“The personal is the political” is a terrible doctrine. Politics is no friend to truth or justice, engaging with it is risky enough. To invite it into the core of your being is foolishness.
They spend the 3rd most in the nation per student and can’t produce a quality student.
MONEY IS NOT WHAT MAKES SCHOOLS GOOD.
It’s family values and communities. Things the left has been trying to destroy for decades.
I completely agree, they would have been good at math if they’d hated gay people more, you make sense.
Actually, Community and Family don’t require hating gay people (if you aren’t a member of [SUBSET OF RELIGIONS]). It is this blog’s belief that stable and beneficial families can be the new cultural norm without stomping all over the LGBTs.
It seems like at least one of the things that’s gone wrong with American politics is that the Democrats have absolutely zero interest in taking up the language, priorities, rhetoric or politics of the left, which kind of leaves them without much of a message except for ‘I mean, we do actually know how to govern and when we get the chance to do it we improve peoples’ lives. and have you seen the other guys’. But if people aren’t happy with how things are going, that’s a really unappealing message - and no one is happy with how things are going.
I don’t know what a good message for the Democratic party would be, but they keep losing with this one.
One of the issues is that the Democrats would have to get smarter on policy, not just shift in a left-wing direction. They’d also have to actually follow through better on some of their policies.
For instance, a program of direct-to-employee wage subsidies would help the working class and boost employment. This is to the left of current Democrat policy (increasing the minimum wage), but has some good acceptance by economists. It would also put them in a better position for courting working class whites, especially when the Truckpocalypse hits.
However, they appear to be committed to a policy of demographic shift or even replacement, so it’s unlikely they’ll go for this option.
If I might make a charitable interpretation of @sinesalvatorem Community posts, here…
Let’s suppose our goal is to get religious communities to tolerate LGBT people, maybe by becoming less religious or maybe by just being less fundamentalist about it. (And this sort of thing isn’t just religious in origin.)
It makes sense to know just what it is we’re asking them to give up.
Religion actually is a social technology. Coal is an energy technology. That doesn’t mean soot is good for you.
If a non-religious or religious-but-tolerant community can be designed and instantiated, then exiting from previous non-tolerant religious communities has a much lower cost. (Plus there is the issue of everything else society needs.)
And then he’s shocked and horrified when people accuse him of being a reacto
The head-slapping part of this is that it assumes that the difficult part about running a government is all the gosh-darned records processing, and not the bit about maintaining the consent of the governed.
States don’t fail because they can’t process paperwork efficiently enough, they fail because the people decide that an alternative offering is more compelling.
(or more uncharitably: this is the most ignorant post X has ever made, and will remain so until X posts again).
Oh, Eliezer, honey kun,
Culture is a wave, government is a wave, nations are a wave, and they’re all a web.
Libertarianism is not the default policy position into which society falls if it isn’t interrupted. Democracy is not the default policy position into which society falls if it isn’t interrupted.
They are both high-level ideological constructs that require constant reinforcement and social, cultural, and material support to maintain.
I had assumed that EY’s post was satire.
But failing that…libertarianism isn’t any sort of default policy position, but it’s presumably easier to administrate than many others?
Libertarianism prohibits buying off the interest groups you need to hold the country together.
Although I’ll admit, I didn’t consider the possibility that it was satire, since it fits the Clueless Silicon Valley Contextless Political Thinking to a T.
And then he’s shocked and horrified when people accuse him of being a reacto
The head-slapping part of this is that it assumes that the difficult part about running a government is all the gosh-darned records processing, and not the bit about maintaining the consent of the governed.
States don’t fail because they can’t process paperwork efficiently enough, they fail because the people decide that an alternative offering is more compelling.
(or more uncharitably: this is the most ignorant post X has ever made, and will remain so until X posts again).
Oh, Eliezer, honey kun,
Culture is a wave, government is a wave, nations are a wave, and they’re all a web.
Libertarianism is not the default policy position into which society falls if it isn’t interrupted. Democracy is not the default policy position into which society falls if it isn’t interrupted.
They are both high-level ideological constructs that require constant reinforcement and social, cultural, and material support to maintain.
broke: North Korea ain’t great
woke: criticism of DPRK is racist
toke: what if North Korea is just, like, a story, man
joke: it was invented to add depth to the background story of a kpop idol then got out of hand
bespoke: Criticism of DPRK is racist if it’s done by a white person. Otherwise? Imperialist!
bloke: North Korean chicks are cute
coke: North Koreans are denied the Refreshing™ taste of American beverages such as Coca-Cola™ and culturally innovative food products such as McDonalds™ hamburgers
Anonymous asked:
If funding could be secured, it would be possible to start a think tank, because there is a lot of work to be done. These ideas are exotic, they escape the Overton Window by travelling orthogonal to it, but they have to be refined, tested, and experimented with.
The goal would be to synthesize a new scientific art of organizational design and policy incentivization from a diverse group of fields, including political science, economics (particularly behavioral economics), psychology, philosophy, and mathematics. Most existing organizations and politics are running on pre-digital organizational technology, and very few people even think of “organizational technology” as even being a concept.
Various proposals would be drafted, analyzed, refined, and then simulated using human testers (against competing speculative policies) before being refined again cyclically and suggested for institutions smaller than the US Federal Government. To improve efficiency, various competing domain experts would be hired for short periods of time.
Actually improving governance in the United States would require doing things that deeply offend both the Democratic and Republican parties and which are at odds with their ideological pre-commitments. Formation of a political party is right out due to the First Past the Post System which makes success with policies that are only inspiring to the kinds of people that read this blog extremely improbable. Policy advocacy should therefore focus on attacking avenues which are not sufficiently defended by partisan trench warfare, municipalities, and shifting politicians on individual issues through lobbying and electoral guides, functioning as a Special Interest Group.
Until then, one can follow this strange political time travel blog and dream of the future, if one wishes, in addition to whatever political activity one normally carries out.
To jump off of @the-grey-tribe‘s joke post:
I think one of the key discoveries of the 20th century that has not yet been realized is that, contrary to the beliefs of many factions, including the globalist liberals and the Communists, there is not one right way to live, one set of laws which is the correct one for all people and all groups, and that all alternatives must fall away and either die off or be destroyed.
We must recognize that political policy is not a strict hierarchy of better/worse left/right, but a vector with two components - values (or terminal goals), and the means or effectiveness of means by which those values are to be realized or achieved.
Often, the failures of politics are not the result of terrible values, but ones of effectiveness. And some of the failures of modern, “rational” planning would be mitigated by the recognition and inclusion of alternate values, alternate ways to live.
If we design the political system from this perspective, I believe we could create substantial improvements, and also, perhaps ironically, a diversity of communities which are specialized according what best fits given populations without trying to transform them all into one homogeneous mass.
