4 ms·

Did I somehow propose "one size fits all" in any of my comments in this thread? You seem to have come to your conclusions referencing history, and not leading

by loceng 5y ago

Did I somehow propose "one size fits all" in any of my comments in this thread? You seem to have come to your conclusions referencing history, and not leading from a conclusion starting at founding principles. The United States of America has been an experiment, with the basis of the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. It's done quite well in its first iteration. The next framework now needs to be laid out, but part of that is educating the population (local and globally, as each geography is going to be prone to the actions of bad actors) so then they can vote rationally, reasonably, and ideally not following or indoctrinated into ideology. You seem to have a misconception or confusing what "government at a global scale" is, perhaps you're once again presuming the current status quo of generally captured and incompetence elected general officials (like the establishment/duopoly in the US) will forever be and so then yes, if you do the same thing over and over again (with incompetent and captured politicians in positions of power and others' captured leading our government institutions) then yes, that would be insane - but the status quo can change - and new ideas, the truth, is making its way to regular folks because of the reduction in capture of attention that the internet has allowed, and focusing on creating online platforms and systems to further strengthen education-learning, communications and reaching like-minded and like-hearted community is the key.

rglullis 5y ago
> Did I somehow propose "one size fits all" in any of my comments in this thread? Yes, even if you don't realize it. UBI, "Journalist Dollars", "Political vouchers" and pretty much every proposal from Andrew Yang are all starting to sound like variations of the old joke about the farmer getting in trouble with the inspector about the feed given to the pigs until he decides to just give each pig $10 so that they can eat at the local buffet. They all involve blanket solutions without looking into any context or idiosyncrasy of any of the separate regions. It reeks of this coastal elite mentality that believes that people on the periphery want to live like those in the big economic centers. > The USA has been an experiment (...) The next framework now needs to be laid out. Read again and tell me how you are not implying that one framework is to be established and implemented. How are you not advocating a top-down solution? > focusing on creating online platforms and systems to further strengthen education-learning, communications and reaching like-minded and like-hearted community is the key. Yeah, that has been the technocrats wet-dream about the Internet. I've been hearing how the internet would help educate people all across the world since I got my first 14.4k modem. But instead of this utopia you are painting we got Donald Trump, Orban, the Chinese "social credit" system and a continuous detoriation of "Western democracies" that benefited only but the tech elite. No, thank you. This is not the world that I want to my live in and my children to grow on.
- loceng 5y ago
  How is giving people $100 to give to a politician - who will have their own solutions - and say $50 to a journalist - who will have their own interests targeted based on the decision of the individual a blanket solution? Your argument makes zero sense. Giving those vouchers to everything helps even the playing field, it in by no way "reeks of this coastal elite mentality that believes that people on the periphery want to live like those in big economic centers." Having a central government isn't inherently top down. You need an organization to do things like collect taxes. Are you trying to suggest that, for example, a central government collecting and redistributing tax funds say in the form of UBI is somehow top-down? In fact giving UBI is more consersative, less liberal, and more hands-off, as it isn't the government deciding what "you" do with that money. I think you're missing some key understandings which is skewing your view, and you're certainly projecting hate based on your comments - "elite mentality", ". We got Donald Trump as a consequence to regulatory capture, MSM being captured, etc; for example, 10 mins. video of Noam Chomsky explaining how the Republican party was captured by corporations/bad actors - https://boingboing.net/2019/04/20/useful-idiots-r-us.html https://boingboing.net/2019/04/20/useful-idiots-r-us.html Your argument too about "my utopia" I'm painting got "Donald Trump, Orban, [etc]" makes no sense either - I stated a new, evolved framework is needed, using what we've now experienced based off the Constitution, to avoid and counter the pitfalls that lead to a longer list than you presented. Maybe my responses could be more useful if you spoke specifically to why you dislike different policies of Yang, and how you understand them to work or not work? E.g. Don't you think washing out $4 billion of lobbyist money with $32 billion of eligible voter money would shift politics to getting more citizen-wants oriented politicians elected into power? If you say no, then why? You've made/applied a lot of assumptions/inferences as to what to my comments suggest, your understanding seems completely off the mark.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > How is giving people $100 to give to a politician / $50 to a journalist a blanket solution? Why would people even want to give this money to politicians? ANY of them? Could I simply get the money and pocket it? Why not? More seriously though: why do you think is more likely to happen with such "journalist" money? Do you think people will suddenly promote rational discourse or they will just give this money to whoever confirms their biases? Imagine Alex Jones getting millions of dollars of government money to fund his lunacy. What will be the reaction on the liberal side? Will they just say "it's all fair" and try to compensate by over-funding NPR and PBS, or will they try to find ways to rig the game in their favor? > You need an organization to do things like collect taxes. That organization does not need to be centralized. As an example: You could have tax collection at the city/municipality level, and then have these municipalities paying to theirs state according to their pre-agreed budget and commitments, and having that bubbling up. > Maybe my responses could be more useful if you spoke specifically to why you dislike different policies of Yang It is not about the policy, it is about its scope and the idea that you can apply the same kind of thinking on a country as large, diverse and uneven as the US. UBI in itself is not a bad idea. Thinking that the way to implement it is by pushing it at the federal level is a catastrophically bad idea. I would give Yang a lot more credit if he went to run for mayor of a small town in the Rust Belt, tried his ideas there first and then went on to promote them. But when he goes on to think that he can run a country in the same way that people run a SV startup, big red lights should be flashing in our heads. > Don't you think washing out $4 billion of lobbyist money with $32 billion of eligible voter money would shift politics to getting more citizen-wants oriented politicians elected into power? If you say no, then why? "Because populism" is the short answer. The long answer is "if voters were rational, people would be able to filter out politicians who are not aligned with their interests and lobby groups wouldn't exist. Adding more money to the system will not solve the issue." If we want to get politicians that do what the citizens want, we need to reduce the distance between the citizens and their representatives. How about we get rid of the $4 billion lobbyists AND the $32 billion "voter money"? How about we got rid of all forms of Federal taxes and started favoring again a state-centered union? How about people started to be more interested in discussing their own town budget plans (where they can actually SEE the results of their choices) instead of giving them money to only pretend they have any say in these multi-trillion sausage factories?

