= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Checklist of Rationality Habits - 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 (186)
I'm not questioning their expertise, I'm questioning their goals. I usually try to apply Hanlon's razor to single individuals, but I'm reluctant to apply it to entire governments. I'm pretty sure that spending on defence an amount comparable to (or, in certain countries, even greater than) that spent on research has a point, I just don't think it's to benefit most of the population.
In terms of what he's actually done, as opposed to what he says, Obama's economic policy isn't that different to Republicans'. Or do “issues like peace, immigration, gay and women's rights, prayers in school”¹ (to quote the article linked) suffice to make a government not count as a plutocracy?
Anyway, how much have you heard about lobbying, associations such as the Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission, etc.? (Unfortunately, the people who talk about those things also tend to spew out lots of nonsense about Reptilians and whatnot, but I have my own hypothesis about why they do that.)
This is wandering away from the topic a bit. I doubt anyone could make a good case for any of:
Sure there does. A military dictatorship, for one.
Name one where the dictator and his cronies were not also embezzling the wealth of the country and living it up with their rich buddies. That's what they grab power for.
Even if the guy at the top has ideological principles that forbid such behaviour (rare) and isn't a hypocrite about them (super rare), there is always someone high up in the hierarchy who is in the market for favours, and due to the nature of a dictatorial hierarchy, essentially untouchable.
You're describing a situation in which politically powerful people become rich, not one in which rich people become politically powerful.
Do you have an example of a military dictatorship where the immensely rich were allowed to keep their wealth, but couldn't use it to exert political influence?
Well, no. Not offhand, anyway. But people can become rich after the revolution, and I can't think of any examples of people gaining "a lot of political power to try to further enrich themselves" this way. Of course, those who already have such power (due to corruption or whatever) do tend to use it to acquire wealth...
EDIT: Put much better here.
I ADBOC with the negation of those statements (provided “there exists” in the third one means “there has existed so far” rather than “there could ever exist in principle”).