3 ms·
While I think that there are fair critiques of this post[1], I can definitely empathize with the overwhelming sense of drowning in ignorance and the limited ene
by ShroudedNight 8y ago
While I think that there are fair critiques of this post[1], I can definitely empathize with the overwhelming sense of drowning in ignorance and the limited energy I have to defend against goods and services that entail hidden compromises I would not consent to were I properly informed.
[1] My most available example stemming from:
> ... relying on democratically enacted laws.
I find these often lack the required subtlety at best, or are precipitated by general ignorance at worst, and while are much better than anarchy, can cause significant harm in their own right.
- ttoinou 8y agoMost laws supposed to protect you actually give you a false sense of security, they create business entry barriers, deform market incentives and increase legal risks / burden. Costs very well known but doubtful benefits. Governments profits of your fears
- detcader 8y agoI don't deny there are hidden compromises all over (I think that is a good way to put it) and we need to educate ourselves all the time. I can't imagine a more efficient way to handle all of it than fostering a political tradition that is inherently critical of concentrated and unchecked power, whether private or governmental, and having individuals of the tradition succeed in democratic government and adversarial journalism. The idea is meant to imply a fractal society of checks: the minimum amount of radically skeptical and power-focused individuals and campaigns per issue and scope would be needed to keep powerful people and groups from being able to get away with abuse. We have some pieces of this in place today, more in the U.S. than many other countries.