Wage subsidies can’t cover 65% of poor people because they are effectively not eligible for employment.
That’s true, but it doesn’t make wage subsidies bad policy, just not the only policy. (You’d also find some people could work, but normally couldn’t survive on the money offered - something a wage income subsidy program is intended to address.)
I mean, the poor would likely be better off if, tomorrow, minimum wage cut to $3/hr, with an $8/hr declining subsidy up to 40 hrs/wk, or something along those lines.
it’s also probably worth noting that in practice, “everybody is provided the necessities of life, whether or not they work” doesn’t actually fix the problem of “most people have to work very hard or they’ll die”, it just changes the mechanism from “if you don’t work very hard, you won’t earn enough money to purchase necessities” to “if you don’t work very hard, the government will kill you.”
True! It doesn’t really get you out of the problem of being forced to be useful to society under threat of death, though – or, rather, it can only get an extremely small number of people out of that problem, so any given person is unlikely to be among them. That appears pretty intractable. A social democracy can improve your quality of life and reduce overall inequality, and I think most if not all of our societies could stand to move farther in that direction, but I don’t think you can resolve the basic issues that a) nearly all people need to do work deemed socially useful or die, b) the amount of work people need to do to live varies dramatically with social position, c) the amount of work people need to do fluctuates based on global trends and the nation’s fortunes, and d) the population will be disproportionately clustered in the groups that need to work pretty hard.
To be clear, I am very socialist. But I see a lot of people who seem to imagine that socialism will fundamentally change the incentive structure of society to make it egalitarian and non-coercive, and…no. That’s not going to happen. IMO the outcome to shoot for with socialism is “shitty in roughly the way things are currently shitty, but appreciably less so”.
Not uncoincidentally, shooting for that outcome likely involves shooting fewer people.
For instance, I like wage subsidies as a plan, which are in that direction and have some support from economists. What is the likelihood that wage subsidies will result in either the total collapse of society, armed revolution, or ideological death squads? Pretty low.
But they’d take an awful lot of pressure off the working poor and increase their negotiating leverage on non-wage matters (like safety).
The open borders discussion relates to that article about finding more temporary foreign workers to do the vegetable picking in Australia because locals won’t work cheap enough.
Whenever I see something like that I always think hmm, it’s only a stop-gap measure until globalisation progresses sufficiently that everyone is a “local” and unwilling to do gruelling work for low wages, and what then?
The usual answer is robots, and that any exploitation is a temporary measure until the robots become cheaper, which must be a comforting thought for anyone who had the misfortune to be born in a low-income area.
So you’re either positing the existence of a permanent underclass of servants divided on roughly racial lines – and god knows that sounds like a stable and healthy way to organise society for the long-term – or you’re just trying to squeeze in a bit more exploitation before the robots arrive and the game ends.
Become so National Technocratic that you base your development strategy on an expanding ring of underdeveloped countries that you build up into military allies following your ideology and willing to fight, balancing the level of unemployment in your own country by adjusting the rate at which countries are added to the bloc.
Take selected aspects of their culture such as architecture which are economically neutral, while purging harmful elements like first cousin marriage, genital mutilation, and normalized polygamy, in order to build national identities and pride for each of these countries. Get accused of turning them into theme park versions of themselves, plow through anyway because the people making those accusations are clueless and shilling for virtue points.
Challenge the liberal democrats for economic and cultural hegemony over Earth.
Admittedly, might be a bit too Imperialist, and you’d need a properly refined National Technocratic ideology to do it, with enough true believers in power to successfully execute it.
When your anime augmented reality filter creates the perception of large eyes, but does not dynamically resize your perception of contact lenses to match.
Random Contact Girl honey it’s the year 2048 you should really consider corrective surgery, it doesn’t count as augmentation, really!
Most people agree that open borders is a desirable end state for humanity, as being able to maintain it is strong evidence of an absence of war and famine and reduced global inequality.
Most people also agree that throwing open the borders overnight would have catastrophic consequences, following which the borders would immediately be closed again.
(The best example of open borders we have in the world today is the EU, and even moderate refugee flows have been sufficient to destabilise this project).
However there are plenty of obvious compromises that could be made, such as increasing immigration quotas by 50% each year, greatly increasing migration while giving plenty of time for societies to adjust and absorb the flow. Or going for easy wins, like opening the border between the US and Canada.
That said, I still can’t help feeling that proponents of open borders are downplaying the changes involved, and the possible consequences.
I mean, @voximperatoris is referencing the Jim Crow south in what appears to be a positive example of a society with a racial underclass employed as servants with lynchings “on a very small scale in the grand scheme of things”. Like, I’m not trying to be snarky but that sounds like something someone might write if they were attempting to satirise the open borders position.
And @socialjusticemunchkin talking approvingly of the improved aesthetics of local inequality compared with global inequality; again, not everyone is going to share that particular aesthetic.
There are also questions of whether increased inequality within a particular society ends up causing more problems (for that society) than increased inequality globally; eg. North Sentinelese appear happier living their current lives than as servants in Silicon Valley, despite the latter being “less unequal”.
Many proponents of open borders have suggested introducing a dual track concept of citizenship, where immigrants would not gain access to the full range of social services available to current citizens. I think this also needs to be taken into account when considering what open borders would do to inequality.
So, to take a slightly different position: if seeking to move towards the abolition (as much as possible) of borders as soon as possible (leaving the obviously superior option of the Archipelago untouched as an even less realistic option: I have a marvellous plan for such an utopia this margin is too narrow to contain) is not desirable, why stop at national borders?
After all, the national borders are highly suspiciously sized. If a peaceful person with no ill intent may not migrate from Morocco to Spain, why should one be allowed to migrate from West Virginia to San Francisco?
The United States is larger than most combinations of two to numerous neighboring countries, and the differences inside the nation are staggering. The borderer regions in the Appalachia are practically third world compared to the city-state opulence of the Bay Area; and the values of the populations could hardly be more different. If poor people with backwards values being theoretically able to immigrate to the places where rich people with modern values live, shouldn’t we be more worried about the fact that any West Virginian who can purchase a plane ticket and find themselves housing and work is allowed to come to San Francisco and even vote in elections, with no border controls and centralized planning and immigration quotas to prevent the undesirable masses from flowing in without restraint? Surely Californian values and the riches and job markets of California are the fruits of the Californians’ labor, not something an Appalachian borderer may come to feast on whenever they feel like?
But furthermore, even within California we see stark differences! One does not need to venture too far inland to find different cultures and economies. Even if we build a wall around California, the problem persists; the Six Californias plan would have created both the richest and the poorest state of the Union, right next to each other! And indeed we are seeing the phenomenon of Central Californians flocking in to the Bay Area in search of work, the inevitable shantytowns kept away only by regulations that make it illegal for outsiders to ever have affordable housing. Surely it would be better to constrain this perversion and inequality machine, and establish a national border between the regions so that Silicon Valley may use 0.7% of is GDP in foreign aid to its impoverished neighbor and the shantytowns stay in Central California where they belong!
Yet even this is not enough! The neighborhood of Bayview-Hunters Point is notorious for being a honest-to-azathoth shantytown, with a racial distinction as sharp as it can ever be, right next to San Francisco itself. And indeed the denizens ever seek opportunities in the city proper, bringing their shantytownness and cheap labor downtown, driving down the wages of the hard-working residents of SoMa who, without this artificial mobility benefiting only the tech elite, could otherwise be making $50k a year even from burger-flipping! Not to mention all the services that fall under the general category of “servants to software developers” which would not be worth the genuine fair living wage of $30 an hour; the existence of this underpaid underclass allows the software developers to avoid doing their own shopping and driving and cooking and such things and instead use their time for the thing that is their comparative advantage, further driving up inequality when the equalizing effect of inefficient non-division of labor is reduced!
Indeed I say; let us restore all the borders! Back before this “enlightenment” and “emancipation” and such things, people knew their place and they would die on the same plot of land they were born onto. Let each family be bound to their own turf, never even imposing on their neighbor! Let us be truly honest in what we seek and end this charade; bring back serfdom! For only with the complete immobility of the populace, can a truly stable and equal and peaceful society be established. In our village, everyone is equal, looks the same and shares the same customs; and while we know that not every village is as prosperous as ours, we dutifully kind of pay our 0.7% of indulgences I mean aid to the Catholic Church which surely distributes it fairly to the poorest of the world instead of building a golden toilet for the pope; we have not verified this for only the Baron may ever leave this territory, but surely the virtous Church has the interests of all of us in mind!
Obviously, the tail end of this is extreme (and simply dumb in various particular details), but as far as the start of this goes, one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens: I think that modern states are overwhelmingly too big, and not just as a result of there being too many humans on Earth in total. Ideally we should return to the basic unit of society being communities whose size is on the same order of magnitude as Dunbar’s number, perhaps loosely associated into small city-states (composed of Dunbar-sized neighborhoods) and their respective hinterlands (composed of Dunbar-sized villages).
