One practical, slow way in which I see this happening is by shifting the focus on cooperation in education and slowly limiting the massive accumulation of wealth together with strong regulations regarding ecological impact and labour compensation.

One very fine idea I found was in a Howard Gardner interview for BigThink (scroll down to " What is the US getting wrong?" )

Another interesting approach was an initiative called 1:12 proposed in Switzerland. Unfortunately, that initiative got hit massively with FUD from the competition which was able to outspend it in terms of advertising 40:1.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 March 2014 12:13:26PM 2 points [-]

I haven't proposed a totalitarian state.

You are talking about a state that takes everything from everyone beyond what they "need". When I asked how my desire for a bigger house than I "need" would be met, this was the exchange:

What happens in this society, if I want a bigger house than the state thinks I need?

I don't know but I imagine that some kind of balanced utility function could be produced that could provide different resource allocation. e.g. bigger shelter (if requested).

"Totalitarian" is exactly the right word for this. This is a vision of the state giving and the state taking away, where all belongs to the state and personal property is to be justified by a plea of need.

One very fine idea I found was in a Howard Gardner interview for BigThink (scroll down to " What is the US getting wrong?" )

I don't agree with caps on individual wealth, and were I Swiss, I'd have voted against 1:12 even without seeing any of the so-called FUD. (You don't think it possible that any of the opposition was from people who simply judged it to be a bad idea for the society?) But something Gardner says later on I find worth quoting:

I think one of the good features about the United States—since I've been bashing it—is that it's built into our DNA to take a chance, and if we fail, to try again. ... I said [to East Asians asking for a recipe for creativity] you've got to try something out, try to get some other people to support you, and if it doesn't work, what can you learn from it?

Compare this succinct statement of why capitalism works so well, from a recent comment here:

The only reason capitalism works is that the losing experiments run out of money.

That brake on failure is really important. When someone decides to Do Something and commits their resources to it, if it doesn't work out, they have to stop. A government's ability to carry on regardless is in comparison almost unlimited. The government of the day have their jobs at risk, but nothing more.

Comment author: terasinube comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: terasinube 04 March 2014 04:43:55PM -5 points [-]

You are talking about a state that takes everything from everyone beyond what they "need".

I never said anything about the state taking.

"Totalitarian" is exactly the right word for this. This is a vision of the state giving and the state taking away, where all belongs to the state and personal property is to be justified by a plea of need.

Again... you are projecting your vision of what I said but you did brought up an interesting idea... the idea of personal property. I don't think land should be owned by people. If people don't own the land, then it follows that houses should not be owned by people.

Do you see any way in which this could be implemented without totalitarianism?

I don't agree with caps on individual wealth, and were I Swiss, I'd have voted against 1:12 even without seeing any of the so-called FUD.

Why not?

The only reason capitalism works is that the losing experiments run out of money.

That brake on failure is really important. When someone decides to Do Something and commits their resources to it, if it doesn't work out, they have to stop. A government's ability to carry on regardless is in comparison almost unlimited.

Is the defence budget of USA for the past 60 years an experiment that ran out of money?

We were talking about a new society, one that runs on rationality. Experiments in this kind of society could have very clear parameters for a brake.

I look at capitalist societies and what I see is oligarchies masquerading as capitalism. The game is rigged and people are too afraid to even dream of changing it because, in most cases... this is the only game they know OR... the other games are just as bad.

Is really capitalism the best way to handle education? Healthcare? Public transportation infrastructure? Defence?

To me, the stories with happy people "finishing paying their college loans" are horror stories. Stories with people getting charged thousands of dollars for simple medical procedures are insane. People maximising PROFITS out of selling weapons and military technology/services... is not the mark of a sane and healthy society.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 March 2014 06:34:45PM 2 points [-]

We were talking about a new society, one that runs on rationality.

And who will this society consist of? Humans are not rational and do not show signs of becoming considerably more rational in the near future.

Comment author: Nornagest 04 March 2014 06:17:45PM * 2 points [-]

If people don't own the land, then it follows that houses should not be owned by people.

This seems to make some questionable assumptions about the relationship of immovable property to land. I've heard of traditional systems of tenure where people don't own land per se, but have claim to it insofar as they modify it or build structures upon it: you couldn't own a square mile of wilderness, for example, but you could own a house or a cultivated field.

