= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mercy comments on How likely is Peter Thiel's investment into seasteading to pay off? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (140)
The passage above seems quite obviously true, indeed pretty much common sense. Do you have any specific points in it that trouble you, or is it just that the entire thing turns conventional wisdom one end over the other. You quote the article as if it was obviously unreasonable on sight. I am puzzled, and would like to understand what is unreasonable about it.
Recall, for example, when the pentagon was allied with the Northern Alliance, the State Department was allied with the Taliban. The state department ordered the Northern Alliance not to enter Kabul, much as it demands that Israel give Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The Pentagon furtively indicated it was fine with the Northern Alliance entering Kabul, which resulted in something close to shooting war between the Pentagon and the State Department. The Northern alliance, contrary to orders, entered Kabul and threw the Taliban out of Kabul. In the end, the state department, and thus the Taliban, won, in that the Northern Alliance was suppressed, and replaced by a government that is is composed, like the Taliban, of Pashtun, unlike the Northern Alliance, composed, like the Taliban, of Radical Islamists, unlike much of the Northern Alliance, but nonetheless is supposedly at war with the Taliban and supposedly on our side, not withstanding its habit of burning bibles, executing Muslims who convert to Christianity, and executing Muslims who try to rationalize away the more disturbing parts of the Koran, odd behavior for a supposed ally of us and supposed enemy of the Taliban.
You may think this account of the current war is odd, but if it is odd, is not it odder that the State Department ordered the Northern Alliance to not enter Kabul? Is it not odder that the current government of Kabul has policies that are a lot closer to the Taliban than to the policies of the Northern alliance?
And if the US is on Israel's side, is it not odd that its policy is that peace should be made by the stronger side yielding land and money to the weaker side?
If Mencius's account is obviously odd, are there not a lot of even odder aspects about the conventional account?
This is not the place to argue whether his view is correct, but I would like to understand why some people find his view hard to swallow. Of course it comprehensively contradicts official history, but no one seems troubled by versions of history that contradict yesterday's official history in a leftward direction.
Well the stuff you've detailed about Afghanistan being a rogue puppet state brought to heel is an untroubling version of history that contradicts the official variety in a leftward direction. I see Constant was quite right to ask what I objected to in the quote, but I thought it obvious which bits were novel - that Israel is an enemy of the US and the Vietcong were not. It's not that these are troubling, I like being troubled by heterodoxy, but I like it for the opportunity to model their thought processes.
And I understand how someone can believe in the idea that the US is against Israel and for Communism, but I MM actually seems to think it's true- he thinks the US funding of Israel is explicable in terms of wanting to see Israel destroyed, and the invasion of Vietnam in terms of curbing the anti-american tendencies of communism. And I can't see what those explanations are.
Likewise, I can see someone interpreting America's attitude towards Israel as being overly pro-Palestinian, but MM actually goes ahead and describes what the world would look like for this to be true - there would be a Palestinian lobby which dwarfs AIPAC and J-Street in size. And he doesn't notice the world he's describing isn't our own.
That is simply false. MM explains, or perhaps rationalizes, why the Palestinian lobby does not exist: He says that the Palestinian lobby does not exist, because the Palestinians are a proxy of the state department. According to MM the Palestinian lobby does not exist, because the Palestinians do not really exist as a group capable of rationally and selfishly following their own interests.
Which might be just rationalizing away an inconvenient fact, but does explain the curious anomaly that the Palestinians don't rationally and selfishly follow their own collective interests.
WARNING: MIND-KILLER FIELD AHEAD
Very few large groups are ever capable of rationally following their own interests. One of the things we learn from decision theory and voting theory is that groups, in general, might not have well-defined preferences, even if the members do. When a large group acts incoherently, no special explanation is needed.
The evidence you produce supports the considerably weaker claim, that no group is capable of reliably and consistently rationally following their own interests, and will not always have a well defined interest.
A well run corporation, and most corporations are reasonably well run, perhaps because those that are not are apt to wind up broke, does fairly successfully follow its own interest.
The whole point of organizing a group, having a leadership, is to achieve the capability of pursuing its own interests, (unless of course, it is an astroturf organization)
If one asserts that the Israeli lobby exists and is effective, this implies that Jews organized as the state of Israel are capable of following their collective interests, or at least the interests of the state of Israel.
A corporation is usually quite capable of following the interests of shareholders.
The way a corporation accomplishes this is that there is a board, which supposedly represents the shareholders. The board is theoretically elected by shareholders, though usually it was self appointed when the company was formed, and has subsequently been self perpetuating. But despite the fact, or perhaps because of the fact, that the elections are usually worthless, the board usually does represent the interests of shareholders.
The board appoints a CEO, and delegates all power to him, subject to the limit that they may fire him at any moment. The board is supposed to monitor what he does, but not interfere or second guess him. It is supposed to allow him enough rope to hang himself, and usually it does.
This system does enable large groups to rationally and selfishly follow their own collective interest.
The systems commonly used by governments are generally less effective, but they are not totally and completely ineffective.
Is there any nation that "rationally and selfishly follows its collective interest"?
Nations are less rational and self interested than individuals, but rationality and self interest is for the most part a rough approximation, as good as a spherical cow. It is a quite good approximation for monarchies such as Qatar and the former Lichtenstein. It is a very bad approximation to Palestinian behavior.
It is safe to say that there isn't. The rest of us would have been left or overwhelmed within months.
Huh? Do you think that selfishness unambiguously means: dominate Earth (or what left of it) as fast as possible?
No.
The Vietcong never existed. They were an arm of Hanoi. And Hanoi was never an enemy in the sense that the US wanted it to be overthrown or lose territory - nor in the sense that US derecognized Hanoi's authority over large parts of North Vietnam. The US seriously undermines the very existence of Israel. It never undermined the communist regime in the North. The squabble between the US and North Vietnam was like a quarrel within a marriage, like the frequent disputes between the Pentagon and the State Department. Indeed, Mencius argues that it was a dispute between the Pentagon and the State Department. In contrast, the dispute between the US and Rhodesia was existential.