As for cities the size of San Francisco, they shouldn’t be their own nations; they should not exist at all.
That’s quite an extreme opinion. Obviously, people who wish to live in dunbar-communities should be able to live in dunbar-communities (as long as they accept the limitations that come from dunbar-communitarianism), but dunbar-communitarians should not attempt to pry metropolises away from metropolitanians’ hands.
The problem is that the current westphalian system of nation-states allows neither when we should be having both
Let’s not pretend for a moment that non-open communities would be allowed to exist under Open Borders. The same ideological framework required to create Open Borders, including the beliefs that culture doesn’t actually matter and everyone can be reduced to just economics, that we need to allow access to the global poor, that this would somehow fix global poverty, plus Leftist reasoning, would demand that those communities be effectively obliterated.
And supposing for a moment that some holdouts, some people who still believe in Nationalism, in not destroying the cultural means that created the economic power that is so desperately coveted, seceded and created, once again, a nation-state, forming its own ethnicity from a mix of fellow believers, open borderers would immediately demand that it be torn down.
I have to wonder just how many of their sacred beliefs open borderers are willing to sacrifice to achieve their goals. Are they willing to destroy Islam, if it comes to that? Build a global government (as would almost inevitably occur)?
In the afternoon the internet disappears for me and I feel its absence like phantom pain in a limb long removed, an itch that can never be scratched. Absolutely barbaric, etc.
More than one third of Australians’ daily energy intake comes from ‘junk food’ such as sweetened beverages, alcohol, cakes, confectionary and pastry products, the report found.
it’s like the Onion stories about Americans getting the bulk of their calories from beef jerky or whatever, except it’s actually true.
As many as 500 Australians each year die from Vegemite poisoning. Do your part. Use a lock, and keep your vegemite out of reach, out of mind.
Petition to not only rip down every Confederate monument in the USA, but to grind them into gravel and sell them as kitty litter. Every time you’re mucking out your cat’s box, you can imagine urine stained clumps of Robert E. Lee falling into the garbage.
Might I suggest literally any confederate statue other than Robert E. Lee?
Otherwise you might as well just knock over every military statue in general.
The whitewashing of Lee’s views on slavery is pretty much one of the core pillars of Lost Cause.
Hmn, I decided to double-check it after your post, and it’s as messy as I should have expected from typical history, and the AU fiction writers mentioned at the bottom were a bit too optimistic. Rather, popularizing the fact that the mainline Southern government officials at the time explicitly said it was about slavery seems far more important.
What are your standards on tearing down historical statues, generally?
Petition to not only rip down every Confederate monument in the USA, but to grind them into gravel and sell them as kitty litter. Every time you’re mucking out your cat’s box, you can imagine urine stained clumps of Robert E. Lee falling into the garbage.
Might I suggest literally any confederate statue other than Robert E. Lee?
Otherwise you might as well just knock over every military statue in general.
What if the secret appeal of shonen anime to western audiences is that it provides a vision of heroism untainted by protestant misanthropy
I only just got into anime and I’m shocked at how much “problematic” content there is. By which I mean I love it.
Anime is sneakily reinforcing traditional gender roles and nobody noticed because they aren’t using the Christian tradition to do so.
“sneakily”
In some ways it differs. Often, it’s the girls that are all colorful individuals with cool powers, and the dude, while the mostest powerfulest of all, is a generic cardboard stand-in.
Tenchi is the least interesting character in his own show.
In other ways it’s more obvious, like all the buckets of cuteness.
Some of them, yes. Others because this country lacks the political will, culture, finesse, and competency to adequately resolve issues of crime and other issues related to density and housing prices.
I’ve been seeing in professors the result of the cutoff and scoring obsession and weird focuses of the NIH grant system. If I were head of NIH, I would say “We’re obsessing about the scores of these grants to level that exceeds our ability to tell good research from bad. How bout we just take an amount of grants that’s 4x the amount we can fund, and just randomly draw ¼ of those.“
Also, when I am Comrade General Secretary of the Socialist States of America, that’s how I’m allocating capital.
> not assigning members of your government allocation funding blocks that they can bet on research outcomes
I’m joking and responded without actually thinking about it, but you’d probably use a broad basket of metrics that correlate with research success/value, which are semi-randomly weighted in ways that aren’t fully revealed to the “investors” in order to wreck min-maxing and attempts to short-circuit the metrics.
