Rational_Brony comments on George Orwell's Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 April 2012 09:34:31PM * 9 points [-]

Against intellectual censorship and police states, for freedom of expression.

Unless, of course, the people you're censoring are themselves fascist or can be accused of facism or "hate speech" then it's ok.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 April 2012 10:46:31PM * 0 points [-]

Well, it could look like hypocrisy if you fail to understand that the points I oulined aren't principles or goals in and of themsleves. They are simply measures taken to avoid the rebirth of fascism or anything like it, mere means to an end. The top priority remains anti-fascism in and of itself, and the repression of anything that could promote it, looks like it could promote it, or could be made to look like it could promote it. Hence why Mein Kampf is banned, and people in Belgium have gone to prison for reading The Protocols of the Sages of Zion in the subway. Really, it all boils down to Hitler: bad in mainland Europe, and Civil War: bad in Spain (which is probably why they abhor violent methods so much).

Obviously the dilemma anti-fascism faces is the danger of becoming so repressive in its efforts to stop fascism from raising again that it creates a new totalitarianism of its own, but so far they seem to be pulling along fine.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 17 April 2012 01:42:16PM 6 points [-]

Against intellectual censorship and police states, for freedom of expression.

...

If anyone disagrees with any of these points, they had better not say it out loud

So for you and your friends, freedom of expression doesn't extend to letting people say things you don't like, and it isn't censorship if you stop them doing it.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 April 2012 11:07:46PM 1 point [-]

Certainly not: they are allowed to say them, the same way they're allowed to say, for example, that they're sexually attracted to small children: sharing this information about their state of mind will brand them as dangerous, repulsive, and immoral, they will be subject to suspicion and strong scrutiny, people will be wary of letting power in their hands, of associating with them in public... but no-one would tell them to shut up. In fact, people would want them to speak up, so that they can be identified and tagged.

So, we're fully in favour of letting them say things we don't like, we're actually enthusiastically in favour of them saying them. When I say "they had better not say it out loud", I mean that it would not be in their best interests to signal that state of mind, and that they would, as a matter of pure self-interest, censor themselves, without any input from us, and to our great regret.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 18 April 2012 11:56:23PM 3 points [-]

For a moment I was going to say that I had misinterpreted you, but on reflection, I don't think I did at all.

You just compared being against your favoured constellation of political ideas to child molesting, and called those who are against them dangerous, repulsive, and immoral. You want them subject to suspicion and strong scrutiny; they must be identified and tagged. Of course, you're not going to personally suppress them, but -- nudge nudge, wink wink -- they'd better take care if they know what's good for them, eh?

Now, imagine someone had read only that comment, but not its ancestors. What might they conjecture that this constellation of political ideas might be?

The manifest destiny of the Aryan race? Missionary Christianity? The white man's burden of ruling the lesser peoples? Pan-Islamism? No, "liberal democracy". (That was just the third of your five bullet points, but "liberal democracy" includes the other four already.)

BTW, have you come across Mencius Moldbug?

Comment author: [deleted] 19 April 2012 04:08:59AM * -2 points [-]

Of course, you're not going to personally suppress them, but -- nudge nudge, wink wink -- they'd better take care if they know what's good for them, eh?

I'm not nudging, I'm not winking, and I'm not jocular or joyous: I'm dead serious, and state this as a matter of fact. Not as a threat or a warning, but as a statement of common sense. In fact, I like it better when they do not show this much common sense, so we can discuss their ideas in the open, and expose them for what they are.

You just compared being against your favoured constellation of political ideas to child molesting, and called those who are against them dangerous, repulsive, and immoral.

I chose paedophilia (not child molesting, I never said anything about actually having ever laid a hand on an actual child) because it's something people get panicky about on a gut level, but is contingent to the local region of space and time one occupies. You may replace it with "racism", "military expansionism/imperialism", "support for the Death Penalty", "support for banning guns", "support for Cryonics and/or Transhumanism", or "support for gay marriage", depending on the social environment you're moving in.

BTW, have you come across Mencius Moldbug?

I have. I am fairly unimpressed. Some interesting, daring, and refreshing new ideas, but I don't know if it's "rehearsing arguments", "one argument against a thousand", and so on and so forth, but I find his arguments un-satisfactory, ultimately.

