5 ms·
The author of this piece lacks an understanding of how Machiavelli uses the term `virtu` (admittedly a common mistake). This failure to understand `virtu` is wh
by hyperion2010 6y ago
The author of this piece lacks an understanding of how Machiavelli uses the term `virtu` (admittedly a common mistake). This failure to understand `virtu` is why countless political factions all the way up to the modern US Democratic party have failed their subjects and failed to protect their states -- they were unwilling to sacrifice the appearance of being good, of keeping their hands clean, for the things that really matter -- for example legislation on climate change, and the preservation of the US ability to respond to global pandemics to name only two. One of Machiavelli's key messages is that there are some things that are more important than playing by the spirit of the law. Those in the modern west who reject Machiavelli and this message doom themselves and their constituents to live in states cursed with bad rulers.
- therealdrag0 6y agoCan you elaborate. What would politicians do if they understood virtu?
- neilwilson 6y agoEnd unemployment permanently in the USA, Stephanie Kelton style. Which would then force capitalists to compete for labour driving wages growth and productivity. Once the threat of unemployment is lifted, Uber, et al can be allowed free rein and the magic of capitalism will rapidly deliver a more effective transport system (for example). "But what about the jobs" is about protecting the old and staid from disruption by the new and vigourous.
- therealdrag0 6y agoI like the idea of a guaranteed jobs program. Has this ever been tried? Any studies on it?
- neilwilson 6y agoThe UK Universal Credit system requires that you spend 35 hours a week looking for jobs that in aggregate cannot exist. Pakistan is hiring unemployed labourers to plant trees. Argentina had the Jefes programme. If you look you'll find that "guaranteed jobs" are generally already there as part of the stabilisation process. They're just not very good, don't pay enough to live on and aren't available to all - which is what is required to make them work effectively as an automatic stabiliser. And of course that is because the current regimes want an unemployment buffer to drive down wages at the low end.
- marshray 6y agoSpecifically, what course of action are you referring to that involves "the modern US Democratic party ... sacrific[ing] the appearance of being good"?
- jacobush 6y agoDrop gun rights for a minute, focus more on unfucking the health care system. Just an arbitrary pairing.
- chrischen 6y agoHe's talking about the scene in The Dark Knight where Morgan Freeman tells Batman he doesn't want to be involved in getting his hands dirty with surveillance tech about to be deployed in stopping The Joker. Freeman is the US Democratic Party, and Batman would be the FBI wanting to break into iPhones to catch killers at the expense of the law/privacy rights.
- econcon 6y agoTrump does not care about appearance of bring good. Does he?
- watwut 6y agoI think that he does, a lot. But he lacks empathy and is extremely self-centered. His idea about what looks good just does not look good to you.
- kstenerud 6y agoCompromise is antithetical to a two-party system. One could make the same arguments against the Republican party, using their hobby horses as examples. Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cycle.
- ardy42 6y ago> Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system. > Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cycle. I don't think that's a general rule, and the observation is only true in certain conditions. For instance, I think compromise would be more common in cases where the parties weren't starkly ideologically polarized. Similarly, if the system allowed for some sugar make bitter medicine of compromise go down easier, compromise would be more likely (specifically, I'm thinking of earmarks).
- blaser-waffle 6y agoPolarization is almost inevitable with 2 parties, and is arguably one of their best tools. There is no other genuine 3rd or 4th option, so you drive people to your party or you count them as a loss -- there is no other strategy.