Grants would be composed of funding allocation blocks from multiple individuals, and those who did well on previous research funding would obtain more of them over time.
It’s similar to a market, only if you ripped out the utility function of the market and replaced it with something else.
I’ve been seeing in professors the result of the cutoff and scoring obsession and weird focuses of the NIH grant system. If I were head of NIH, I would say “We’re obsessing about the scores of these grants to level that exceeds our ability to tell good research from bad. How bout we just take an amount of grants that’s 4x the amount we can fund, and just randomly draw ¼ of those.“
Also, when I am Comrade General Secretary of the Socialist States of America, that’s how I’m allocating capital.
> not assigning members of your government allocation funding blocks that they can bet on research outcomes
Do you believe someone else being rich prevents you from being rich?
Do you believe their is any govt regulations that help people gain wealth?
Do you believe people do not have a right to be wealthy?
that’s not what I said.
I’m pointing out that the argument from libertarians that it’s governments making corporations push their interests against the public good is bullshit because it disregards how and what brought about basic regulation in the first place and what corporations do overseas WITHOUT regulations protecting workers.
I also said it’s ridiculous that just 8 people have more wealth than 3.6 BILLION people is a bit ridiculous, especially considering Western corporations rely on global poverty for cheap labor. so yes I have a problem with multi billion dollar corporations paying people starvation wages and pushing the narrative that they earned that money without exploitation. even billionaires admit to this which is pretty ironic.
if you already disagree there’s not much I can do to change your mind, though.
The “8 people have more wealth than X billion” statisic is a bit disingenuous if I’m right about the exact statisic you’re citing.
It’s not that we can just redistribute that wealth amongst these X billion and fix poverty, because these X billion actually have zero or negative net worth, meaning it won’t even make a dent. So that’s a completely different problem that needs a completely different solution.
I’m not sure what kind, though.
Only what is produced can be consumed. Need to keep teching up and expanding production.
Were I in charge I might also pursue development programs in stable militarily-allied countries in order to build a high-powered international bloc, transforming the national interest into one that could justify this kind of investment, buuut much of the Left would despise me.
how is it that anarchists are down to bloc up and beat the shit out of reactionaries but as soon as there’s a revolution it’s some horrible tankie shit if we throw them behind bars or reeducate them
Don’t you know? Fighting reactionaries is only ever cool if your the underdog.
ur forgetting that the wonders of mutual aid will turn the fascists into Nice Comrades overnight. like the white army and spanish nationalists did.
Don’t think anyone is pretending that overnight fascists would become Nice Comrades but I think it’s ridiculous and authoritarian to put them into “reeducation” camps as if fascists can be reeducated. Locking people up and reeducating them is useless and pointless. Anarchists would rather kick their asses and drive them out rather than brainwash them into “reeducated ” comrades. You can’t respond to fascism with liberal notions of “educating” them to think otherwise. The paranoid mind of a far right-winger can’t be reformed. I’m personally of the opinion that fascists should just be killed.
so you unfollow me for being a tankie but you think we should just go execute them instead
Killing fascists is a bad thing, you’re right. We should “re-educate” them and force them into socialist slavery because they totally won’t hate that and totally won’t just try and organize underground (like they do already). Nice tags, apparently wanting to kill fascists makes me a “reverse tankie”. This is your brain on Leninism. Lmao.
so ur logic is that since prison is so fucked up we should just murder them?? ok lol please explain how ur libertarian death squads would be less authoritarian than a prison system. I’ll wait lmao.
My logic is that fascism must always be stomped out before it is given a chance to take root. Fascism spreads very easily which is why antifa strategy is based around denying them a platform and driving them underground. It fucking works. Unfortunately it doesn’t stop the spread of these ideas, it’s a temporary solution in most cases. Killing them is better than playing antifa whack-a-mole. My argument against re-education and imprisonment is that it’s not effective or even really desirable. Why should fascist lives be protected. Call me a liberal all you want but you’re over here talking about giving literal fascists a second chance because killing them in self-defense is too extreme. Tell me, are you in favor of gun control too?
my point, which u continue to miss, is that it’s funny to me that u advocate death squads yet build ur entire politics around anti-authority lol
Yes because killing in self-defense contradicts my anti-authoritarianism?????????
you called me a tankie for saying fascists should be jailed but somehow don’t think ur a tankie for saying fascists should be killed. consistency lol.
Honestly cultural-kropotkinist is wrong here imo, but so are u. Fascists need to be countered when they organize, threaten, and fight. If a fascist sits on his porch thinking fascist thoughts, I can’t do anything about that. However, the instant that they start doing anything to actuality their aims, they deserve whatever comes to them.
