4 ms·

My observation is that issues requiring a true shake-up of those currently in power or strong financial holding (usually correlated) leads to actions being indi

by pempem 5y ago

My observation is that issues requiring a true shake-up of those currently in power or strong financial holding (usually correlated) leads to actions being individualized. This includes: climate - shake up of industrial winners if new policy is introduced so its on us to 'buy smart' rather than collectively 'produce smart' schools and their performance - shake up of privilege funnels, tax bases, positions etc. if an equal division of funds is introduced so its on each family to find school and support rather than a system wide effort to make sure every kid has an educational experience that sets them up for success and participation in our democracy immigration - shaking this up would have economic impacts we don't understand as the entire US economy is at least partially dependent on affordable/cheap labor or some form of second class worker to support supremely variable industries like farming. so its on you to immigrate correctly and complain about off-shored jobs instead of on the people who are offshoring them or hiring people without the 'correct' papers.

coliveira 5y ago
The oldest ruse in capitalism is to individualize responsibilities for systemic issues. So, it is aways responsibility of the individual to avoid problems that were caused by capitalism as a system, for profit. It always tries to protect the environment that created the problem and criminalize the victims.
- pempem 5y ago
  Fully agreed I just hope we can find enough energy to overcome that inertia as we stare down unavoidable consequences.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about. The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative? If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result? Notice how big a factor polarization is in this. The more people who have chosen a team and won't be dissuaded from supporting their side no matter what, the less politicians have to care what people think because it won't change enough votes to affect the outcome. Which is why everything is currently a shambles. People individually have to take responsibility for their part in a systemic problem. It's a serious cultural problem to tell everybody that they don't need to do this unless someone is holding a gun to their head. Because the same culture says that doing the selfish thing is reasonable and good, and if that's true, why should they vote to ban it? Meanwhile if people individually accept that they have to make some personal sacrifices to avoid doing harm then you barely need legislation at all, and to the extent that you do it can be a minimal fine with minimal enforcement that only acts as an anchor point. Because a culture where individuals are trying not to do collective harm only needs some notice that a given thing does collective harm, not jackboots with billy clubs. The opposite culture is doomed either way.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about. While possibly valid, this seems unrelated to > The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative? >If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result? The latter is an inevitable consequence of first past the post voting and plurality-majority representation, rather than proportional representation. Until the US moves past these systems, it will always be a game of voting for the lesser evil.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > The latter is an inevitable consequence of first past the post voting and plurality-majority representation, rather than proportional representation. Until the US moves past these systems, it will always be a game of voting for the lesser evil. PR has its own problems and the US would do better to adopt range voting to break the two party system, but any system where parties exist is still susceptible to the original problem. If Party A does something bad in favor of a special interest, Party B might gain support. But they can estimate how much support they need to control the government. Now that they have more support, Party B can do some other bad thing in favor of some other special interest and still be competitive. If you add Party C to the mix, they still have the same incentive and opportunity to abuse their power. You can have a party which always makes the decision that maximizes social utility, but you can have that in a two party system too. For that party to win votes, you need voters who are willing to elect that party instead of the one that promises you that you'll be the beneficiary of the kleptocracy. But these are the same people who do the right thing even when no one is forcing them to. If you society is full of them then you don't need the use of force to make it happen. If it's not then an elected government will represent the majority of selfish jerks.
  - coliveira 5y ago
    > the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care This is not an assumption, they'll have to do the right thing when society is properly setup. Can you chose not paying for your car registration? Can you drink on the streets freely (in USA)? It is just a mater of time before we agree that unlimited profit is bad for our future and outlaw it.

by pempem 5y ago

coliveira 5y ago

The oldest ruse in capitalism is to individualize responsibilities for systemic issues. So, it is aways responsibility of the individual to avoid problems that were caused by capitalism as a system, for profit. It always tries to protect the environment that created the problem and criminalize the victims.

pempem 5y ago
Fully agreed I just hope we can find enough energy to overcome that inertia as we stare down unavoidable consequences.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about. The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative? If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result? Notice how big a factor polarization is in this. The more people who have chosen a team and won't be dissuaded from supporting their side no matter what, the less politicians have to care what people think because it won't change enough votes to affect the outcome. Which is why everything is currently a shambles. People individually have to take responsibility for their part in a systemic problem. It's a serious cultural problem to tell everybody that they don't need to do this unless someone is holding a gun to their head. Because the same culture says that doing the selfish thing is reasonable and good, and if that's true, why should they vote to ban it? Meanwhile if people individually accept that they have to make some personal sacrifices to avoid doing harm then you barely need legislation at all, and to the extent that you do it can be a minimal fine with minimal enforcement that only acts as an anchor point. Because a culture where individuals are trying not to do collective harm only needs some notice that a given thing does collective harm, not jackboots with billy clubs. The opposite culture is doomed either way.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about. While possibly valid, this seems unrelated to > The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative? >If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result? The latter is an inevitable consequence of first past the post voting and plurality-majority representation, rather than proportional representation. Until the US moves past these systems, it will always be a game of voting for the lesser evil.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > The latter is an inevitable consequence of first past the post voting and plurality-majority representation, rather than proportional representation. Until the US moves past these systems, it will always be a game of voting for the lesser evil. PR has its own problems and the US would do better to adopt range voting to break the two party system, but any system where parties exist is still susceptible to the original problem. If Party A does something bad in favor of a special interest, Party B might gain support. But they can estimate how much support they need to control the government. Now that they have more support, Party B can do some other bad thing in favor of some other special interest and still be competitive. If you add Party C to the mix, they still have the same incentive and opportunity to abuse their power. You can have a party which always makes the decision that maximizes social utility, but you can have that in a two party system too. For that party to win votes, you need voters who are willing to elect that party instead of the one that promises you that you'll be the beneficiary of the kleptocracy. But these are the same people who do the right thing even when no one is forcing them to. If you society is full of them then you don't need the use of force to make it happen. If it's not then an elected government will represent the majority of selfish jerks.
- coliveira 5y ago
  > the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care This is not an assumption, they'll have to do the right thing when society is properly setup. Can you chose not paying for your car registration? Can you drink on the streets freely (in USA)? It is just a mater of time before we agree that unlimited profit is bad for our future and outlaw it.