not alone and the effect would be averaged.



-Not changed all at a time, but progressively substituted on a rolling basis.
-Yes, not owned , and the most important in my point o view not serving teir own interests. I think this is (unfortunately) the reason for many politicians to candidate .
Resuming, anyone as long as they are not volunteers. If they are, by definition they will suck.

Interesting idea.

Just think of those bees. They all have the same idea. And they all work to take care of the hive. Can you imagine what would happen if one bee got the idea to hoard extra honey for himself? I doubt he would survive long when the other bees saw what he was doing. Maybe this is where people are not the same. Humans prize thier ability to have different interests and points of views. It requires discipline to conform to laws and rules of our own volition. And people tend to want laws to be favorable for their interests. So we devise ways to make a government that allows the most people to have their interests served such as voting. But the bees have no need to vote, or need for representatives, because they all want the same thing.

But what about the civic duty you suggest to become a representative of a group? As an individual who is representing others, suppose you don't agree with what your group wants. What is to stop you from adding some of your own ideas to what your group asks for? Maybe the records are kept public, so you can't cheat. And then, suppose your group has no opinion of what they want. For example, a group from a religious order that declines political opinions. Or maybe you are representing a group that are mostly criminals who want you to vote for some corrupt policies. Somehow you will need to turn in a vote as a representative, even if you don't agree with what you are doing, or don't even know what your group wants. Maybe you are right, that these are a few cases that will be averaged out in the larger numbers.

But how much simpler for bees. No representatives, no voting, and all have the same idea.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Interesting idea.

Just think of those bees. They all have the same idea. And they all work to take care of the hive. Can you imagine what would happen if one bee got the idea to hoard extra honey for himself? I doubt he would survive long when the other bees saw what he was doing.

I understand your point, but try to stop paying taxes and see what happens...
And i am not even sure if there is or no individualism of some sort in a hive.

Originally Posted by J_Player

But what about the civic duty you suggest to become a representative of a group?

My idea is not an individual to be representative of a group, it is the whole group that takes decision by submitting them and voting .
As the individials are chosen randomly , there is almost no chance of finding a group with the same religious (for example) convictions.and even if there was, it would change soon, as in a group of 12 one person would change each month.
And by the way, there politic by itself would no longer exist.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by J_Player

But how much simpler for bees. No representatives, no voting, and all have the same idea.
Best wishes,
J_P

In a hive when the queen dies the workers quickly modify the food given to a few larva, as long as the size of their alveolus .Just by doing this they will transform would-be regular workers in queens, and the firsts queen to be born, if healthy, will be kept, and all others killed.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Fred

I understand your point, but try to stop paying taxes and see what happens...
And i am not even sure if there is or no individualism of some sort in a hive.


My idea is not an individual to be representative of a group, it is the whole group that takes decision by submitting them and voting .
As the individials are chosen randomly , there is almost no chance of finding a group with the same religious (for example) convictions.and even if there was, it would change soon, as in a group of 12 one person would change each month.
And by the way, there politic by itself would no longer exist.


In a hive when the queen dies the workers quickly modify the food given to a few larva, as long as the size of their alveolus .Just by doing this they will transform would-be regular workers in queens, and the firsts queen to be born, if healthy, will be kept, and all others killed.

Ok, I see.

You are suggesting that a person is selected to vote for awhile, and whatever he votes will be counted for a larger number of similar people from his predefined group to be all the same votes as he made. Then after some time passes, they will switch to a new person from his same group to make the sample vote.

It sounds similar to sampling methods used in laboratories to determine the composition of a substance by taking random samples from within the substance.

In your example, all people in every group will eventually have their vote counted, but not all at once like current election methods.
Their votes will be staggered so only one member of a group is counted at any one time.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Ok, I see.

You are suggesting that a person is selected to vote for awhile, and whatever he votes will be counted for a larger number of similar people from his predefined group to be all the same votes as he made. Then after some time passes, they will switch to a new person from his same group to make the sample vote.
J_P

I wish i could express myself better
In the group ( which responsibility is similar to the charge of a minister in a government), everyone will vote .
Members of the group will change at regular intervals, depending of the number of members of course.
the main ideas of this whole thing are that :
-The group is constituted of any one of any class of society.
-The individuals are randomly designed.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Fred

I wish i could express myself better
In the group ( which responsibility is similar to the charge of a minister in a government), everyone will vote .
Members of the group will change at regular intervals, depending of the number of members of course.
the main ideas of this whole thing are that :
-The group is constituted of any one of any class of society.
-The individuals are randomly designed.

Ok I think I got it now

Of course, some people may wonder why everyone does not have the right to have their vote counted when a legislative decision is to be made. Logically it would seem that if we polled every person each time there was something to vote on, then we would end up with the average of what most people wanted. But I can see a lot of ways that wouldn't always work.

If you want to test how well any particular government accomplishes the objective of doing what most people want, just start asking citizens if they think their country is doing what most want done and see what the majority tell you. I was surprised to find that their answers are not always what theoretical logic would suggest you should expect. The way you proposed may actually be found to work very well.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Hey, as long as we're in the off-topic forum, then I guess it's ok to make an off topic post to the posts we see here. So here goes:

Have you seen the Remote Sensing forum thread about the OKM Bionic 01?

They are arguing about whether it detected a shovel or gold with lots of proofs involving videos and Mineoros, along with trying to prove Esteban's pistols are the same as ordinary VLF RX. But they waste all their time with all these arguments and stories.

All they need to do is to move up to the geophysics section and click on OKM to find it works with magnetometers arranged as a gradiometer with a learning circuit connected. They will see the photo of exactly what they are paying for, and what makes it beep. No need to try to prove what a video shows. Of course it does not work to scan horizontally... the magnetic north pole destroys the stored heading of the pistol's gradiometer. I lost all interest to prove whether it detects the shovel or not, now that I know what powers it. Also, I think Ivconic is right... not necessary to pay the price of a new Mercedes Benz. $150 plus maybe $200 more for some very nice PIC and program to connect complete with display, leds laser pointer and star wars plastic pistol.

Funny how people from geophysics field don't tell stories about amazing "phenomenon".

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

I am surprised, i thought it was only a level, after all it´s more sophisticated

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Fred

I am surprised, i thought it was only a level, after all it´s more sophisticated

Sure...
For 10,000 euros, you get two tiny magnetometers that don't work as good as the one you can build from the free plans. But that's not all... you get the pistol complete with advanced beeps generator and laser!

So what are you waiting for?




Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Thank you guy for bees and systems debate.

There are simple ethic and moral criteria to prove sistem suit to human been or not:

System that allowed some people acquired to itself so much wealth, that can be used to buy even the freedom of other people, is the criminal system.

Capitalism mean end of human freedom and end of democracy.

Capitalism is the criminal system par excellence.

[joecoin]

Originally Posted by WM6

Thank you guy for bees and systems debate.

There are simple ethic and moral criteria to prove sistem suit to human been or not:

System that allowed some people acquired to itself so much wealth, that can be used to buy even the freedom of other people, is the criminal system.

Capitalism mean end of human freedom and end of democracy.

Capitalism is the criminal system par excellence.

Capitalism rewards those who are not lazy.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

Thank you guy for bees and systems debate.

There are simple ethic and moral criteria to prove sistem suit to human been or not:

System that allowed some people acquired to itself so much wealth, that can be used to buy even the freedom of other people, is the criminal system.

Capitalism mean end of human freedom and end of democracy.

Capitalism is the criminal system par excellence.

This may be true. At least it appears to be true in today's world of global corporate power.

The idea of capitalism begins with the idea that a person should be able to get ahead financially if he produces more than others. This idea begins as an idea to solve the condition where people don't bother to put out a good performance because they know they will be rewarded the same whether they are productive or not. But if we want to reward the people who are more productive by allowing them more profit, then we want capitolism in the basic sense.

As some people continue to profit, and their companies become large enough, they can become a strong economic force on local levels, or even gobally. There have been controls put in place to prevent single companies from becoming so powerful that they destroy all competition from other companies. These controls are not perfect, but they usually serve to allow for other competitors. But what about the controls for their influence in politics? Of course there are controls, but are they working?

When people complain the common people can't get the kind of government they want, it sounds like democracy is not working, regardless of what you call the government. And if the problem is traced to corporate influence in the government, then maybe corporate influence is the area to address.

Maybe the problem is in the motives of capitalism and democracy.
The motive of capitalism is the profit motive, while the motive of democracy is to serve the common people. We could say it is a difference of two different classes: large conglomerate class against the common person class. But the problem is the common person also wants the basic motive of capitalism. He wants to know he can get ahead of he produces better than others. As long as this condition exists, capitalism will never be completely gone.

If you look at the example of the bees, none of them have the profit motive. They all have the service motive and nothing else. Everything they do is for the benefit of the hive. There is no chance they will create any institution that stops them from doing what they want to do. In order for something to upset the order they want, it requires an influence from the outside.... like the bee-keeper. He is only able to take their honey because they are not smart enough to understand that they were robbed. They simply see the reserves are deficient and they need to fill them up again.

The realities of life don't allow people to work with only the service motive. They can provide service only to the extent that they will be compensated enough to at least survive. So the profit motive (capitalism) is a built in part of survival at a human level. Capitalism as a motive is here whether we like it or not. Maybe the motives of capitalism are not what is at fault, but the business practices of the companies that are meddling in politics, and social engineering.