Omg the discourse on the left is literally so we put politics dissidents in “re-education” camps or do we literally kill them….
THOT PATROL MEETS THOUGHT POLICE
I would bet that every person in this thread is unemployed, mentally ill and hates their parents.
If you guys are pro bono on death squads and prison camps for political prisoners, what is it you don’t like about fascism exactly?
It can’t just be repressive, everyone has to be poor as well.
It’s funny because their “revolution” is nust as imaginary as the “Day of the Rope”
I wonder if there’s possibly any way of imposing symmetry on the whole open borders thing, in a way that would matter.
If you decide to split the difference and make some areas open borders and other areas closed borders to that closed-borders people can live by themselves while open borders people benefit or suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then open borders people will come back six months later and demand the closed borders areas be opened immediately as a moral demand.
If you decide to make open borders contingent on paying off closed borderers with money, the open borders crowd will decry this as immoral and unfair to the global poor.
If you make anyone who comes in via open borders the financial responsibility of open border-supporters, they will decry this as immoral and unfair, because they are individuals and the people they are bringing in are individuals, and culture has nothing to do with their behavior and this is all the fault of those dity closed borderers.
However, it isn’t actually possible to solve global poverty with open borders. To meet the carrying capacity, the nations themselves must be made significantly more productive, and that means greater infrastructure and fewer children in order to concentrate parental investment.
This is not really what I meant.
I meant more like “can we impose open borders on the countries that are going to be net sources of immigrants”.
We can, but why would anyone want to go there? There’s a reason those places are net sources of immigrants.
Something something gentrification
There aren’t enough hipsters in the world, Wirehead. Plus that sounds suspiciously like colonialism..
I wonder if there’s possibly any way of imposing symmetry on the whole open borders thing, in a way that would matter.
If you decide to split the difference and make some areas open borders and other areas closed borders to that closed-borders people can live by themselves while open borders people benefit or suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then open borders people will come back six months later and demand the closed borders areas be opened immediately as a moral demand.
If you decide to make open borders contingent on paying off closed borderers with money, the open borders crowd will decry this as immoral and unfair to the global poor.
If you make anyone who comes in via open borders the financial responsibility of open border-supporters, they will decry this as immoral and unfair, because they are individuals and the people they are bringing in are individuals, and culture has nothing to do with their behavior and this is all the fault of those dity closed borderers.
However, it isn’t actually possible to solve global poverty with open borders. To meet the carrying capacity, the nations themselves must be made significantly more productive, and that means greater infrastructure and fewer children in order to concentrate parental investment.
This is not really what I meant.
I meant more like “can we impose open borders on the countries that are going to be net sources of immigrants”.
Countries like Brazil are already pretty lax about their immigration policies, but this wouldn’t do much of anything to decrease opposition to open borders.
I wonder if there’s possibly any way of imposing symmetry on the whole open borders thing, in a way that would matter.
If you decide to split the difference and make some areas open borders and other areas closed borders to that closed-borders people can live by themselves while open borders people benefit or suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then open borders people will come back six months later and demand the closed borders areas be opened immediately as a moral demand.
If you decide to make open borders contingent on paying off closed borderers with money, the open borders crowd will decry this as immoral and unfair to the global poor.
If you make anyone who comes in via open borders the financial responsibility of open border-supporters, they will decry this as immoral and unfair, because they are individuals and the people they are bringing in are individuals, and culture has nothing to do with their behavior and this is all the fault of those dity closed borderers.
However, it isn’t actually possible to solve global poverty with open borders. To meet the carrying capacity, the nations themselves must be made significantly more productive, and that means greater infrastructure and fewer children in order to concentrate parental investment.
I suspect it’s less against the interests of what Feminism is ostensibly supposed to be, and more against the interests of Feminism as it actually is.
MRAs are in some senses an offshoot of Feminism, made possible not by Patriarchal power, but by Feminism’s flaws. If you have a bunch of men around questioning dogma and demanding that principles such as innocent-until-proven-guilty are upheld, well that isn’t so great for changing the standards of evidence on campuses, now is it?
guys but like…not every vocal atheist is an m.r.a dudebro with a goatee and a fedora and a hard-on for richard dawkins. plenty of people have a legitimate reason for mistrusting and criticising religion and religious practices (i.e. abuse survivors, lgbt people, people from former or current colonies, many women all over the world) and atheism might actually be important to some people as a space for resistance. which is not to say i advocate black and white thinking and i think all criticism of religion should be sensitive and placed within careful consideration of context (i.e. people not using “atheism” as an excuse to be islamophobic, anti-semitic etc.) but religions are social institutions that still exert a lot of power and we should let oppressed people have safe spaces in which to criticise them
I’m still trying to understand how the Left started hating atheists, associating Atheism with being anti women’s rights, and consider religious people as a morally superior group?
