3 ms·

> It's undeniably true when political power is distributed to the masses, and less and less true when it concentrates. In other words, it's only "undeniably tr

by bhupy 6y ago

> It's undeniably true when political power is distributed to the masses, and less and less true when it concentrates. In other words, it's only "undeniably true" in a direct democracy, where the people vote to decide on everything. Otherwise, you have the same centralization of power (a representative by definition has more power than their constituent), and you have to hope that they will act in the public good. I'm not sure that you can reasonably claim that every person in Congress today is virtuous. > economic self-interest is fundamentally alienating That's for sure a popular claim, but it's not really backed by any evidence other than the way a handful of people feel. And that's largely driven by ideology rather than mass empirical evidence. The entire developed/industrialized world largely operates on economic self-interest, and life in the 21st century is, by pretty much all measures, better than life at any other time in the past.

sudosysgen 6y ago
>n other words, it's only "undeniably true" in a direct democracy, where the people vote to decide on everything. Otherwise, you have the same centralization of power (a representative by definition has more power than their constituent), and you have to hope that they will act in the public good. I'm not sure that you can reasonably claim that every person in Congress today is virtuous. Direct democracy doesn't mean that everyone votes on everything, and I never claimed that the US is democratic enough to fulfill that criteria. The US is at the very best a flawed democracy, and there can be as well as are much better system. >That's for sure a popular claim, but it's not really backed by any evidence other than the way a handful of people feel. And that's largely driven by ideology rather than mass empirical evidence. The entire developed/industrialized world largely operates on economic self-interest, and life in the 21st century is, by pretty much all measures, better than life at any other time in the past. The entire point of the claim is how people feel, because that's literally how you measure alienation and well being. There is no point living in a society with amazing material plenitude if the rest prevents your well-being. How good life is is measured solely through subjective and social measures, not by the quantity of consumption, which is almost irrelevant. There is tons of data behind this, the marginal happiness brought by greater material wealth goes to almost zero after you hit a ccertain threshold, and that threshold largely corresponds to ensuring baseline needs, then material security and finally freedom and social status related to material consumption in our society. Nowhere is there any study that seems to indicate that happiness and well-being are related beyond basic needs to absolute (and not relative) economic output. Therefore, your argument bears no solid relation to your claim. Furthermore, there have been tons of analysis and studies of why economic self-interest is fundamentally alienating, and it boils down to the fact that in a competitive system pursuance of economic self-interest necessarily requires loss of agency.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > I never claimed that the US is democratic enough to fulfill that criteria. I’m not just talking about the US. I called out every single developed/industrialized nation > The entire point of the claim is how people feel Sure, and the majority of people in the world just don’t feel that way. It’s just a small group of Marxist ideologues. Your point about measures of happiness and freedom and social status and security etc etc are well and good...except the countries that rank the highest on those metrics are the ones that enjoy the greatest economic freedom. They are overwhelmingly societies which run on economic self-interest, per my earlier point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Sure, and time wise we can witness countless examples of economic freedom increasing and material wealth while happiness decreases. The data doesn't support your claim, almost every study done on the subject doesn't support your claims. As for the the vast majority of people not thinking that well-being and quality of life depends on your subjective experience and feelings, I think you have a wildly distorted idea of how people think. As in, completely ridiculous and disconnected with reality. Go and talk with people in real life, ask them what makes them happy and what is the cause of their sorrows, and you'll find that unless their name is "Scrooge McDuck" their answer won't be material wealth. And calling that Marxism is the most absurd thing I've heard all day. Apparently mentally well-adjusted people are all Marxists now, let's unfurl the red banners! Relative wealth has an effect on well-being, for obvious social reasons, which is why you can see that correlation in the link you sent. There is absolutely no data indicating that marginal absolute wealth does anything for well-being. Finally, >I’m not just talking about the US. I called out every single developed/industrialized nation You're going to have to back up that claim. Specifically, find data so that every industrialized nation has a political system that diverges significantly from the will of the common man (moreso than average will weighted by dollar of wealth), and that this is in no case due to the economic self-interest of some. Good luck!
    - 6y ago

by bhupy 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

>n other words, it's only "undeniably true" in a direct democracy, where the people vote to decide on everything. Otherwise, you have the same centralization of power (a representative by definition has more power than their constituent), and you have to hope that they will act in the public good. I'm not sure that you can reasonably claim that every person in Congress today is virtuous. Direct democracy doesn't mean that everyone votes on everything, and I never claimed that the US is democratic enough to fulfill that criteria. The US is at the very best a flawed democracy, and there can be as well as are much better system. >That's for sure a popular claim, but it's not really backed by any evidence other than the way a handful of people feel. And that's largely driven by ideology rather than mass empirical evidence. The entire developed/industrialized world largely operates on economic self-interest, and life in the 21st century is, by pretty much all measures, better than life at any other time in the past. The entire point of the claim is how people feel, because that's literally how you measure alienation and well being. There is no point living in a society with amazing material plenitude if the rest prevents your well-being. How good life is is measured solely through subjective and social measures, not by the quantity of consumption, which is almost irrelevant. There is tons of data behind this, the marginal happiness brought by greater material wealth goes to almost zero after you hit a ccertain threshold, and that threshold largely corresponds to ensuring baseline needs, then material security and finally freedom and social status related to material consumption in our society. Nowhere is there any study that seems to indicate that happiness and well-being are related beyond basic needs to absolute (and not relative) economic output. Therefore, your argument bears no solid relation to your claim. Furthermore, there have been tons of analysis and studies of why economic self-interest is fundamentally alienating, and it boils down to the fact that in a competitive system pursuance of economic self-interest necessarily requires loss of agency.

bhupy 6y ago
> I never claimed that the US is democratic enough to fulfill that criteria. I’m not just talking about the US. I called out every single developed/industrialized nation > The entire point of the claim is how people feel Sure, and the majority of people in the world just don’t feel that way. It’s just a small group of Marxist ideologues. Your point about measures of happiness and freedom and social status and security etc etc are well and good...except the countries that rank the highest on those metrics are the ones that enjoy the greatest economic freedom. They are overwhelmingly societies which run on economic self-interest, per my earlier point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Sure, and time wise we can witness countless examples of economic freedom increasing and material wealth while happiness decreases. The data doesn't support your claim, almost every study done on the subject doesn't support your claims. As for the the vast majority of people not thinking that well-being and quality of life depends on your subjective experience and feelings, I think you have a wildly distorted idea of how people think. As in, completely ridiculous and disconnected with reality. Go and talk with people in real life, ask them what makes them happy and what is the cause of their sorrows, and you'll find that unless their name is "Scrooge McDuck" their answer won't be material wealth. And calling that Marxism is the most absurd thing I've heard all day. Apparently mentally well-adjusted people are all Marxists now, let's unfurl the red banners! Relative wealth has an effect on well-being, for obvious social reasons, which is why you can see that correlation in the link you sent. There is absolutely no data indicating that marginal absolute wealth does anything for well-being. Finally, >I’m not just talking about the US. I called out every single developed/industrialized nation You're going to have to back up that claim. Specifically, find data so that every industrialized nation has a political system that diverges significantly from the will of the common man (moreso than average will weighted by dollar of wealth), and that this is in no case due to the economic self-interest of some. Good luck!
  - 6y ago