by loceng 5y ago

rglullis 5y ago

> Did I somehow propose "one size fits all" in any of my comments in this thread? Yes, even if you don't realize it. UBI, "Journalist Dollars", "Political vouchers" and pretty much every proposal from Andrew Yang are all starting to sound like variations of the old joke about the farmer getting in trouble with the inspector about the feed given to the pigs until he decides to just give each pig $10 so that they can eat at the local buffet. They all involve blanket solutions without looking into any context or idiosyncrasy of any of the separate regions. It reeks of this coastal elite mentality that believes that people on the periphery want to live like those in the big economic centers. > The USA has been an experiment (...) The next framework now needs to be laid out. Read again and tell me how you are not implying that one framework is to be established and implemented. How are you not advocating a top-down solution? > focusing on creating online platforms and systems to further strengthen education-learning, communications and reaching like-minded and like-hearted community is the key. Yeah, that has been the technocrats wet-dream about the Internet. I've been hearing how the internet would help educate people all across the world since I got my first 14.4k modem. But instead of this utopia you are painting we got Donald Trump, Orban, the Chinese "social credit" system and a continuous detoriation of "Western democracies" that benefited only but the tech elite. No, thank you. This is not the world that I want to my live in and my children to grow on.

loceng 5y ago
How is giving people $100 to give to a politician - who will have their own solutions - and say $50 to a journalist - who will have their own interests targeted based on the decision of the individual a blanket solution? Your argument makes zero sense. Giving those vouchers to everything helps even the playing field, it in by no way "reeks of this coastal elite mentality that believes that people on the periphery want to live like those in big economic centers." Having a central government isn't inherently top down. You need an organization to do things like collect taxes. Are you trying to suggest that, for example, a central government collecting and redistributing tax funds say in the form of UBI is somehow top-down? In fact giving UBI is more consersative, less liberal, and more hands-off, as it isn't the government deciding what "you" do with that money. I think you're missing some key understandings which is skewing your view, and you're certainly projecting hate based on your comments - "elite mentality", ". We got Donald Trump as a consequence to regulatory capture, MSM being captured, etc; for example, 10 mins. video of Noam Chomsky explaining how the Republican party was captured by corporations/bad actors - https://boingboing.net/2019/04/20/useful-idiots-r-us.html https://boingboing.net/2019/04/20/useful-idiots-r-us.html Your argument too about "my utopia" I'm painting got "Donald Trump, Orban, [etc]" makes no sense either - I stated a new, evolved framework is needed, using what we've now experienced based off the Constitution, to avoid and counter the pitfalls that lead to a longer list than you presented. Maybe my responses could be more useful if you spoke specifically to why you dislike different policies of Yang, and how you understand them to work or not work? E.g. Don't you think washing out $4 billion of lobbyist money with $32 billion of eligible voter money would shift politics to getting more citizen-wants oriented politicians elected into power? If you say no, then why? You've made/applied a lot of assumptions/inferences as to what to my comments suggest, your understanding seems completely off the mark.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > How is giving people $100 to give to a politician / $50 to a journalist a blanket solution? Why would people even want to give this money to politicians? ANY of them? Could I simply get the money and pocket it? Why not? More seriously though: why do you think is more likely to happen with such "journalist" money? Do you think people will suddenly promote rational discourse or they will just give this money to whoever confirms their biases? Imagine Alex Jones getting millions of dollars of government money to fund his lunacy. What will be the reaction on the liberal side? Will they just say "it's all fair" and try to compensate by over-funding NPR and PBS, or will they try to find ways to rig the game in their favor? > You need an organization to do things like collect taxes. That organization does not need to be centralized. As an example: You could have tax collection at the city/municipality level, and then have these municipalities paying to theirs state according to their pre-agreed budget and commitments, and having that bubbling up. > Maybe my responses could be more useful if you spoke specifically to why you dislike different policies of Yang It is not about the policy, it is about its scope and the idea that you can apply the same kind of thinking on a country as large, diverse and uneven as the US. UBI in itself is not a bad idea. Thinking that the way to implement it is by pushing it at the federal level is a catastrophically bad idea. I would give Yang a lot more credit if he went to run for mayor of a small town in the Rust Belt, tried his ideas there first and then went on to promote them. But when he goes on to think that he can run a country in the same way that people run a SV startup, big red lights should be flashing in our heads. > Don't you think washing out $4 billion of lobbyist money with $32 billion of eligible voter money would shift politics to getting more citizen-wants oriented politicians elected into power? If you say no, then why? "Because populism" is the short answer. The long answer is "if voters were rational, people would be able to filter out politicians who are not aligned with their interests and lobby groups wouldn't exist. Adding more money to the system will not solve the issue." If we want to get politicians that do what the citizens want, we need to reduce the distance between the citizens and their representatives. How about we get rid of the $4 billion lobbyists AND the $32 billion "voter money"? How about we got rid of all forms of Federal taxes and started favoring again a state-centered union? How about people started to be more interested in discussing their own town budget plans (where they can actually SEE the results of their choices) instead of giving them money to only pretend they have any say in these multi-trillion sausage factories?