Like, what the fuck? What happened to the god-hating liberals my (abusive) Christian parents despised?
You may try to resist religion, but know that God resists back.
Atheism had some pretty dreadful internal politics disasters. Honestly, the big issue was the one that has plagued revolutionaries since Satan himself: Once they had finished throwing off obedience to Christ, they argued over who the next target should be. The internal inability to banish sexual abusers was also a problem.
Ultimately, it kind of split, between the partisans of Pride and Vanity and those of Perfidy and Rebellion. The latter faction no longer emphasizes their atheism.
The lack of Leftists converting to anything in any noticable numbers, to my knowledge, rather disadvantages that explanation, as much as I find a certain emotional resonance to it.
does literally anyone at all remember the early internet fights? late 90s, early 00s? they were literally all about religion. one recurring argument was that basically atheists are cowards bc they mainly make fun of Christianity, rather than of Islam, which is clearly more dangerous to do. Guess what atheists started doing after being told to do so. Guess what happened as a result.
I definitely remember that era of Discourse. Interesting theory about the causes of the passing of that era, although I suspect this is a very reductionist view of those events.
9/11 happened. The West as a whole suddenly remembered that Islam existed. I don’t think the shift was from athiests decided to grow a pair and attack Islam on their blogs and chat boards.
I don’t think it’s 9/11 specifically (people made that argument in early 00s), but actually the Iraq war being drawn out forever, the Bush era coming to an end, and stuff like that. The alliance between beer'n'tits liberals and pink hair'n'harry potter fan fiction liberals was always an uncertain and shaky one, facilitated by the ills of the Bush era being different from the ills now.
You can also see a shift from “free speech zones” being horrifying to freeze peach being a tool of the oppressor, and from patriot act being creepy to surveillance being Good Actually, and many more.
j: trains are just good, ok?
objectively good
i don’t understand how neurotypicals don’t instintively understand this.
p: x3
supply chains are good
logistics and infrastructure are good
without logistics and infrastructure neurotypicals couldn’t have a single bit of their social media influencer instagrams because all would be too busy hunting rabbits to survive
s: yes
supply chains are my fetish
j: supply chains are good
There’s something aesthetically pleasing about function over form, about big, powerful industrial machinery that signifies the power of humanity. Nuclear power plants, diesel locomotives, whirring factory complexes sending thousands of packages out into the world, the musical rhythms of assembly robots…
Nature has its good parts as well, but it’s a very different feeling.
May is a motherfucker. She is fucking up Juncker, the drunken idiot a lot!
I’m going to commit a nationalist sin here in saying this, but I do actually quite like her.
You can criticise her not having strong principles on economic policy other than what’s provided for by notions of ‘stability’ and you’d be right, but at some point we have to refrain from habits of Austrian/Chicago School autism and look at what we’ve got, which is a prime minister who’s in politics because of strong faith and love of country, who takes a dim view toward grand utopian schemes.
Nine times out of ten I think that’s going to come off well for us.
@remedialaction Just a point for clarification - when I don’t care about someone’s opinion, I don’t even bother arguing with them. It’s like a switch. I default to caring, but if the proper event comes up then it’s just gone.
That point hasn’t been crossed in this case, but I’m ruling out the topic, like I did once with another topic with a woman who wanted to ban most of human sexuality.
In case that, I feel quite justified in standing by my statement that this isn’t really about logic to you, but about an emotional need that you’ve projected on to me (thus the entire garbage about control), despite your protestations otherwise.
If you change your mind and decide to apologize for your “control” bullshit, we can revisit the topic. Your continued responses show that, on some level, you do care.
This conversation has negative value to me now. It went back up for a while because examining morality at the subindividual level was an interesting and novel idea sparked by it, something to be integrated into a later body of theory, but I see there’s nothing more to be mined from the conversation. Anarcho-Capitalism remains an unworthy ideology every time I revisit it.
I’ll keep going for a while longer if you’re willing to apologize for your “let it go” bullshit, but otherwise we’re done. There’s more profit to be made elsewhere, and what do AnCaps love if not markets?
