= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Multiheaded comments on Politics Discussion Thread January 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (334)
How (narrowly) would you define "taking an active role in society"? Would it apply to e.g. Martin Luther King? Eliezer Yudkowsky? Milton Friedman? George W. Bush? Donald Trump? Boris Berezovsky?
How would you rate the horribleness of the former three's impact of society, given that none of them was ever a businessman or a landowner - no, not even Friedman? How would it measure against the impact of the latter three?
Um, what exactly is this "meritocracy" of yours? Does it include any moral claims? Or is it simply a part of the idea that we need more economic "productivity" - more cheap food and cars and iPads and UAVs and office blocks and hedge funds and mass-produced entertainment and generally all the stuff that we already manufacture?
Would, say, a white guy who's genetically predisposed to innovation, extraversion and risk-taking being born into an upper-class family, founding a fashion or advertizing agency, then making a fortune helping sell overpriced goods to affluent First World young people, be a decent example of "meritocracy"? "Productivity"?
explicit political power, implicit power should be made explicit wherever possible.
And yes, I'm specifically claiming that on net people like the latter three have a much larger negative impact than the positive impact of people like the former three.
Your use of the word overpriced and affluent leads me to believe you attach moral significance to parting idiots with their money for baubles. Why? The average wealthy person has a larger positive impact than the average non-wealthy first worlder. I prefer concentrated wealth in the hands of those whose values I share. I have values more likely aligned with that of a tech company CEO than a randomly selected first world person.
...Then I don't understand how your words are at all an objection to my description of emancipatory/socially radical politics. You do understand that, for example, MLK was a radically minded avowed socialist who led a partial social revolution in the US without either violence or "explicit political power"? If you don't find yourself "horrified" by this, then we don't seem to have a problem.
It's not nearly so narrow; I see no point in manufacturing tons of useless shiny stuff and pushing fake desires onto people to sell it so that the cycle can continue - and this wasteful nonsense is a mandatory imperative for 1st world capitalism. If we could agree on a different mechanism of distribution (not necessarily state planning), we could be using our industrial might to kickstart poor countries instead - while 1st world people could be working less, consuming less, wasting less, draining less resources, enjoying more leisure and giving more attention to the non-monetary things in society.
Example: why the hell do we buy personal cars for driving in cities? What good does it do us at all? And have we even considered the myriad costs? How is this not a ridiculous failure of the "pragmatic" capitalist mode of distribution AND its ideology?
Wait so unless I'm horrified by it 100% of the time my point gets thrown out? There's no room for saying something has plusses and minuses and the minuses outweigh the plusses?
Sorry but you don't get to decide which preferences are real. You are angry that more resources aren't devoted towards things you value, welcome to the club.
Multi,
I've read this conversation, and I literally don't understand what you are talking about. I agree with you that left-of-mainstream views would be valuable in this community. But I think you and RomeoStevens are only talking past each other. That's not really a victory for rationalism.