3 ms·

>If one side behaves stupidly and the other has power and motivation to stop it, then parent-child dynamics is unavoidable. It's not as simple as stupid. Human

>If one side behaves stupidly and the other has power and motivation to stop it, then parent-child dynamics is unavoidable. It's not as simple as stupid. Humans have different values and risk preferences, and all values are ultimately arbitrary so there's no objective way to say some values are better than others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument). In that case people have highly conflicting values in terms of weighing up loss of life against destruction of peoples' standards of living. People also have conflicting estimates about how much economic damage the shutdowns will cause, so even if they did have the same values they wouldn't necessarily agree. >And government will never be your humble servants no matter how much literature you will produce on the subject. They have tanks, you do not. Shepard is never a servant of the sheep. Even though he feeds them and keeps them safe and healthy. This isn't exactly an argument that governments aren't behaving in an authoritarian way..

scotty79 7y ago
stupidly = contrary to knowledge Most relevant knowledge at the moment comes from epidemiology. The most important value we have to take into account at the moment is that suffocating to death is very bad and we want to inflict this upon least amount of people possible. Money is just a way of keeping tabs of to how much of the output of our civilisation every entity is entitled to. We did it sort of dilligently in hopes of encouraging people to increase the output of civilisation. It kinda works but also led us to dog tailors, Jeff Bezos private wealth and cruise ship industry and various other crap so there's definitely room for improvement. Lots of people hope that economy won't crash but will be knocked out of this local optimum it sits stuck in for at least few decades. > This isn't exactly an argument that governments aren't behaving in an authoritarian way.. This is an argument that they always behave in authoritarian way. The only thing you can hope for is that they bother you the least amount possible while doing their thing which is taking part of your output. You had rights because it was beneficial for the government to give you rights. Epidemic changed that. When it subsides if it will still be beneficial for the government to give you rights back, you'll get them. If government fails, army will step in to take what they want from you more directly.

scotty79 7y ago

stupidly = contrary to knowledge Most relevant knowledge at the moment comes from epidemiology. The most important value we have to take into account at the moment is that suffocating to death is very bad and we want to inflict this upon least amount of people possible. Money is just a way of keeping tabs of to how much of the output of our civilisation every entity is entitled to. We did it sort of dilligently in hopes of encouraging people to increase the output of civilisation. It kinda works but also led us to dog tailors, Jeff Bezos private wealth and cruise ship industry and various other crap so there's definitely room for improvement. Lots of people hope that economy won't crash but will be knocked out of this local optimum it sits stuck in for at least few decades. > This isn't exactly an argument that governments aren't behaving in an authoritarian way.. This is an argument that they always behave in authoritarian way. The only thing you can hope for is that they bother you the least amount possible while doing their thing which is taking part of your output. You had rights because it was beneficial for the government to give you rights. Epidemic changed that. When it subsides if it will still be beneficial for the government to give you rights back, you'll get them. If government fails, army will step in to take what they want from you more directly.