5 ms·

So how would one attempt to do good (start a business/charity/what have you) in such an environment? I can feel my part of the United States inching slowly to

So how would one attempt to do good (start a business/charity/what have you) in such an environment? I can feel my part of the United States inching slowly to this kind of social norm, is there anything regular people can do to counteract this?

wetpaws 8y ago
Based on 200 years history of Russia, you don't. You run away to places not yet contaminated.
- chongli 8y ago
  Exactly. When the cooperators all leave, the free riders suffer the collapse of the system. Only then can a 'reboot' stand a chance of succeeding.
- paganel 8y ago
  On a more upbeat tone what has usually worked for countries like Russia (and what usually worked and still works for my Eastern-European country, too) was to set up a system of patronage, i.e. a system where you share part of your gains to those immediately bellow you in return for their service/trust, they in turn should share their gains to those bellow them and so on and so forth. The key for this system to work for more than one generation is that all parts involved should keep their end of the bargain, meaning that you should be there for the person depending on you, financially and otherwise, whenever they need you, and in turn they should also keep their loyalty to you, no matter the circumstances. I know that what I basically described is basically just a feudal system, and I can also say that I don't like it in principle, but I'm also well aware that this system has been one of the most resilient social systems over the last two millennia (at least), present in one way or another on all populated continents under all types of governments (democracy, monarchy, tyranny etc), and as such it shouldn't be discredited.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    What's wrong with feudalism as you described it?
    - paganel 8y ago
      Historically it has been seen as contradictory to the main principles of Illuminism.
      - fjsolwmv 8y ago
        How so? Illuminism/Enlightenment contradictory to tyrrany, not feudalism. A monarchy can be enlightened, and healthy nations can be ruled by a monarch. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
        hannasanarion 8y ago
        Monarchy and feudalism are not equivalent: it's totally possible to have a feudal republic. Enlightenment was a response to feudalism. The fundamental thesis of enlightenment thought is that there are inalienable rights shared by every human being, and that unearned obligations and privileges, like those seen in feudal patronage cultures, are incompatible with just society.
        nercht12 8y ago
        The doesn't really counter feudalism though. Perhaps in mentality/ideology, yes, but in practice, it's possible for people to agree to such a system and be content with it. We do it all the time in a capitalist society, except here it's called a "corporation", and the "barons" are called execs of "subsidiary companies".
        hannasanarion 8y ago
        The corporation is not a person, and executives do not have privileges and rights greater than any other person by birthright. In a feudal system, you owe tribute to your liege by virtue of the fact that they were born of a higher rank than you and you were born within their demesne. If you don't comply, or if you try to find a different lord, you get killed. Feudal is not another word for economic inequality.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    In America, some restaurants are experimenting with profit or revenue sharing as a way to retain the top-end of the labor market for the respective positions. That sounds a bit like what you're talking about.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I know that what I basically described is basically just a feudal system Or, when nested within a society with a different formal government, a mafia.
- bitL 8y ago
  ...and then contaminate them with residues of your cultural anti-social meta-algorithms, shifting them towards resembling the environment you escaped, as some things "were just easier".
mercutio2 8y ago
The US used to stylize itself a high trust society. I’m not sure how much that was a fantasy dependent on horrific repression’s from slavery to Jim Crow, and how much it actually adhered even amongst groups of people that weren’t based on racial exclusion. Regardless, I worry for US culture. Trust in institutions seems to be at an all time low; institutions take generations to build, we won’t get them back easily or quickly.
- PKop 8y ago
  It might have been more high trust because it was less culturally diverse. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    The US was always diverse though. Just maybe not so much culturally. I mean, sure, everyone that a given person was likely to see spoke english, ate chicken, and went to some form of Christian church on Sunday. BUT, some of the people were white, some were native american, some were black, down in Texas area you even had hispanics. So the US was pretty diverse. Unless we're not counting racial diversity?
    - dx87 8y ago
      Yeah, I don't think racial diversity counts for the trust issue. Obviously there are some people that won't trust someone based on their race, but it seems like most groups are willing to accept anyone as long as they follow cultural norms; skin color just seems to be a quick proxy for "they look different, so they're probably culturally different". Just watch the aftermath of a local football team winning a big game. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, black or white, everyone in the city celebrates together.
      - pickleman 8y ago
        That's not exactly a time of stress. Prisons aren't divided by favorite football team. There's also the lunchroom test.
l_t 8y ago
I see this as a cultural problem, with a cultural solution. If you think about "free riders" versus "cooperators" as a dichotomy, you won't find a solution. Everyone is both a "free rider" and a "cooperator", depending on social context. The issue is that our social fabric itself may be incentivizing people towards long-term destructive patterns. So, how do we fix it? IMO, the best any one person can do is try to create an environment where people feel safe to cooperate. I believe human nature is fundamentally cooperative in large groups, but we are often "forced" into a competitive track by a lack of resources or other external pressures. For example, many US workplaces pit employees against each other. It's perceived that there are too many workers for a limited number of jobs, so workers feel forced to compete for their "slot." If there was less communal anxiety about being fired, more individuals would feel comfortable to cooperate with their coworkers instead of competing. Ofc, this is an insanely complex issue, so that's just a tiny facet, and I'm sure some of the points are debatable. But I honestly believe that "taking care of people" is one of the key ways to achieve more collaboration.
- taurath 8y ago
  A sad aside is that if you want to force cooperation among a populace, the most effective way is to give them a common enemy to fight against. To effectively do it with taking care of people, you need a social/cultural contract - but if people are unlikely to enter into one, being distrustful in the first place of anyone proposing such a thing, its a very hard problem - you have a prisoners dilemma which pits the zero sum game players against the win-win, and it only takes one zero sum to defeat the win-wins.

