= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stingray comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - 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 (212)
Would this description pass an ideological Turing test?
It seems to me (leftish) that it's pointing at something correct but oversimplifying.
In so far as Lycce's analysis is correct, I should be looking at people in difficulty and saying "there's nothing wrong with their abilities, but society has screwed them over, and for that reason they should be helped". I might say that sometimes -- e.g., when looking at a case of alleged sexual discrimination -- but in that case my disagreement with those who take the other position isn't philosophical, it's a matter of empirical fact. (Unless either side takes that position without regard to the evidence in any given case, which I don't think I do and wouldn't expect the more reasonable sort of rightist to do either.)
But it's not what I'd say about, say, someone who has had no job for a year and is surviving on government benefits. Because that would suggest that if in fact they had no job because they simply had no marketable skills, then I should be saying "OK, then let them starve". Which I wouldn't. I would say: no, we don't let them starve, because part of being civilized is not letting people starve even if for one reason or another they're not useful.
We might then have an argument -- my hypothetical rightist and I -- about whether a policy of letting some people starve results in more people working for fear of starvation, hence more prosperity, hence fewer people actually starving in the end. I hope I'd be persuadable by evidence and argument, but most likely I'd be looking for reasons to broaden the safety net and Hypothetical Rightist would be looking for reasons to narrow it. That may be because of differences in opinion about "personal responsibility" (as Lycce suggests) or in compassion (as I might suggest if feeling uncharitable) or in realism (as H.R. might suggest if feeling uncharitable) but I don't think it has much to do with societal influence trumping individual capabilities.
I think Lycce's analysis works better to explain left/right differences in attitudes to the conspicuously successful. H.R. might say: "look, this person has been smart and worked hard and done something people value, and deserves to be richly rewarded". I might be more inclined to say "yes indeed, but (1) here are some other people who are as smart and hardworking and doing valuable things but much poorer and (2) this person's success is also the result of others' contributions". And if you round that off to "societal influence versus individual capabilities" you're not so far off.
In uncharitable mood, my mental model of people on the right isn't quite "self-interested and evil" but "working for the interests of the successful". (When in slightly less uncharitable mood, I will defend that a little -- success is somewhat correlated with doing useful things, thinking clearly, not harming other people too overtly, etc., and there's something to be said for promoting the interests of those people.)
I would guess (not very confidently) that people on the right will be more inclined to agree with Lycce's analysis, and (one notch less confidently still) that Lycce identifies more with the right than with the left.
Apparently I have not made my point clear enough. I am indeed simplifying, "everything is due do society" and "everything is due to individuals" are the both ends but you can be anywhere in the spectrum. This is also only one point among others, probably not the main one, defining identity politics (as you told it), and surely not every leftist/rightist will have the view I give him or is even concerned by the concept.
If i take your example about the person on government benefits with no skills, a common argument is that the fact that he had poor parents, grew in a bad neighbourhood or was discriminated against is one if not the main reason he has trouble acquiring skills or finding a job, then he should not be held responsible and left alone.
I consider myself leftist (by European standard). I do think success mostly depends on things beyond the individual and that we anyway ought to help everyone, even if someone are the only one to blame for his misery (i also buy this civilized thing).
It might well be a common argument, but the correct question is whether it's a valid argument.
Using a less sympathetic expression this is also known as the forced redistribution of wealth. There is an issue, though, well summed up by the quote usually attributed to Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
I do think it is a valid arguments (I might be wrong of course), many studies have highlighted the effect of education, parents, genes, environment, etc. So I find it unfair to blame someone for its problems since there are too many element to consider to give an accurate judgement.
I don't like the idea of forced redistribution of wealth (taxes, namely), but in my opinion having a part of the population living in horrible conditions if not outright starving is worse, whether they deserve it or not.
I'd wager there is enough money in the first world to give everyone a "decent" life (admittedly depends on your definition of decent, let's say a shelter, food, education, health care and some leftovers for whatever you want to do). It is already implemented in various country and the States are not so far off in their own way so it is doable. However it is probably not be the optimal path in the long run for economic growth, I think if it is worth it (low confidence though).
Yes, but let me emphasize the important part of that argument: "then he should not be held responsible and left alone". That's a normative, not a descriptive claim. It is also entirely generic: every single human being should not be held responsible -- right?
For how long?
You're assuming there is a magical neverending pot of money from which you can simple grab and give out. What happens in a few years when you run out?
Fair enough, this is only my own biased opinion. It is indeed generic, I am still unsure if my position should be "mostly not responsible" or "not responsible at all" depending on which model about free will is correct.
Wealth is produced, and the money do not disappear (does it actually? my understanding of economy is pretty basic) when you give it out since they spend it as consumer the same way the people you take it from would do.
I don't see anything "running out" in the few socialist countries out there.
The money usually does not literally disappear, but what happens if you have too much money in circulation and not enough things to buy is that the money loses value, i.e. things become more expensive. (Attempts to fix this problem by regulating prices typically result in literally empty shops after the few cheap things are sold.) It is related to inflation, but the whole story is complicated.
There are many countries in eastern Europe that once had "socialist" in their names and now don't. And they happen to be among the poorest ones in Europe. The "running out of money" meant that over decades their standards of living were getting far behind the western Europe.
You probably mean Sweden (people who talk about "socialist" countries not running out of money usually mean Sweden, because it's quite difficult to find another example). I don't know much about Sweden to explain what happened there, but I suspect they have must less "socialism" than the former Soviet bloc.