The manifest destiny of the Aryan race? Missionary Christianity? The white man's burden of ruling the lesser peoples? Pan-Islamism?

I find it telling that you conflate all of these and put them on the same level. In particular, you seem to be confused as to what missionary Christianity and Pan-islamism entail, respectively, by themselves.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 19 April 2012 11:32:57AM 3 points [-]

I'm not nudging, I'm not winking, and I'm not jocular or joyous: I'm dead serious, and state this as a matter of fact. Not as a threat or a warning, but as a statement of common sense.

A statement of "common sense" that they will be seen as dangerous, repulsive, and immoral, and all the rest. If not by you, and not by them, then by whom?

I find it telling

I wish people who use this expression would go on to say what it tells them.

Those were just some examples of ideologies that have taken this attitude to their opponents. (Ok, maybe not all manifestations of missionary Christianity deserve to be in that list; consider it replaced by Stalinism or the Chinese Cultural Revolution.)

For "liberal democracy" to take that attitude doesn't sound very liberal.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 01:58:07AM -1 points [-]

Please see here.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 April 2012 06:37:43PM 0 points [-]

I don't have access to the link. Is it an unpublished draft?

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 07:49:31PM 0 points [-]

Er, yes, I have turned it into a draft at the behest of some readers who told me to reformat it in a way that would make it a proper top-level post, rather than a mere recapitulation/contextualization of the discussion so far. I'll warn you as soon as it's done.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 12:21:40AM 1 point [-]

If your regret over the consequences of punishing them for expressing their actual state is great enough, you might consider not punishing them. Conversely, if after considering it you decide to continue to punish them, you might want to calibrate your estimate of your regret more precisely.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 April 2012 03:48:27AM 0 points [-]

No, no, I regret that they won't speak up so we can't identify them, I don't regret the treatment they are given once they are identified. This is especially annoying when they start to act out on the opposites of these ideas as policies without announcing themselves, and in fact vehemently denying any type of association with the typical opponents of those ideas. It makes working to stop them harder.

You seem to have a fundamental confusion between "person is going to be punished for expressing beliefs outisde the Overton Window", and "person is going to suffer negative consequences once it is publically known that they have beliefs outside the Overton Window". The first would be institutionally enforced censorship, and wrong. The second would be simple social dynamics at work, and inevitable. If you can't tell the difference, I suggest you live in a country like the one where I was born, where the very circulation of certain ideas can be paid with your own life.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 02:14:14PM 1 point [-]

Tapping out.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 01:57:34AM 0 points [-]

Please see here. This is not a fight, and I'm not trying to knock you out.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 21 April 2012 03:25:32AM 0 points [-]

That link doesn't work for me.
Do you have a preferred expression for people indicating that they are no longer interested in discussing a particular subject with you?

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 06:23:50PM -2 points [-]

How about "I have lost interest in closing this discussion", or even not answering at all? Anyway, that's not what you indicated, you indicated that I had "won", somehow. I'm not interested in winning arguments, I'm interested in finding out the truth. "(You have satisfactorily proven that) my (implcit) accusations were precipitated/groundless/undeserved. I now see where you are coming from (even though I disagree with your conclusions)." would have been my preferred outcome, "You are clearly insane and not worth talking to" would have been my least preferred.

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (18 children)

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 01:10:30AM -5 points [-]

Now, me, Richard and Nier have gone into a tangent where I have shown some very poor grasp of both social and rational skills, and allowed myself to snap at my comrades in an entirely unseemly manner, under externally-induced stress and time pressures, that I should have known better than to let get the better of me. The posts I have fathered have shamed me, but I shall keep them up as an example of what not to do.

I'll try here to adress their points more intelligently, pertinently, and courteously.

So for you and your friends, freedom of expression doesn't extend to letting people say things you don't like, and it isn't censorship if you stop them doing it.

This statement got me very very angry. The conclusion you jumped to, Richard, is an understandable extrapolation, but I would have liked it if you had been more cautious about embracing it, because I have said nothing of the sort. My guess is that you are committing the "Politics is the Mind-Killer" mistake of trying to fit me into preexisting categories, groups, and roles, in your narrative. You should know, by now, that trying to do that with a Less Wronger is like trying to catch water, except water doesn't get pissed off. Abstain from doing that in the future.

Now, I don't know about my "friends" (I'll ask them... both of them... when I get the chance, though I think they'll agree with what I'm going to argue), but I for one think that people should be allowed to say what they want, regardless of whether I like or I don't like it. If there is any merit to their ideas, sharing them with the public will represent an improvement to the pool of collective knowledge. If there isn't, having them submitted to be de-constructed and exposed as worthless is also an improvement.

At least, that's my kind, idealistic, forgiving, past self. After having spent some time with /b/tards and goons, I have found that there is such a thing as a harmful, dangerous, or cruel abuse of freedom of speech.: * There is the promotion of the discriminating of minorities. * There is the promotion of violence. * There is the promotion of sexual and psychological abuse, and of the oppression of one gender by another, of one age group by another. * There is the promotion of one group using lethal force on another to, well, force them to undertake certain actions, or cede certain advantages, for the sake of the group that is most effective in its use of violence. * There is the promotion of totalitarian regimes. * There is the systematic aggression by certain self-appointed standard enforcers, against any opinions that go enough outside the mainstream that they attract any attention at all. (Hypocrisy? Wait up!) * There is the promotion of not giving a fair trial to people (lynching, purging, and so on), mostly by presenting their guilt as being beyond doubt (regardless of evidence), and that what they did was so heinous they must be punished as soon as possible, as harshly as possible, without getting a chance to defend themselves. * With some correlation to the last one, there is the promotion of the idea that said extremely heinous criminals should not even have the right to live on. * There is the promotion of the idea that strikes are an illegitimate form of protest, heck, that any form of protest at all in the workplace is illegitimate, save for job-quitting, if that. * Analogically, that protests against the actions of the government are illegitimate, no matter how non-violent.

I'll leave the question of how these (ab?)uses of freedom of expression should be dealt with, and whether there should be consequences for those who make use of their freedom in such a way, and what those consequences should be, as an exercise to the reader.

When I said

If anyone disagrees with any of these points, they had better not say it out loud, regardless of what they actually end up doing.

I had this sort of guy in mind. A fascist in a liberal democracy, he keeps his mouth shut (well, at least he tries, but his burning, endless love for the kind Fuhrer cannot be contained), and bides his time. Because he fears... what? In what I conceive of liberal democracy, he'd have the right to hold on to his ideas, even to speak them out. As long as he doesn't actively advocate finishing the Holocaust or oppressing black people or that kind of thing, the Law would leave him alone. He would be allowed to discuss his anti-democratic, fascist opinions in public places and media... and have them be ridiculed and soundly refuted. His immediate environment may or may not care: they may very well file him off as an inoffensive cuckoo (he's anything but: he almost gunned the protagonists down, and then blew up a theatre at their behest... long story). He's poor, unambitious. incompetent, and keeps to himself. No-one will bother to obstruct him or get in his way.

Now suppose that someone who was in favour of wars of conquest, in favour of strict government censorship, in favour of ideological totalitarianism and one-party rule, in favour of lynchings, trial by ordeal, "adminsitrative detainment", summary execution, extermination camps, prohibition of any form of protest in the workplace or against the government... suppose that this someone was smart, rich, capable, pragmatic, competent, and ambitious. Suppose that, and I know this is hard, given the previous attributes, suppose that they * publicly announced holding this set of beliefs*.

Would you not expect them to meet with a spontaneously generated slew of obstacles and hindrances of every kind?. And I haven't said anything about their opinions on race or gender or social inequality. Just the institutions of liberal democracy.

Would it not be right, and good, and proper that they are subjected to this kind of obstruction, if not outright legal action?

But, see, that's why that hypothesis was hard to swallow. Someone like that, smart and capable and pragmatic, would keep their mouth shut. They would bide their time. And then, when you expect it the least, they might pull this kind of shit. Or this other kind of shit.

Are you still going to pretend that this is just a matter of what "me and my friends" "like" or don't "like", Richard?

