3 ms·

First, dictatorships are anything but "natural". They require a massive amount of effort and savagery to maintain and enforce effectively. Second, I'm not sayi

First, dictatorships are anything but "natural". They require a massive amount of effort and savagery to maintain and enforce effectively. Second, I'm not saying that we should treat economic inequality as something that's static or immutable any more than any other natural force. I'm saying that we have to recognize that natural forces dictate behavior and economics, and that you can't change natural forces by decree alone (e.g., passing a law that says "everyone now must share"). We have to really appreciate and understand the processes and motivations that drive the behaviors if we want to address them in a meaningful way. We have to be honest about how changeable certain things are. For example, we have not, as yet, found a way to control the weather explicitly, but we have coping mechanisms like air conditioning that mitigate some of the negative effects. This didn't happen by saying "It shall always be 74 degrees indoors at all times" and then laying down stringent ideological enforcement to ensure that everyone accepted and believed that it was always 74 degrees. It happened by experimentation, tinkering, and respect for the constraints of the reality that allowed us to discover a non-ideal but workable solution that mostly handled the problem of uncomfortable heat. There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. American free-market enterprise may not be perfect, and I'm not saying that there are no systemic issues or that things aren't worsening, but our economic system is historically workable and reasonably well-tuned. It has proven much better than many competing systems. We have to be honest about where we are and what's possible. We can't simply change "the rules" and expect a good outcome, as the comment I replied to implied. There is no magic wand and no overnight perfection.

rectang 9y ago
> There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  > This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. Sure, I agree. Neither of us made the case for particular cruelty / non-cruelty because it's not really the point. My intention was only to broaden the scope and perspective of the reader to view the economic system in its macro-level historical and global context, and compare in reference to the natural forces and conditions that cause economies to emerge. I personally think it's hard to argue that things are particularly bad right now, but I certainly don't want to stop people from trying if they are adequately informed and really believe that. The point is that whether you think our system is great or terrible, you can't change it by dictum. It doesn't bode well that you've apparently dismissed the whole crux of the argument because you believe that we may have a different ultimate value judgment. >You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability. I mean, like I said above, whether I believe that or not, it's neither here nor there. You still have to identify specific things that you want to change and the mechanisms by which that supposed change would operate, because "We'll just demand things change" is not a serious approach to anything. You and I may have different opinions about a certain piece of software and its subsystems, and that's all well and good, but neither of us would take someone seriously who showed up and said "We have to just write 'STOP CRASHING' at the top of each file". That's not how any of this works!
  - rectang 9y ago
    > The point is that whether you think our system is great or terrible, you can't change it by dictum. > "We'll just demand things change" is not a serious approach to anything. > ...neither of us would take someone seriously who showed up and said "We have to just write 'STOP CRASHING' at the top of each file". You're arguing (at great length) with straw men. (I think you feel like you're being reasonable, but having words put in my mouth like that is infuriating.) > I think it's hard to argue that things are particularly bad right now That's the crux. It's your value judgement, and it is not legitimized by the rest of your rhetoric.
    - cookiecaper 9y ago

rectang 9y ago

> There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.

cookiecaper 9y ago
> This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. Sure, I agree. Neither of us made the case for particular cruelty / non-cruelty because it's not really the point. My intention was only to broaden the scope and perspective of the reader to view the economic system in its macro-level historical and global context, and compare in reference to the natural forces and conditions that cause economies to emerge. I personally think it's hard to argue that things are particularly bad right now, but I certainly don't want to stop people from trying if they are adequately informed and really believe that. The point is that whether you think our system is great or terrible, you can't change it by dictum. It doesn't bode well that you've apparently dismissed the whole crux of the argument because you believe that we may have a different ultimate value judgment. >You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability. I mean, like I said above, whether I believe that or not, it's neither here nor there. You still have to identify specific things that you want to change and the mechanisms by which that supposed change would operate, because "We'll just demand things change" is not a serious approach to anything. You and I may have different opinions about a certain piece of software and its subsystems, and that's all well and good, but neither of us would take someone seriously who showed up and said "We have to just write 'STOP CRASHING' at the top of each file". That's not how any of this works!
- rectang 9y ago
  > The point is that whether you think our system is great or terrible, you can't change it by dictum. > "We'll just demand things change" is not a serious approach to anything. > ...neither of us would take someone seriously who showed up and said "We have to just write 'STOP CRASHING' at the top of each file". You're arguing (at great length) with straw men. (I think you feel like you're being reasonable, but having words put in my mouth like that is infuriating.) > I think it's hard to argue that things are particularly bad right now That's the crux. It's your value judgement, and it is not legitimized by the rest of your rhetoric.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago