3 ms·

> One major theme running through this article is the idea that smart people should know what's good for us, and organize society so that we get it. I've never

by sgift 8y ago

> One major theme running through this article is the idea that smart people should know what's good for us, and organize society so that we get it. I've never understood how they are expected to actually do this: wouldn't they always prefer to figure out what's good for themselves and then organize society so that they get that? Being smart is necessary, but not sufficient. A sense of duty is also needed.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Even that isn't enough. The fatal problem of central planning is always that nobody has enough information to make it actually work. Even very honest, very smart people only can know what they think would be best for either some crude average of people, or some small sample of specific people. And we don't have any angels to do the job. All we have are human beings. They are sometimes selfish, and sometimes foolish. Sometimes they find it easy to take "what's good for me" and think it's "what's good for everybody" - even if they have the best of intentions. And sometimes they don't have the best of intentions, but use "good for everybody" as a smokescreen for their own selfish desires.
- mistermann 8y ago
  My perception is that unlike in the past, a huge percentage of the population in modern Western democracies believe things that most everyone used to consider matters of opinion, are now considered matters of fact and should not even be subject to a public debate. Canada is currently going through this on the topic of immigration - we are starting to experience significant issues with housing costs and economic inequality (both are directly affected my immigration to a degree), but many people considering any opinion not consistent with the status quo to be literally racist. And unsurprisingly, you rarely can find one that will defend their beliefs, at best you will just get general dishonesty and never ending changing of the subject. I think this new culture is going to have some very serious negative long term effects. EDIT: Out of curiosity, which part are people disagreeing with here? That political views are more polarized? The inflationary housing prices claim? Inflationary housing prices not being reflected at all in CPI? Whether immigration has an effect at all on wages or real estate prices? That the word racist is commonly used to quash dissent (heck, even our mayor is on record doing it)? That people won't defend these racist charges? That any of this has changed? That these changes, assuming it is true, will have an effect?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but maybe those who did think it's not relevant to the conversation, and/or that it may provoke a flamewar.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      I thought it was off-topic to my statement, but not completely irrelevant to the topic of "intellectual decline". And, while it might provoke a flamewar, it was not stated in a flame-bait fashion. I wonder if this isn't just downvote-to-disagree by people who won't "defend their beliefs". (And thereby proving mistermann's point - ironic, that.)
      - mistermann 8y ago
        downvote-to-disagree is (or was) explicitly ok according to HN guidelines, so that's why I asked WHY the downvoters disagree. Are the things I wrote not factual (interestingly, this is the inverse of my above complaint...former matters of opinion are now considered matter of fact, but also things that were previously objectively factual are now "considered" matters of opinion)? I've been scolded for not being agreeable, should people who downvote facts not also get a talking to? As for whether it might start a flame war....well, that is my ongoing concern, that free speech, or more specifically certain opinions are no longer tolerated, or even more specifically, you can say something (unacceptable) once, but if someone disagrees with you, any reply is considered "argumentative" or "not appropriate behavior". Perhaps I'm completely wrong on some of my beliefs. Personally, I enthusiastically encourage people to disagree with me or challenge my ideas, it wasn't so long ago that this was considered admirable for a variety of very good reasons. When people start believing their ideas are beyond challenge, to me that seems like the sort of thing that's dangerous.

by sgift 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

Even that isn't enough. The fatal problem of central planning is always that nobody has enough information to make it actually work. Even very honest, very smart people only can know what they think would be best for either some crude average of people, or some small sample of specific people. And we don't have any angels to do the job. All we have are human beings. They are sometimes selfish, and sometimes foolish. Sometimes they find it easy to take "what's good for me" and think it's "what's good for everybody" - even if they have the best of intentions. And sometimes they don't have the best of intentions, but use "good for everybody" as a smokescreen for their own selfish desires.

mistermann 8y ago
My perception is that unlike in the past, a huge percentage of the population in modern Western democracies believe things that most everyone used to consider matters of opinion, are now considered matters of fact and should not even be subject to a public debate. Canada is currently going through this on the topic of immigration - we are starting to experience significant issues with housing costs and economic inequality (both are directly affected my immigration to a degree), but many people considering any opinion not consistent with the status quo to be literally racist. And unsurprisingly, you rarely can find one that will defend their beliefs, at best you will just get general dishonesty and never ending changing of the subject. I think this new culture is going to have some very serious negative long term effects. EDIT: Out of curiosity, which part are people disagreeing with here? That political views are more polarized? The inflationary housing prices claim? Inflationary housing prices not being reflected at all in CPI? Whether immigration has an effect at all on wages or real estate prices? That the word racist is commonly used to quash dissent (heck, even our mayor is on record doing it)? That people won't defend these racist charges? That any of this has changed? That these changes, assuming it is true, will have an effect?
- icebraining 8y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but maybe those who did think it's not relevant to the conversation, and/or that it may provoke a flamewar.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I thought it was off-topic to my statement, but not completely irrelevant to the topic of "intellectual decline". And, while it might provoke a flamewar, it was not stated in a flame-bait fashion. I wonder if this isn't just downvote-to-disagree by people who won't "defend their beliefs". (And thereby proving mistermann's point - ironic, that.)
    - mistermann 8y ago
      downvote-to-disagree is (or was) explicitly ok according to HN guidelines, so that's why I asked WHY the downvoters disagree. Are the things I wrote not factual (interestingly, this is the inverse of my above complaint...former matters of opinion are now considered matter of fact, but also things that were previously objectively factual are now "considered" matters of opinion)? I've been scolded for not being agreeable, should people who downvote facts not also get a talking to? As for whether it might start a flame war....well, that is my ongoing concern, that free speech, or more specifically certain opinions are no longer tolerated, or even more specifically, you can say something (unacceptable) once, but if someone disagrees with you, any reply is considered "argumentative" or "not appropriate behavior". Perhaps I'm completely wrong on some of my beliefs. Personally, I enthusiastically encourage people to disagree with me or challenge my ideas, it wasn't so long ago that this was considered admirable for a variety of very good reasons. When people start believing their ideas are beyond challenge, to me that seems like the sort of thing that's dangerous.