Now, see, I regret that, out of self preservation, and/or for the sake of bringing their plans to fruition, that kind of people will keep quiet, and only share and discuss these opinions with like-minded people. I regret that they do not feel that they can share their opinions in public, and expect them to win out by their own merit. I regret that they might, in fact, not want to submit their opinions to public scrutiny, because somewhere, deep inside, they know them to be evil or false. There is an idealistic part of me that wants to believe that, were these people given a chance to express themselves, to communicate freely and civilly with others, they would either change their beliefs as a result of the bayesian update, change everyone else's beliefs, and/or, if it's a matter of "personal" or "irrational" sensibility, make peace with the fact that they live in a world where the majority does not share their point of view, and that they cannot force their opinions, least of all their policies, unto them.

There is another, more cynical and ruthless side of me, that believes that the sort of people who are dangerously violent because of their ideology are not the sort of people who would benefit in any way from publicly debating their ideas, nor would anyone benefit from arguing with them. This aspect of me posits that sometimes, defending the freedoms of the most means stopping others from promoting the idea that said freedoms should be partly or fully, but permanently, waived, as well as infringing on the freedoms of these others should they show that they are willing and able to destroy these freedoms, and that this is perfectly okay.

To give you an example, you can't accuse of hypocrisy someone who claims to want to preserve life, because they kill a few select individuals, that have proven that killing them was the only way of incapacitating them (or that you can't try to incapacitate them without at least risking, and sometimes accidentally achieving, killing them).

You can't accuse liberal democracy of "not being very liberal" if its institutions, official and unofficial, actively work to hinder, by any means necessary (and ideally by the least harsh means necessary), any and all efforts to make it less liberal. This democracy is, in fact, in a constant equilibrium of being as liberal as it can sustainably be.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 April 2012 04:54:03AM 3 points [-]

The problem with censorship is that it inevitably expands to far. For example, your list of "abuses of free speech" includes both promotion of ideas that really are heinous and promotion of ideas that are perfectly reasonable. For example:

There is the promotion of the idea that strikes are an illegitimate form of protest, heck, that any form of protest at all in the workplace is illegitimate, save for job-quitting, if that.

Depending on what you mean by strike. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable idea that you shouldn't be able to refuse to do your job whenever you feel like expressing a "grievance" with no consequences except possibly loss of pay for the period of time when you don't work.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 06:27:58PM -1 points [-]

But I think it's a perfectly reasonable idea that you shouldn't be able to refuse to do your job whenever you feel like expressing a "grievance" with no consequences except possibly loss of pay for the period of time when you don't work.

Why in the world would that be a reasonable idea?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 April 2012 10:31:27PM 2 points [-]

Because society depends on people doing their jobs in order to function.

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 11:48:50PM * -5 points [-]

Wrong emphasis. Society depends on people*, doing their jobs.

Let's taboo some words:

Society: a sufficiently large group of individuals. Are we assuming a shared final goals? A power structure? A distribution of labour?
depends on: requires for its continued... What? Existence? Prosperity? What aspect of society depends on "people doing their jobs"? What does society depend on "people doing their jobs" for? For now, I'll assume you're using "depends on X" in the sense of "expects X to happen"... but that's kind of weak.
people: individual sentient beings, not machines or tools, with needs other than being kept in optimal condition for the performance in the functions they perform, and existences that do not necessarily revolve around performing said functions.
doing their jobs: performing the functions that they have promised to perform reliably and within certain sufficient quality and quantity parameters

Again, given that it's people we are talking about, they will only want to do their jobs in exchange for a reliable retribution in advantages in the shape of wealth and status in sufficient quality and quantity that have a utility to the people that is equivalent or superior to costs that "doing their job" entails for them. They will only be able to do their jobs if the compensation is sufficient to keep them alive so they can come back the next day.

Now, let's use some basic economic theory: let's assume work is a commodity, that is, let us do away with the "people" part and suppose the job-performers are emotionless, non-sentient machines, tools that will simply go irreversibly out of order if they are given insufficient resources for a long enough period of time, beings that exist only and purely to do their jobs, whose downtime is either spent in maintenance (and can be shortened or lengthened depending on where the optimal total productivity point between maximum duration and maximum instant output lies). Let's also assume that their work capacity is distributed in an ideal free market, and that the machines are programmed to ask for as many resources as you are willing to give them. There's a very close real-life equivalent to said machines: cattle.

Finally, let us assume that there is a steady influx of new machines, but that the work that the society needs to get done fluctuates.

