5 ms·

I'm surprised to see such a high number of points for this canned mad-libs response unworthy of the thoughtfulness of the original article. You fail to acknowle

I'm surprised to see such a high number of points for this canned mad-libs response unworthy of the thoughtfulness of the original article. You fail to acknowledge issues raised in the article and narrowly argue the solution in the most trivial and trite way. I would like to find a way to combine the best of the technological brilliance and economic powerhouse that meritocracy and social mobility have provided, while also looking for a less disconnected, community-focused and psychologically healthier nation. Any discussions that help pinpoint problems in our current system, and propose solutions, are welcome to me. I do not agree with the author's proposed solution, but I do agree that there are problems inherent in the extreme selfishness and greed in our society that we have not adequately addressed.

timwiseman 17y ago
I think part of the question is what you mean by less disconnected, community-focused and psychologically healthier nation. and specifically how you define connected and community focused. Most people who use those phrases are talking about their geographic area, but that means little to me. The community of SQL Server DBAs I participate in is important to me, but that includes members both physically close and around the world. My church group matters to me, and that one is somewhat centered around my general geographic area, but it has people from all over the city. My coworkers are very important in my life, but none of them live anywhere near me (I live in the South part of Las Vegas, work in the North, most of my coworkers live relatively close to the office.) The people who live in my neighborhood do not play a significant part in my life. They are thankfully all very nice people, and I wish them the best and say "Hello" when I meet them while walking my dog, but I have very little in common and little reason to interact with them. If you mean this group by connected and community focused, then why would we want that?
- jimbokun 17y ago
  Because you have self selected yourself into a mono-culture of people very much like yourself. You have no reason, no incentive, to understand and empathize with people different from you. The essay makes that point with respect to the rich and poor kids in the Breakfast Club, who were at least in the same school, vs. the modern high school in the O.C., where everyone is uniformly spoiled and out of touch with other people's reality. This leads to the increasing political polarization we see today. A relative handful of people taking society's spoils for itself and isolating themselves from the rest of society. If unchecked, do you think this will end well? The end effect is something like the Feudalism rightly decried elsewhere in this thread.
  - tomjen2 17y ago
    >A relative handful of people taking society's spoils for itself... The economy is not a cake, if you assume it is then your deduction will be incorrect.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    I don't know why this was downvoted, I disagree with you, but this does show reasoning. I do not think I am in a mono-culture though. I am rather focused on few subsets that share some interests with me. That interest is what makes them important to me, but within those communities of importance I am exposed to a variety of viewpoints outside that particular interest. I do not think that this leads to political polarization. Now, if the only "interest communities" were by political party this may be true, but for someone with non-political party "interest communities" you are likely to be exposed to a wide variety of politicals views. I have both major parties and some independents in my workplace for instance. A relative handful of people taking society's spoils for itself and isolating themselves from the rest of society. This is a non-sequitor from your other points. Greater political polarization does not imply a greater divide between rich or poor. As for how it ends, that depends on how people get their wealth. If they get it by creating new wealth and innovation, then yes it will end well. Yes, there will then be enormous division between the wealthy and the poor, but the wealthy will become wealthy precisely by improving the world for everyone, including the poorest. Also in such a society the poor have at least a chance to become wealthy (perhaps not a statistically good one, but a genuince chance). If they become wealthy through taking of taxes, wealth redistribution, or outright theft, then the end will be predictably horrible. One place to look for a well thought out reasoning of this is http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html .
    - drunkpotato 17y ago
      If they become wealthy through taking of taxes, wealth redistribution, or outright theft, then the end will be predictably horrible. There is trouble in rhetoric like this. You have asserted an equivalence class of taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft, which are three different things. Taxes are the dues you pay to the society in which you live. In a democratic society, you get one vote in how those dues are spent, and a voice to convince others that your way is right. Of course, money talks, and this process can be corrupted in innumerable ways. Wealth redistribution happens on a large scale through a pattern of market forces, governmental intervention, and other economic and psychological factors. The last forty years have seen a massive wealth redistribution in the U.S., and it's not in favor of the lower 80%. For many reasons, the ethics of which are fervently debated, this wealth redistribution has been one-way. Theft is a crime involving the unlawful taking of physical goods. By asserting this equivalence class, you have already partaken in massive rhetorical fraud which is harming our ability to engage in reasonable debate.
- drunkpotato 17y ago
  These are the people who vote on decisions about property taxes, state legislators, mayors, and other political offices in which your vote counts more than at the national level, and which affects how your tax money is spent. These are the people who, as a collective, determine property values in your neighborhood. For purely selfish reasons it is a to your benefit to engage with them on occasion. As large a part as the internet is in your (and my) life, geography is still relevant (and the office, alas, still not paperless). There are many factors that impact your life; you do not live on a cybernetic island. By less disconnected and more community-focused, I mean precisely that you should interact with the people around you. Your children should play with theirs, you should make physical connections as well as virtual ones. As to why you should want that, obviously you do not, and I don't dictate your wants. For myself and my children, I want them to interact with the kids around them, and I want a nation of civically engaged communities. I believe there is balance to be had, and I am looking for that balance in my own life and how I can help bring more community to the city where I live.
tomjen2 17y ago
>disconnected, community-focused What value is there in these things? If I want to connect with somebody, I will find them were I am. A community is just a collection of random people who happen to be born within a small geographic area, a nation the same except the distances within are larger.

timwiseman 17y ago

I think part of the question is what you mean by less disconnected, community-focused and psychologically healthier nation. and specifically how you define connected and community focused. Most people who use those phrases are talking about their geographic area, but that means little to me. The community of SQL Server DBAs I participate in is important to me, but that includes members both physically close and around the world. My church group matters to me, and that one is somewhat centered around my general geographic area, but it has people from all over the city. My coworkers are very important in my life, but none of them live anywhere near me (I live in the South part of Las Vegas, work in the North, most of my coworkers live relatively close to the office.) The people who live in my neighborhood do not play a significant part in my life. They are thankfully all very nice people, and I wish them the best and say "Hello" when I meet them while walking my dog, but I have very little in common and little reason to interact with them. If you mean this group by connected and community focused, then why would we want that?

jimbokun 17y ago
Because you have self selected yourself into a mono-culture of people very much like yourself. You have no reason, no incentive, to understand and empathize with people different from you. The essay makes that point with respect to the rich and poor kids in the Breakfast Club, who were at least in the same school, vs. the modern high school in the O.C., where everyone is uniformly spoiled and out of touch with other people's reality. This leads to the increasing political polarization we see today. A relative handful of people taking society's spoils for itself and isolating themselves from the rest of society. If unchecked, do you think this will end well? The end effect is something like the Feudalism rightly decried elsewhere in this thread.
- tomjen2 17y ago
  >A relative handful of people taking society's spoils for itself... The economy is not a cake, if you assume it is then your deduction will be incorrect.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  I don't know why this was downvoted, I disagree with you, but this does show reasoning. I do not think I am in a mono-culture though. I am rather focused on few subsets that share some interests with me. That interest is what makes them important to me, but within those communities of importance I am exposed to a variety of viewpoints outside that particular interest. I do not think that this leads to political polarization. Now, if the only "interest communities" were by political party this may be true, but for someone with non-political party "interest communities" you are likely to be exposed to a wide variety of politicals views. I have both major parties and some independents in my workplace for instance. A relative handful of people taking society's spoils for itself and isolating themselves from the rest of society. This is a non-sequitor from your other points. Greater political polarization does not imply a greater divide between rich or poor. As for how it ends, that depends on how people get their wealth. If they get it by creating new wealth and innovation, then yes it will end well. Yes, there will then be enormous division between the wealthy and the poor, but the wealthy will become wealthy precisely by improving the world for everyone, including the poorest. Also in such a society the poor have at least a chance to become wealthy (perhaps not a statistically good one, but a genuince chance). If they become wealthy through taking of taxes, wealth redistribution, or outright theft, then the end will be predictably horrible. One place to look for a well thought out reasoning of this is http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html .
  - drunkpotato 17y ago
    If they become wealthy through taking of taxes, wealth redistribution, or outright theft, then the end will be predictably horrible. There is trouble in rhetoric like this. You have asserted an equivalence class of taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft, which are three different things. Taxes are the dues you pay to the society in which you live. In a democratic society, you get one vote in how those dues are spent, and a voice to convince others that your way is right. Of course, money talks, and this process can be corrupted in innumerable ways. Wealth redistribution happens on a large scale through a pattern of market forces, governmental intervention, and other economic and psychological factors. The last forty years have seen a massive wealth redistribution in the U.S., and it's not in favor of the lower 80%. For many reasons, the ethics of which are fervently debated, this wealth redistribution has been one-way. Theft is a crime involving the unlawful taking of physical goods. By asserting this equivalence class, you have already partaken in massive rhetorical fraud which is harming our ability to engage in reasonable debate.
drunkpotato 17y ago
These are the people who vote on decisions about property taxes, state legislators, mayors, and other political offices in which your vote counts more than at the national level, and which affects how your tax money is spent. These are the people who, as a collective, determine property values in your neighborhood. For purely selfish reasons it is a to your benefit to engage with them on occasion. As large a part as the internet is in your (and my) life, geography is still relevant (and the office, alas, still not paperless). There are many factors that impact your life; you do not live on a cybernetic island. By less disconnected and more community-focused, I mean precisely that you should interact with the people around you. Your children should play with theirs, you should make physical connections as well as virtual ones. As to why you should want that, obviously you do not, and I don't dictate your wants. For myself and my children, I want them to interact with the kids around them, and I want a nation of civically engaged communities. I believe there is balance to be had, and I am looking for that balance in my own life and how I can help bring more community to the city where I live.

tomjen2 17y ago

>disconnected, community-focused What value is there in these things? If I want to connect with somebody, I will find them were I am. A community is just a collection of random people who happen to be born within a small geographic area, a nation the same except the distances within are larger.