(For the purposes of a rational debate it would probably be better to stop using words like "socialism" and instead talk about more specific things, such as: high taxes, planned economy, mandatory employment, censorship of media, dictatorship of one political party, universal health care, basic income, etc. These are things typically described as "socialist" but they don't have to appear together.)
I think that, as much as having once had "socialist" in their names, may be their problem. They got screwed over by the Nazis in WW2 and then screwed over again by the USSR. I think they'd be poor now whatever their politics had been.
Again, the former Soviet bloc is distinguished by features other than socialism -- notably, by having been part of the Soviet bloc. And the USSR is distinguished by features other than socialism -- e.g., by totalitarianism, by having been the enemy of the US (which was always the richer superpower), etc.
On the other side, it's not just Sweden -- but also, as you say, not exactly hardcore socialism either.
That's the whole (continental) Europe, not just Eastern.
By having specific politics imposed on them. So the "whatever their politics had been" is a non sequitur.
If by "socialism" you mean "Western social democracy", the USSR was never socialist. And if by "socialism" you mean "communism" (which is how the Russians, etc. used the word), totalitarianism is an essential part of the package.
Basic income is historically no socialist idea. It's a liberal idea. Milton Friedman came up with it under the name of negative taxation.
Billionaire Götz Werner did a lot to promote the concept. In Germany the CDU (right-wing) politician Dieter Althaus spoke for it. YCombinator who invests into research in it is also no socialist institution.
Socialism is about workers rights. People who don't work but just receive basic income aren't workers. The unemployed aren't union members. Unions generally want that employers take care of their employees and believe that employeers should pay a living wage and that it's not the role of the government to pay low income people a basic income.
If "not at all" won't you have issues with e.g. the criminal justice system?
Money is just convenient tokens, you can't consume money. What you want is value in the form of valuable (that is, desirable) goods and services. Most goods and services disappear when you consume them: if you eat a carrot, that carrot is gone.
When you give out (free) money you generate demand for goods and services. In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that "the market" will automagically generate the supply (that is, actual goods and services) to satisfy the demand. However if you are not in the context of a capitalist society any more, you can't assume that the supply will be there to meet the demand -- see the example of the Soviet Union, etc.
When you redistribute money, people use that money to buy stuff. Someone has to produce the actual stuff and moving money around will not, by itself, lead to actual stuff being produced. If no one is growing carrots, there will be none to be had, free money or no free money.
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems and the producers of good being worse off. Maybe the trade off is not worth it, I'd like to have it tried just to check.
I am indecisive, even if they are not responsible, criminals are harmful for the rest of the population so imprisonment can be necessary. However the justice system should be focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Your question made me think, coming from that one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.
Bearing that, I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive. But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
Nope, that would be true in a subsistence economy. You don't want to live in one :-/
In the current system people produce goods to be exchanged for money which money will be used to buy other goods.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so -- besides "maybe"?
Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a bus mechanic is not such a great job and there are not enough guys who are willing to do it just for fun...
Of course. See e.g. the Soviet Union or Mao's China: being unemployed was a crime. If you can't find a job, the state has a nice labour camp all ready for you.
In money or bullets?
The words "loss of production" are too abstract, so it feels like it is no big deal. But it depends on what specifically it means. Maybe it's slower internet connection, fewer computer games, and more expensive Coca Cola. Or maybe it's higher mortality in hospitals, higher retirement age, and more poverty.
I'm saying this because I think people usually only imagine the former, but in real life it's more likely to be both.
If you give incentives to unproductive people to become productive, but you don't give incentives to productive people to remain productive, the winning strategy for people is to have swings of productivity.
Generally, whenever you have a cool idea that would work well for the current situation, you should think about how the situation will change when people start adapting to the new rules and optimizing for them. Because sooner or later someone will.
The reason to think in terms of ideological Turing test is that "opposite" is almost never correct. Almost nothing can be usefully simplified to a simple one-dimensional aspect where both ends are reasonable and common.
In the mulidimensional space of different personal influences (genetics, upbringing, current social environment, governmental and non-governmental support and constraint networks), there are likely multiple points of belief in the balance of choice vs non-choice. It's just not useful to characterize one cluster as "opposite" of the other.
Personally, I find the three-axis model fairly compelling - it's not that different political leanings come from different points on a dimension, it's that they are focusing on completely different dimensions . Progressives tend to think of oppressor/oppressed, Conservatives about Barbarism/Civilisation, and Libertarians about Coercion/Freedom.
This does get accepted (to some extent - it's still massively oversimple) by both liberal and conservative friends of mine, so passes at least one level of test.
(for the ideological turing test)
I have tried to make my argument as neutral as possible, giving both sides of the arguments and avoiding depreciating any,
Let's try from both directions then (personally am a leftist).
Left side, I think so, I definitely think societal influence (amongst other things out of the individual power such as genetics) trumps individual choices, I also saw this opinion amongst friends and intellectuals so I am not alone in this, not everybody on the left think like this though.
Right side, my model of the right is not as good as I'd like, but i have seen it expressed in various places. Again it does not concern all the rightists neither is the main point for everyone.
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about, could you develop your point?
One way of thinking about this is "would my enemies, if reading this, think it is a description of their beliefs written by an ally?"
I'm not sure of the relevance in this instance.