This situation automatically results, thanks the to wonderful "Invisible Hand" that guides the self-regulating ideal market, into the jobholders being given *exactly as many resources as they need to work and keep functioning the next day, maintaining exactly the population that can provide the necessary amount of labour needed for getting the amount of job that society demands done.

Now, in the XIXth century, that is often what actually happened, except with people, specifically unqualified labour (heck, look at the very term: "unqualified labour", as if labour was everything they are). And that was just unplanned market fuckery. The Nazis would actually planify killings by giving workers rations that were exactly calculated so that they would die soon upon completion of the project they were assigned to.

Why did this happen? Because those workers were powerless to make the people who had the right to set the conditions of the job agreement give them anything more than what ensured what was strictly needed for them to perform their task, which was basically them being alive for as long as they were needed and useful, and not an instant more. Which was what they ended up actually getting, because a free market ensures that's where the Nash Equlibrium lies: they are locked in a prisoner's dilemma in which if any single one of them refused to agree to work under those conditions, they would simply be replaced by another, willing person, and then die.

This is why as long as we assume that job-performers are people, more than tools to be used and thrown away, that their existence has value beyond the utility derived from them performing their jobs, and that it should not be entirely miserable, it is absolutely vital that job-performers have a form of power over those who set the conditions of the work agreement, that will allow them to protect themselves from being reduced, by the sheer strategic necessity, to the status of tools.

Now, strikes are a horrible way of achieving this: they are self-regulating too, in that, performing them is at the immediate cost of the job-performers (of course, since they are paid less than what their job-performing is actually worth, this costs whoever profits from their job even more) and risks the cessation of the demand for the job itself being performed. So, game-theory wise, it works, ideally resulting in the job-performers being assigned just under the amount of resources that would make the net utility of the job being performed inferior to that of it not being performed.

If you have suggestions for alternate ways in which job-performers can protect themselves from becoming cattle or machinery, I would love to hear them. I say this in all sinceirty: strikes are ugly. If you can additionally justify why people should not have the right to strikes, given those alternatives existing, I would love to hear that too

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 April 2012 12:03:12AM 2 points [-]

The Nazis would actually planify killings by giving workers rations that were exactly calculated so that they would die soon upon completion of the project they were assigned to.

Why did this happen?

Because the Nazis put industry under state control so that people had no choice but to work for companies guided by the state's economic policy.

If you have suggestions for alternate ways in which job-performers can protect themselves from becoming cattle or machinery, I would love to hear them.

Sure, don't centralize the hiring process under the guise of "economic planning" or maintaining an "economic policy" so much that hiring effectively becomes a monopsony.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 April 2012 12:23:11AM * -1 points [-]

The first point would be more of an issue in terms of that particular state's particular economic policies: in a democratic state, economic policies that would not result in such an outcome would win out.

The second point... do you mean to say that, were there to be many job-assigning institutions competing to get the same job performed at the least possible cost, the equilibrium would fall into job-performers being given more resources than what they would receive were they to be considered disposable cattle? That only works if the work-performers are scarce, in which case it doesn't matter whether there is one or many institutions competing. And if the work-performers are abundant, the equilibrium will fall into them being given exactly as many resources as they physically need to perform their job.

In a perfect market, centralizing or decentralizing doesn't achieve anything: what matters is simply offer and demand.

Also, why do you put scare quotes around "economic planning" and "economic policy"?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 April 2012 12:54:40AM * 1 point [-]

The first point would be more of an issue in terms of that particular state's particular economic policies: in a democratic state, economic policies that would not result in such an outcome would win out.

No, my point is that by and large states don't need and shouldn't have "economic policies".

The second point... do you mean to say that, were there to be many job-assigning institutions competing to get the same job performed at the least possible cost, the equilibrium would fall into job-performers being given more resources than what they would receive were they to be considered disposable cattle? That only works if the work-performers are scarce, in which case it doesn't matter whether there is one or many institutions competing. And if the work-performers are abundant, the equilibrium will fall into them being given exactly as many resources as they physically need to perform their job.

Are you trying to argue that monopsony power doesn't exist? Without monopsony power an employer who pays low wages will have a hard time attracting employees. Whereas a monopsony employer can set wages arbitrarily low, his only limit is his own conscience and that at some point potential employees will prefer not to work. It's possible to state the above more mathematically, for example here (Note: that article talks about monopoly rather than monopsony but the principal is the same).