wetpaws 8y ago

Based on 200 years history of Russia, you don't. You run away to places not yet contaminated.

chongli 8y ago
Exactly. When the cooperators all leave, the free riders suffer the collapse of the system. Only then can a 'reboot' stand a chance of succeeding.
paganel 8y ago
On a more upbeat tone what has usually worked for countries like Russia (and what usually worked and still works for my Eastern-European country, too) was to set up a system of patronage, i.e. a system where you share part of your gains to those immediately bellow you in return for their service/trust, they in turn should share their gains to those bellow them and so on and so forth. The key for this system to work for more than one generation is that all parts involved should keep their end of the bargain, meaning that you should be there for the person depending on you, financially and otherwise, whenever they need you, and in turn they should also keep their loyalty to you, no matter the circumstances. I know that what I basically described is basically just a feudal system, and I can also say that I don't like it in principle, but I'm also well aware that this system has been one of the most resilient social systems over the last two millennia (at least), present in one way or another on all populated continents under all types of governments (democracy, monarchy, tyranny etc), and as such it shouldn't be discredited.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  What's wrong with feudalism as you described it?
  - paganel 8y ago
    Historically it has been seen as contradictory to the main principles of Illuminism.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      How so? Illuminism/Enlightenment contradictory to tyrrany, not feudalism. A monarchy can be enlightened, and healthy nations can be ruled by a monarch. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        Monarchy and feudalism are not equivalent: it's totally possible to have a feudal republic. Enlightenment was a response to feudalism. The fundamental thesis of enlightenment thought is that there are inalienable rights shared by every human being, and that unearned obligations and privileges, like those seen in feudal patronage cultures, are incompatible with just society.
        nercht12 8y ago
        The doesn't really counter feudalism though. Perhaps in mentality/ideology, yes, but in practice, it's possible for people to agree to such a system and be content with it. We do it all the time in a capitalist society, except here it's called a "corporation", and the "barons" are called execs of "subsidiary companies".
        hannasanarion 8y ago
        The corporation is not a person, and executives do not have privileges and rights greater than any other person by birthright. In a feudal system, you owe tribute to your liege by virtue of the fact that they were born of a higher rank than you and you were born within their demesne. If you don't comply, or if you try to find a different lord, you get killed. Feudal is not another word for economic inequality.
- diminoten 8y ago
  In America, some restaurants are experimenting with profit or revenue sharing as a way to retain the top-end of the labor market for the respective positions. That sounds a bit like what you're talking about.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I know that what I basically described is basically just a feudal system Or, when nested within a society with a different formal government, a mafia.
bitL 8y ago
...and then contaminate them with residues of your cultural anti-social meta-algorithms, shifting them towards resembling the environment you escaped, as some things "were just easier".

mercutio2 8y ago

The US used to stylize itself a high trust society. I’m not sure how much that was a fantasy dependent on horrific repression’s from slavery to Jim Crow, and how much it actually adhered even amongst groups of people that weren’t based on racial exclusion. Regardless, I worry for US culture. Trust in institutions seems to be at an all time low; institutions take generations to build, we won’t get them back easily or quickly.

PKop 8y ago
It might have been more high trust because it was less culturally diverse. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  The US was always diverse though. Just maybe not so much culturally. I mean, sure, everyone that a given person was likely to see spoke english, ate chicken, and went to some form of Christian church on Sunday. BUT, some of the people were white, some were native american, some were black, down in Texas area you even had hispanics. So the US was pretty diverse. Unless we're not counting racial diversity?
  - dx87 8y ago
    Yeah, I don't think racial diversity counts for the trust issue. Obviously there are some people that won't trust someone based on their race, but it seems like most groups are willing to accept anyone as long as they follow cultural norms; skin color just seems to be a quick proxy for "they look different, so they're probably culturally different". Just watch the aftermath of a local football team winning a big game. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, black or white, everyone in the city celebrates together.
    - pickleman 8y ago
      That's not exactly a time of stress. Prisons aren't divided by favorite football team. There's also the lunchroom test.

l_t 8y ago

I see this as a cultural problem, with a cultural solution. If you think about "free riders" versus "cooperators" as a dichotomy, you won't find a solution. Everyone is both a "free rider" and a "cooperator", depending on social context. The issue is that our social fabric itself may be incentivizing people towards long-term destructive patterns. So, how do we fix it? IMO, the best any one person can do is try to create an environment where people feel safe to cooperate. I believe human nature is fundamentally cooperative in large groups, but we are often "forced" into a competitive track by a lack of resources or other external pressures. For example, many US workplaces pit employees against each other. It's perceived that there are too many workers for a limited number of jobs, so workers feel forced to compete for their "slot." If there was less communal anxiety about being fired, more individuals would feel comfortable to cooperate with their coworkers instead of competing. Ofc, this is an insanely complex issue, so that's just a tiny facet, and I'm sure some of the points are debatable. But I honestly believe that "taking care of people" is one of the key ways to achieve more collaboration.

taurath 8y ago
A sad aside is that if you want to force cooperation among a populace, the most effective way is to give them a common enemy to fight against. To effectively do it with taking care of people, you need a social/cultural contract - but if people are unlikely to enter into one, being distrustful in the first place of anyone proposing such a thing, its a very hard problem - you have a prisoners dilemma which pits the zero sum game players against the win-win, and it only takes one zero sum to defeat the win-wins.