Which doesn’t change it being the self, still? Yes, external factors can influence internal factors.
But “being the self” doesn’t establish the moral liability you so desperately want.
Except you’re making this either or, that conciousness OR subconciousness is ‘central.’ The point is that you are a complete whole, both concious and unconciousness are part of you, and are relevant.
I can alter my hand, it doesn’t make my hand not part of my body.
Except that altering your hand doesn’t make you not you, because the central element that defines you is the mind, and within that mind the consciousness. If you don’t make it the consciousness, then you could end up with a situation where taking a drug technically makes you a different person, which would then mess up property and contract rules.
No, I’m saying they’re entirely part of the whole, they’re as much a part of the moral liability as everything else.
Except they aren’t sufficiently distinct, you’ve not established why they are, when they are indeed all parts of a single whole entity, that. The subcomponents aren’t pilots.
They’re not entirely, in the sense that matters, part of the whole, which is why they can conflict and dominate each other. They ARE sufficiently distinct, whether you like it or not, whether or not that makes you feel like you don’t have control, whether or not that offends your sensibilities about so-called “free will”, whether or not that has implications that you don’t like for properties or contracts or taxation or the state or your own personal safety.
Ordinary people, who you asserted can recognize evil and have to be lead into it, can recognize this, which is why ordinary law looks very little like the dogma that is Anarcho-Capitalism.
You have asserted, over and over again, while questioning the faith of my arguments with groundless speculation about my motives and bullshit about “loss of control”, that this boundary matters before all others.
You have failed to prove it, and you will never prove it, because it doesn’t matter before all others, it matters as part of a system, part of something more flexible and, dare I say it, innovative than what you have in mind.
You’re just asserting it at me over and over again, not establishing it. You’ve hit a loop, and I know how you’ll respond to this, and it won’t prove a thing.
We cannot go inward any further than the whole self entity because all of them are linked as part of one entity, and we cannot go outward because there is a discernible difference between one self and another self.
No dude, we actually can go further because it’s still causally relevant. We can also use physical interventions such as drugs or magnets or surgery or injury to act on the subindividual level.
The subcomponents are relevant in the self level, that’s the point, they are as much a part of the self level as your conscious, controlled thinking. I’ve said as much several times over.
So it isn’t consciousness that’s central to moral liability anymore. Either demonstrate that it’s still necessary for your system, or that starfish over there violated my NAP.
I have not asserted all internal layers should be dismissed, I’ve actually stated they are merely part of the self.
By saying your position such that they don’t have an impact on the moral liability, you have effectively stated that they should be dismissed.
You have not argued why they should be considered distinct, when we’re discussing the morality of actors.
They are causally relevant and in that sense sufficiently distinct. You are discussing the morality of aircraft, I’m saying it’s fair game to talk about the morality of the pilots.
They exist as distinct entities, but the sublayers are not distinct, they’re part of a whole, that’s why we call them sublayers, or subcomponents, or so on.
They are actually sufficiently distinct, that’s why they can be altered.
Your subconcious mind is still you.
Again, not making consciousness the central element means that non-conscious animals are now part of the moral consideration.
What makes that boundary so special that further recursion is unjustified even though further recursion is causally relevant?
You need to articulate what you mean by recursion as I’m not seeing it.
Assigning moral liability in layers heading inwards, or examining the roots for moral liability gradually inwards. You have to establish that, even though the differences in subcomponents are relevant on a causal level to determining behavior, that this is completely irrelevant at the self level and all internal consideration is totally off the board in terms of mitigating moral liability.
So far, you have asserted the self layer is superior so all internal considerations should be dismissed, but you haven’t actually properly established why. Relative causal unity wasn’t enough for you for nations, or presumably warships, so you have to establish why it’s so special here. Otherwise, it might make logical sense to split on the conscious and subconscious elements, since the concscious is along for the ride but has only limited control of subconscious elements, but the conscious is being used as the anchor here unless you want to argue non-conscious entities can be counted as persons under AnCap.
This is really about your desire to justify an unjustifiable concept - infinite moral liability for finite beings - despite your guesses about me “being upset over a loss of control”.
Except you’ve failed to establish that such a concept is unjustifiable. Even your term ‘infinite moral liability’ is essentially begging the question; you’ve not justified how it is ‘infinite’ really, and this all hinged upon your idea that somehow the fact that the thinking mind has various components not always in perfect unity somehow means that moral liability for the self cannot be established.
