3 ms·
This is the right question to be asking. So many good things are only good at the right scale. If Google or Amazon were not two of the most valuable companies o
by sbinthree 8y ago
This is the right question to be asking. So many good things are only good at the right scale. If Google or Amazon were not two of the most valuable companies on earth and instead say, even a tenth as large, people would have an endearing trust in the way their whimsical, easy to use products make their life better. Now we view them as omnipotent gods to rebel, almost on principal. Micro socialism (sharing resources in a family for example) is basically the default if not the only model: the concept of "keeping score" is seen as pathological in relationships at the family unit scale, but standard and even necessary the larger the group of people sharing (specialisation and trade). Democracy is a great example too: there are less than one representatives per million people in the US. Early on it was a fraction of this, and therefore much easier to meet their needs. Medicine is can range from a useless waste of money to deadly and in the middle be extremely useful, even within the same order of magnitude. Society and social systems are not immune to these effects.
- ams6110 8y agoIt's like we have a cultural or maybe even evolutionary aversion to large, powerful, monopolistic authorities. Maybe because so often they lead to human suffering.
- sbinthree 8y agoCertainly power seems to be a corrupting force in almost all cases, I would just argue that to a certain extent, what we perceive as good (a disregard for the status quo) when small is endearing and even admirable, but once those rebels take over the world we want them to magically fall in line. It's obviously a cultural immune system of some kind.