In any case, it looks like (to me) that the problem is one of ethics, not the motive to profit. That kind of problem is usually addressed by making and enforcing laws.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

In any case, it looks like (to me) that the problem is one of ethics, not the motive to profit. That kind of problem is usually addressed by making and enforcing laws.


J_P

Yes, "by making and enforcing laws."

Because if I came out of simple ethic and moral criteria to prove sistem suit to human been or not and say:

System that allowed some people acquired to itself so much wealth, that can be used to buy even the freedom of other people, is the criminal system.

this not mean that I am against competition, private property, profit and controlled free market. No, these are systemic instruments, that make system work. The problem is who and how to manage this system instruments.

We have country governments and even, say so, world governments (UN). Country and world authorities have to manage systemic instruments in such a way that could not be possible that someone is enriched to the extent that they can buy, not only someone work, but also the freedom and beliefs of other people.

There can not be real democracy if freedom and beliefs of people are goods for sale. This can only mean a negation of democracy.

Capital is no more satisfied with the purchases only of our work, now he wants to buy our human essence, freedom and belief, since that is the only way to make perfect slaves of us.

Country governments, which we are voting for, by all means help capital to this end, rather than restrict it and protect voters human dignity. Yes, as you say, "by making and enforcing laws."


This is the essence of present criminal neo-liberal world capitalist system.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

Yes, "by making and enforcing laws."

Because if I came out of simple ethic and moral criteria to prove sistem suit to human been or not and say:

System that allowed some people acquired to itself so much wealth, that can be used to buy even the freedom of other people, is the criminal system.

this not mean that I am against competition, private property, profit and controlled free market. No, these are systemic instruments, that make system work. The problem is who and how to manage this system instruments.

We have country governments and even, say so, world governments (UN). Country and world authorities have to manage systemic instruments in such a way that could not be possible that someone is enriched to the extent that they can buy, not only someone work, but also the freedom and beliefs of other people.

There can not be real democracy if freedom and beliefs of people are goods for sale. This can only mean a negation of democracy.

Capital is no more satisfied with the purchases only of our work, now he wants to buy our human essence, freedom and belief, since that is the only way to make perfect slaves of us.

Country governments, which we are voting for, by all means help capital to this end, rather than restrict it and protect voters human dignity. Yes, as you say, "by making and enforcing laws."


This is the essence of present criminal neo-liberal world capitalist system.

The problem is still ethics.
You cannot blame capitalism for people who have bad ethics.
Capitalism is the motive to profit, not the decision to destroy the rights of others.

Capitalism does not have bad ethics.
The people who operate companies to take away peoples rights have bad ethics.
Capitalism is not the enemy, unethical people are.

You stop unethical people by enforcing laws.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

You stop unethical people by enforcing laws.

J_P

People are so much corrupt and unethical as the system allows, not more - not less.

What system allow such a situation? Capitalism.

Capitalism not only destroy human ethic, they destroy human life too, they destroy health care systems, they destroy Social Welfare system, they destroy Pension Insurance systems, they destroy humanity, and at the end they destroy himself, I hope.

Making law and enforcing law are only part of capitalst crime sistem and giuded and controled by this crime sistem and can not be changed without change system alone.

System can be changed anly by us all togheter.


Here, each converted: what will win and what will be lost.

Changes will occur when the majority will have nothing to lose.


Therefore remains only password: far worse - much better.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

People are so much corrupt and unethical as the system allows, not more - not less.

What system allow such a situation? Capitalism.

Capitalism not only destroy human ethic, they destroy human life too, they destroy health care systems, they destroy Social Welfare system, they destroy Pension Insurance systems, they destroy humanity, and at the end they destroy himself, I hope.

.....
Changes will occur when the majority will have nothing to lose.

Any system can allow such a situation.
Capitalism can
Communism can
Democracy can
Representative government can
Dictatorship can
Socialist systems can.
Kingdoms can
Any kind of system can.

Any system can be run by people who don't have the ethical standards to stop them from taking away their citizens wealth or any number of other bad policies.
Those systems are not the problem.
Poor ethics are the problem.
The quality of government depends on the ethics of the people who operate the government.


When people have nothing to lose, we see revolution.
Has this happened in capitalist systems? I think so.
Has it happened in communist systems? I think so.
Has it happened in democracies? I think so.
Has it happened in representative governments? I think so.
Has it happened in a dictatorship? I think so.
Has it happened in socialist systems? I think so.
Has it happened in a kingdom? i think so.

Why would it happen in all these different systems?
Could it be somebody running those systems did something unethical that resulted in the citizens becoming so unhappy that they decided to revolt?

Best wishes,
J_P