When you invent a genetic cure that lets me fix my executive functioning properly, since I can’t just forcibly override it (I have tried), then maybe the idea of a unified self of perfect liability will make sense. Until then, because I can’t just forcibly override it, then it isn’t justified to hold all of me fully liable for it. I don’t actually have a choice in the matter.
As for infinity, under AnCap it’s permitted to sell yourself into permanent slavery forever (if the tech exists for it), rather than capping liability and prohibiting that.
Also, it’s up to you to establish that kind of total moral liability for the self which ignores all subsurface concerns. Why does the causal chain stop there? Why does it ignore both what is outside and what is within? Why can it not be recursive?
ancap: you can claim what you can meaningfully isolate and control with your work, for example water which you have collected, but not all the clouds in the sky
me, a supervillain:* builds massive sphere around the whole Earth *
Leftists know “globalist” means “evil Jewish overlord” right? It has no coherent political meaning and “globalism” isn’t an ideology or a set of ideologies, it’s meant as an insult
People with PhDs in the interdisciplinary studies -mostly critical theory, international relations, and comparative political economies might say “ha”.
No one in any of those fields uses the term “globalist”
Globalist hasn’t been a term in use in any social science fields since the 90s it’s str8 up a Jewish dogwhistle
Globalization is a word used in those fields but that refers to an economic and social phenomenon. Globalist is just a fucking antisemitic word tbh.
(((globalism))) is anti-semitic? IDK sounds far-fetched
Oh, you’re being ironically anti Semitic my bad dumbass
how are you both so absurdly edgy and embarrassing, but yet so ridiculously thin-skinned?
Yeah what’s with all these Triggered SJWs, am I right?
What’s with the kind of moron who would be lambasted for listening to black metal at all by the shrill dumbass liberal politics of today, turning around and using the exact same measure on other people? Hypocrite and a moron? Are you really 23 because I’m kinda sad now
If I have to spell it out for your dumbfuck ass, the joke here was that people who say ‘globalist’ will often literally put it in triple parentheses, an established anti-semitic trope, so it becomes kinda blatantly obvious that its a dogwhistle and that that has to be explained to people is kinda funny. Sorry if that was somehow unclear because your ML prejudices makes it fucking impossible for you to read people in good faith. Idiot.
“your ML prejudices makes it fucking impossible for you to read people in good faith.”
Oh man, that’s my feeling exactly!
Him, a young unemployed man angry because all the manufacturing jobs have moved to China, mainly on the back of international trade deals that make it easier for companies with a a world-wide presence, a global presence you might say, to exploit differences in labor costs:
Man I hate these globalists.
OP, trying to prevent him from becoming a neonazi:
I THINK YOU MEAN JEWS. BECAUSE JEWS ARE THE ELITES. ALL ELITES AND GLOBALISTS ARE JEWS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELITE, IT’S DEFINITELY JEWS YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. IF YOU FEEL SCREWED BY WALL STREET, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU WERE THE JEWS. IT’S THE JEWS WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS, MAKE SURE TO REMEMBER THAT. DEFINITELY TRANSLATE YOUR HATRED TOWARDS A VAGUE ESTABLISHMENT INTO HATRED OF JEWS, BECAUSE THEY’RE TOTALLY THE ONES YOU’RE THINKING OF.
This is really about your desire to justify an unjustifiable concept - infinite moral liability for finite beings - despite your guesses about me “being upset over a loss of control”.
Alright, I’ve had my tea, so I’m feeling a bit more charitable.
Your grounding is based on the idea that the root causality is encompassed in the self, and that therefore the self ‘owns’ the results. But the causality passes from outside, through the subcomponents, and then back out again, with the self riding on top in a sense. The subcomponents can radically alter the total outcome, while the self remains riding on top.
You haven’t established why this ownership should not be subsurface. After all, you said it was about causality. You say “but the self is also a whole”, but causally, so is an aircraft, so that doesn’t really help. There are of course many practical reasons, but for your purposes that doesn’t really help, either.
Since I’m weighting on experience, rather than control, I don’t need to establish a perfect sovereign will that re-roots causality locally from the universal level to the individual.
“The unfortunate reality is that some of the MRA’s claims are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration, yet the overall picture presented to the audience is erroneous at best and outright disingenuous at worst. While men’s issues require genuine advocacy, the heroes of this pathetic diatribe tend to be rather unsavory characters.”—
(via the-grey-tribe)
If only there were some organization for gender equality that could have addressed these problems before a new group like “MRAs” formed… maybe a movement that said very many times that it is about gender equality…
