3 ms·

When the private companies start getting billion dollar contracts with the government, or are lobbying politicians for laws massively benefitting the companies

by jb775 6y ago

When the private companies start getting billion dollar contracts with the government, or are lobbying politicians for laws massively benefitting the companies in the long run, it's safe to say the decisions behind the "private rules" will be impacted accordingly.

marcinzm 6y ago
Nothing is a perfect system, I support the one I feel has the best chance of ensuring a stable but evolving society. Not restricting things has resulted in the governing body of the US getting attacked by an angry armed mob inside a federal government building. So that's not a viable option for a stable society. The government is both subject to changing political whims and has a history of overusing it's control in various situations. So that's not a viable option for an evolving society. Thus we get to the shitty but potentially best compromise option. Just like democracy itself.
- jb775 6y ago
  How is it best for a society to evolve by suppressing diversity? In this situation, I'm talking about diversity of ideas relating to politics. Have you ever considered why Silicon Valley exists in America? It's because as America grew, it welcomed in people from all over the world with extremely different backgrounds with extremely different ideas about how to do things. Over time, that situation resulted in extreme innovation where the best ideas prevailed.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    >How is it best for a society to evolve by suppressing diversity? Because radical change generally leads to very bad things so you want a slow evolution which means you suppress ideas so they spread more slowly and thus society has more time to process them properly. >Over time, that situation resulted in extreme innovation where the best ideas prevailed. And the existence of giant corporate beasts, massive wealth concentration, massive income inequality in the bay area, spread of socially destabilizing ideas, foreign influence over elections, privacy failures, etc., etc. And many would argue many of the ideas, especially recently, aren't revolutionary but rather simply better ways to cheaply exploit people and hide externalities (that society but not the company pays for).
    - jb775 6y ago
      > you want a slow evolution which means you suppress ideas so they spread more slowly So is this your viewpoint on all forms of diversity, such as racial and socioeconomic inclusion? Or are you selectively changing your definition as you go? > And the existence of giant corporate beasts, massive wealth concentration... This has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. > foreign influence over elections So you recognize foreign influence over elections, but think it's ok to silence people whose underlying animosity is rooted around accusations of foreign influence in the most recent election? > and hide externalities Interesting choice of words considering you're in support of literally hiding externalities of the situation as a whole
      - marcinzm 6y ago
        >So is this your viewpoint on all forms of diversity, such as racial and socioeconomic inclusion? Yes. Although in the US we've been working on socioeconomic and racial inclusion for the last few centuries so I feel that's moving slowly enough for society to adjust. Communism shows what happens when you move on the socioeconomic side too quickly and it's not pretty. I do find it funny how some people think racial and socioeconomic inclusion is a new thing that is just now happening. Do you people never pay attention to history, ever? >This has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. You talked about the glory of change in terms of SV. I mentioned the dark flip side of change in terms of SV. You can try to cherry pick parts of the story but I'll keep pointing out that you're doing so.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by jb775 6y ago

marcinzm 6y ago

Nothing is a perfect system, I support the one I feel has the best chance of ensuring a stable but evolving society. Not restricting things has resulted in the governing body of the US getting attacked by an angry armed mob inside a federal government building. So that's not a viable option for a stable society. The government is both subject to changing political whims and has a history of overusing it's control in various situations. So that's not a viable option for an evolving society. Thus we get to the shitty but potentially best compromise option. Just like democracy itself.

jb775 6y ago
How is it best for a society to evolve by suppressing diversity? In this situation, I'm talking about diversity of ideas relating to politics. Have you ever considered why Silicon Valley exists in America? It's because as America grew, it welcomed in people from all over the world with extremely different backgrounds with extremely different ideas about how to do things. Over time, that situation resulted in extreme innovation where the best ideas prevailed.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  >How is it best for a society to evolve by suppressing diversity? Because radical change generally leads to very bad things so you want a slow evolution which means you suppress ideas so they spread more slowly and thus society has more time to process them properly. >Over time, that situation resulted in extreme innovation where the best ideas prevailed. And the existence of giant corporate beasts, massive wealth concentration, massive income inequality in the bay area, spread of socially destabilizing ideas, foreign influence over elections, privacy failures, etc., etc. And many would argue many of the ideas, especially recently, aren't revolutionary but rather simply better ways to cheaply exploit people and hide externalities (that society but not the company pays for).
  - jb775 6y ago
    > you want a slow evolution which means you suppress ideas so they spread more slowly So is this your viewpoint on all forms of diversity, such as racial and socioeconomic inclusion? Or are you selectively changing your definition as you go? > And the existence of giant corporate beasts, massive wealth concentration... This has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. > foreign influence over elections So you recognize foreign influence over elections, but think it's ok to silence people whose underlying animosity is rooted around accusations of foreign influence in the most recent election? > and hide externalities Interesting choice of words considering you're in support of literally hiding externalities of the situation as a whole
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      >So is this your viewpoint on all forms of diversity, such as racial and socioeconomic inclusion? Yes. Although in the US we've been working on socioeconomic and racial inclusion for the last few centuries so I feel that's moving slowly enough for society to adjust. Communism shows what happens when you move on the socioeconomic side too quickly and it's not pretty. I do find it funny how some people think racial and socioeconomic inclusion is a new thing that is just now happening. Do you people never pay attention to history, ever? >This has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. You talked about the glory of change in terms of SV. I mentioned the dark flip side of change in terms of SV. You can try to cherry pick parts of the story but I'll keep pointing out that you're doing so.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]