Can someone explain why marriage works better if the parties don't talk about the game theory aspect? I don't understand why that would change anything.
Plans you're not supposed to talk about
281–290 of 675 posts
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#282Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…
but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…
Because it brings the healthcare system crashing down with them. It's not a personal liberty if it's at the direct expense of the lives of others. Get the fucking shot.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.
You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and lea…
Perhaps I'm being too US-centric but I feel like you at-best mean conservatism with a lower-case 'c'. Even then the very definition of conservatism explicitly avoids any change:
> commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
I've never known conservatism to be anything except opposition to change as that's the most conservative thing you can generally do: nothing.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the free market is like Darwinism for economic organisms: unintuitive and little understood by the regular folk, however working just fine nevertheless and able to solve and explain any issue without needing the intervention of an intelligent designer/regulator. People will still look for a planner though…
While you are admiring Darwinism, keep in mind that all-natural ecosystem collapse is a thing, and 6 all-natural mass extinction events had >90% of all living things disappear.
> 6 all-natural mass extinction events
Are you sure about that? Or have people just not discovered the cause yet?
Pick one, let's explore it.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some part of modern consumption however is not really making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people wou…
>for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. For clothes, for the purchaser, have you done the math to show it isn't worthwhile? I find it's cheaper[1] to buy low quality clothes than to buy high quality ones in the long run. I'd buy shoes that would last only 6-9 months, but paying double wouldn't make them last twice as long, e…
>>> I find it's cheaper[1] to buy low quality clothes than to buy high quality ones in the long run. I'd buy shoes that would last only 6-9 months, but paying double wouldn't make them last twice as long, etc.
This doesn't match my experience. I had dress shirts made-to-measure for about $50-60/each....that was 9 years ago and they are still going strong. For footwear, I mostly wear $150+ combat boots or dress boots, they all last for years and years of hard use.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the free market works well" Unless there is too much inflation like in Weimar Republic, too much corruption like in Russia, too much monopoly like with Standard Oil, too many shenanigans leading to 2008-style meltdown (imagine that without central bank support), given working police and the justice system which is missing in many developing countries, given basic infrastructure like roads and electricity etc, etc.
> Unless there is too much inflation like in Weimar Republic The government money printing press is not free market. > too much corruption like in Russia The government's role in a free market is to prevent corruption. > too much monopoly like with Standard Oil Standard Oil was very good for consumers, as SO brought about something like a 70% reduction in kerosene prices. Besides, SO never was a monopoly. It was accu…
"The government money printing press is not free market."
Oh no, not again this 'No True Scottman'-'Free market' myth.
Let's go down this path - what does 'free market' theory say, how much money should be in the economy? How should it be created or destroyed? There is no natural process for it, whoever has lisense to print money can rule the world or collapse the economy. 'Free market theory' provides no answer, just like it provides no answer to most important economic questions.
Is using a physical valuable substance as money, let's say gold, free market? That's Mercantilism and it brought national economies to a standstill due to lack of liquidity. People couldn't trade goods, take loans, nations went to wars over silver.
Do you want to have gold standard and fractional reserve banking? Is it freely floating currency and a system where banks create money out of thin air? (governments don't print money any more by the way). Which one of these three totally different systems is the mythical true 'free market'?
Are private currencies owned by banks free market? That's what we used to have, they used to collapse all the time. That's why we invented central banks.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s empathy. There is something human about our irrationality. Rising above that, we lose a bit of that magic that makes us unique.
That's neither true (humans are less irrational than chimps) nor inspiring (screwing up and letting people die is bad, not good)
[deleted]
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s empathy. There is something human about our irrationality. Rising above that, we lose a bit of that magic that makes us unique.
That's neither true (humans are less irrational than chimps) nor inspiring (screwing up and letting people die is bad, not good)
The ways we are irrational is a difference in kind to a chimp
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I’ll take a stab at this one: Privileged folks like those on HN will not cut back much. Folks who are already being forced to cut back will continue to do so, and with massive amounts of suffering. Really a simple solution!
This is rather pessimistic, trivializes the argument and assumes that it’s directed only at individuals. Doing less doesn’t have to mean it’s only an individual’s responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is a category of potential solutions to much bigger problems. Relying on individuals will never move the needle very far.
The truth is if we're going to make it work, individuals are going to have to sacrifice.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#290The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don't understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!" I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand the forces that have led societ…
This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.
We say that women cannot eat this food, its religion. We don't question it. They study the food and find it is toxic, causes abortions or fetal development issues, but the meaning was lost, its now our religion.