101–110 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.
> human beings aren't inherently selfish Of course they are. I am, you are, everybody is.
David Graeber in Utopia of Rules : > "When historians write the epitaph for neoliberalism, they will have to conclude that it was the form of capitalism that systematically prioritized political imperatives over economic ones. That is: given a choice between a course of action that will make capitalism seem like the only possible economic system, and one that will make capitalism actually be a more viable long-term e…
[flagged]
Compare https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-revolt-of-t... (And also https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ ) > Our story begins (says Gurri) in the early 20th century, when governments, drunk on the power of industrialization, sought to remake Society in their own image. This was the age of High Modernism, with all of its planned cities and collective farms and so on. Philosopher-bur…
No, we can’t “fix everything” because not everyone agrees that these are problems which need solving, or that your proposed solutions are actually an improvement. I feel like most people go through this thought process around junior year in college. “If only they would put me in charge, I could fix everything.” Yes, the world is not that simple, what a surprise…
But that’s what the post was kinda trying to argue, no?
The actual reality - that these "solutions" are not as simple or effective as he thinks and that's why we're not doing them - is a lot less gloomy than the thesis he proposes.
His call to "build social systems that cooperate" basically just amounts to "All you people need to start doing what I say". Join the club, dude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how did hackernews brew so many well compensated communists.
Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.
If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.
There's a joke online - "nobody speaks more confidently than a 15 year old who has smoked weed twice explaining how to smoke weed to a 15 year old who hasn't smoked weed before" - nobody writes an angrier blog post than someone who has watched two YouTube videos about a subject.
Doing the work to improve society is boring and slow. It's talking to people in the community. It's local politics. It's generational shifts. It's a warm smile to the older person in the store, in the hospital, as we try to move the needle ever so slightly in the right direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more like the state that's this creature that engulfs everything. Nation states have been extremely successful. Nearly every square metre of landmass on earth is claimed by one nation state or another. Capitalism stays out of stuff just fine. Few people organise their family or friendships or their bowling club along capitalist lines. Even companies themselves are usually structured as quasi-socialist command ec…
> Nation states have been extremely successful. Nearly every square metre of landmass on earth is claimed by one nation state or another. Isn't that just because its an abstraction we view the world through? As an abstraction it often doesn't fully work. E.g. is taiwan a nation state? Are the parts of lebanon that have effectively been taken over by hezbolla really part of the state of lebanon if the state isn't full…
Compare that with the state of eg Europe a thousand years ago, when things were organised differently. Or have a look at most of the rest of the world back then.
Historically, one big change was the spread of gun powder. Fielding armies powered by gun powder required a lot more state capacity and organisation but provided huge military advantages. A tribal or feudal society couldn't cut it on the battlefield anymore, so they were outcompeted. (The whole process is a lot messier and complicated, of course.)
> We could be running fiber-optic cable to every house in America, and we even know how much it would cost. That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Of course we can fix everything, we could also do everything in the universe, but the question is at what cost? So here's my modest proposal: > I am here to remind you that it will only get worse unless we do something. The problem isn't painful enough. Have you…
This post is mind-boggling to me... > > We could be running fiber-optic cable to every house in America, and we even know how much it would cost. > That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. No it doesn't, and we already paid for it at least four times over. The large-scale ISPs (and even small-scale ones) have been given $400,000,000,000 by Congress since the 1990s until now to bring broadband Internet to peop…
Not disagreeing with the rest, but if the other poster was correct it may be worth correcting the record on whether or not we actually did attempt to fund building fiber throughout America.
> We could be running fiber-optic cable to every house in America, and we even know how much it would cost. That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Of course we can fix everything, we could also do everything in the universe, but the question is at what cost? So here's my modest proposal: > I am here to remind you that it will only get worse unless we do something. The problem isn't painful enough. Have you…
>COVID was a great example of this. Was it? How many fought against social distancing, masks and vaccines? Same with climate change, how many fight against necessary measures.