This tends to work better in a society that runs on small-scale agriculture, where a single mode of cultivation is about all land ever gets used for, and where the amount of land you can cultivate is limited by the livestock and tools you own and the number of workers you have access to (either hired or part of your family). It'd be difficult to extend to modern land use. But it is an internally consistent way of thinking about tenure.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 March 2014 06:32:00PM 1 point [-]

This seems to make some questionable assumptions about the relationship of immovable property to land.

Actually, the issue is with the word "own", or, rather, with the concept of property.

Property isn't a binary yes/no thing. The usual way of describing property is as a "bundle of rights". In different times and places that bundle may and does contain different numbers of different rights.

For example, a basic property right is the right to exclude. You can (usually) prevent other people from using your property without your consent. Another property right is the right to destroy. Etc. etc.

Comment author: Nornagest 04 March 2014 06:35:41PM * 0 points [-]

That's another issue, yes -- and models of land ownership and tenure have historically been pretty varied in terms of the rights they confer. (For a simple example, consider the concept of right of way.) But you don't need to start breaking property rights down here to get the cracks to show.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 March 2014 05:40:37PM * 2 points [-]

I don't think land should be owned by people.

By whom should it be owned, then? Or to unpack the concept of ownership, who gets to farm, or mine, or build on a given piece of land, and how will it be decided? Is the answer going to again be "somehow"? You say I'm reading my vision into your words, but that's because I'm not seeing any vision in them.

We were talking about a new society, one that runs on rationality.

I am not seeing the rationality content here.

I'm leaving the rest unresponded to, because we're both of us well into politics-as-mindkiller territory here, and I don't think prolonging the discussion is going to be useful in this venue.

ETA: But it would be polite for me to respond to your direct question, why I don't agree with caps on individual wealth. Because every honestly earned dollar in someone's hands means that they created more than a dollar's worth of value in someone else's. That is what it is, to earn money. When people pay you for what you do, your financial worth is a measure of the value you have created for them. Why cap that?

Of course, there are dishonest people, but to take away everyone's supposed excess money as a remedy is to fine everyone for the deeds of a few. And there are the practical issues of people evading such regulations by emigrating or restructuring their affairs so as not to legally "own" the wealth that they actually have control over. The dishonest are at an advantage here.

I have heard (unsourced anecdote) that when you ask people what is the largest income anyone really needs, they generally name a figure about 10 times their own. Whatever their own income is.

Comment author: terasinube 05 March 2014 07:07:14AM 0 points [-]

we're both of us well into politics-as-mindkiller territory here, and I don't think prolonging the discussion is going to be useful in this venue.

I agree. I also discovered that my comments are down voted into oblivion.

I have to assume that my contributions to this forum are not yet of high enough quality.

Anyways... I'm grateful for your comments. They have been uncomfortable and made me think.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 March 2014 04:49:51PM 1 point [-]

I also discovered that my comments are down voted into oblivion. ... I have to assume that my contributions to this forum are not yet of high enough quality.

This forum is better than most but has not achieved enlightenment (yet :-D). Some up- or down-voting happens on the basis of the quality of comments, but a lot just signals the agreement or disagreement with the views of the poster.

You basically proposed communism which magically lacked all the icky bits. That will get you a bunch of downvotes :-)

Comment author: terasinube 05 March 2014 05:51:43PM -1 points [-]

Some up- or down-voting happens on the basis of the quality of comments, but a lot just signals the agreement or disagreement with the views of the poster.

Oh well... I'm totally ok on being downvoted on accounts of low quality of my comments however, I wasn't really expecting people here to downvote comments just because they don't agree with them. I have adjusted that belief now and will act with a little bit more caution.

You basically proposed communism which magically lacked all the icky bits. That will get you a bunch of downvotes :-)

I guess I did that :) but it was a good lesson. It pointed to the fact that I should refrain from speaking without having at least a reasonable model about what I am speaking about. :)

Comment author: taelor 04 March 2014 07:11:17PM 0 points [-]

To me, the stories with happy people "finishing paying their college loans" are horror stories. Stories with people getting charged thousands of dollars for simple medical procedures are insane. People maximising PROFITS out of selling weapons and military technology/services... is not the mark of a sane and healthy society.

Of note: most universities are either run by the government, or by non-profit organizations. Ditto for most hospitals.

terasinube comments on Proportional Giving - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (86)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (86)

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