In a perfect market, centralizing or decentralizing doesn't achieve anything: what matters is simply offer and demand.

Except that centralizing destroys the perfect market.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 April 2012 01:25:17AM 0 points [-]

No, my point is that by and large states don't need and shouldn't have "economic policies".

You haven't established that point to my satisfaction. Don't try to: it's not that I don't expect you to succeed, it's that, at this point in time, I am compelled away by urgent priorities.

Except that centralizing destroys the perfect market.

I now know that we are falling for red herrings, both of us. I also acknowledge that I am out of my depth, and that I will have to leave this sort of conversation for when my understanding of economics and game theory are sufficient to tackle it with ease. I advise you to do the same: I have the feeling that there is much cached wisdom and pre-rehearsed arguments in what you say, as I will acknowledge there is in mine.

Comment author: pedanterrific 21 April 2012 08:51:35PM 1 point [-]

Lifeguards.

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 April 2012 11:30:26PM -2 points [-]

Not to say unions can't act petty or spoiled at some points, but that attitude is self-defeating, and the existing counterpowers will stop them soon enough.

Assuming the rest of society is functional, i.e., capitalist. Unions in industries that are enforced monopolies, e.g., government workers, are a problem. For example, here in the United States, teachers' unions are probably the biggest obstacle to fixing the education system.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 April 2012 11:56:10PM -1 points [-]

The idea that education is an enforced government monopoly in the United States Of America of all places makes me question whether you are aware of the importance of private education in that country relative to public education. The idea that a society being functional equals it being capitalist simply makes me question what you mean by capitalism and functionality: try to taboo those words? Finally, the idea that teachers' unions would get in the way of the improvement of public education strikes me as odd and unexpected, and I would like you to develop that point: what do you mean by "fixing" and why are they "obstacles" to it?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 April 2012 12:20:23AM 1 point [-]

The idea that education is an enforced government monopoly in the United States Of America of all places makes me question whether you are aware of the importance of private education in that country relative to public education.

It's not quite an enforced government monopoly, although people choosing private school have to pay twice (pay for the public schools through their taxes and tuition for the private school). There are various attempts, e.g., school vouchers, charter schools, to fix this but the teachers' unions have been fighting them tooth and nail.

The idea that a society being functional equals it being capitalist simply makes me question what you mean by capitalism and functionality: try to taboo those words?

By capitalist I mean free market. By functional I mean provides effective services. Note: my claim is not that societies can't have both functional and non-capitalist elements, rather that for the most part the functional elements will be capitalist and the non-functional ones will be non-capitalist.

Finally, the idea that teachers' unions would get in the way of the improvement of public education strikes me as odd and unexpected,

This doesn't surprise me given the filters you likely get your news through.

and I would like you to develop that point: what do you mean by "fixing" and why are they "obstacles" to it?

By "fixing" I mean making it so that students come out of the schools having actually learned basic math and English skills. A specific reform is making it possible to get rid of incompetent teachers.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 April 2012 12:40:35AM * 0 points [-]

By capitalist I mean free market.

What do you mean by free market, exactly?

Effective services

When is effectiveness, and when can a service be qualified as effective?

for the most part the functional elements will be capitalist and the non-functional ones will be non-capitalist

Depending on your definitions of effective and free-market, the existence of Sweden, at the very least, might make you want to question that reasoning.

the filters you likely get your news through

I don't select the media from which I get my news. While the press in general does operate a selection on what information they release to the public, I do not think favouring teachers' unions is one of their priorities.

A specific reform is making it possible to get rid of incompetent teachers.

Well, in the end the institutions are made of people, and applying game theory oversimplifies many factors. Such as public backlash: I cannot imagine teachers being stupid enough to risk the public backlash that opposing such a reform would cause (supposing that reform is exactly what it says on the tin, rather than making it possible to fire teachers for other, less avowable reasons. Unless teachers in the USA already had such a low social image that they would not care about degrading it further.

EDIT: You know, someone keeps down-voting both of us, and I don't know why.

continue this thread »

Rational_Brony comments on George Orwell's Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (285)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (285)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login