6 ms·

I'd love to know where this has actually happened. It seems to me that this idea is often trotted out as a conservative scare tactic. I'd also like to know how

I'd love to know where this has actually happened. It seems to me that this idea is often trotted out as a conservative scare tactic. I'd also like to know how you think we should maximise people's happiness and wellbeing. Because that's my primary interest, and economic productivity is valuable insofar as it enables that utility maximisation.

nickpp 5y ago
Taxes are rising around the globe in developed countries. Also red tape and regulations which are a different type of "tax" with the same result: demotivating value creators. You can't maximise happiness by definition. Happiness is fleeting, a peak, it exists only through comparison to our regular state. Evolution made sure of that, or we'd've stopped evolving. The only way to cheat it is with drugs. I want to maximise humankind's potential instead. Gain infinite knowledge, spread through the stars. I think that is a much more worthwhile goal than happily dying out on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I don't mean happiness like the temporary pleasure state. I mean the minimisation of undesired suffering and maximisation of freedom for all people to pursue their preferences. I don't think "potential" is worth anything if it isn't used to benefit people and make their lives better. The imperium from 40k has much greater technology and planet span than us but it's deeply dystopic - I'd rather live here than there.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    I also think minimising suffering and maximising freedom are worthwhile goals. I just don't think using the State power is the way to do it. But I believe becoming multi-planetary is imperative and urgent for mankind. The dangers while all of us are on the same planet are simply too great to sit and enjoy the view.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I'm an anarchist so I'm inclined to agree with you about state power - but in terms of relative goodness, a social democracy is demonstrably better than a neoliberal state. I can say that from experience of Conservative rule in the UK - essential public services just get worse and the savings are collected in the pockets of the already-wealthy. I do agree about becoming multiplanetary too, but if we're talking about existential risk then climate change is the most urgent one and we need state power and institutional change to avert that one.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Don't judge governing systems using a small number of countries, try to look at more. For example, with their work ethic maybe Nordics can arguably make Social Democracy work, but would it work in say Bulgaria? The only way to solve climate change is through technological evolution. I see almost zero progress with policy changes. BTW, we wouldn't even be in this mess if would've completed the previous energy tech transition from hydrocarbons to nuclear as planned. What stopped us? Politics.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        You need a taxable base to implement social democracy - so yeah you'd need a functioning economy in order to fund social services, and Bulgaria is, AFAIK, pretty corrupt. But solving corruption is a political issue. We'd also need to move off of ICE cars, and it was the car industry that tried to suppress that. Also the fossil fuel industry that puts out propaganda against new forms of energy - capital and the state are in alliance. Some parties can be better (left wing ones) but there's a ton of propaganda against them by corporations too.
        nickpp 5y ago
        I lived under communism so please don't tell me about left-wing parties. Not that I find other-wing parties that much better, but leftists have destroyed countries. Politicians are by definition corruptible - that is why they are there. They failed to succeed through merit in the free market so politics is their last resort. That is why power to the State and politicians means yielding to corruption. The biggest opponents to nuclear were not corporations but parties: greens and ecologists. Ideologists and luddites. We are living the world the anti-nukes protests of the 60's built.

nickpp 5y ago

Taxes are rising around the globe in developed countries. Also red tape and regulations which are a different type of "tax" with the same result: demotivating value creators. You can't maximise happiness by definition. Happiness is fleeting, a peak, it exists only through comparison to our regular state. Evolution made sure of that, or we'd've stopped evolving. The only way to cheat it is with drugs. I want to maximise humankind's potential instead. Gain infinite knowledge, spread through the stars. I think that is a much more worthwhile goal than happily dying out on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I don't mean happiness like the temporary pleasure state. I mean the minimisation of undesired suffering and maximisation of freedom for all people to pursue their preferences. I don't think "potential" is worth anything if it isn't used to benefit people and make their lives better. The imperium from 40k has much greater technology and planet span than us but it's deeply dystopic - I'd rather live here than there.
- nickpp 5y ago
  I also think minimising suffering and maximising freedom are worthwhile goals. I just don't think using the State power is the way to do it. But I believe becoming multi-planetary is imperative and urgent for mankind. The dangers while all of us are on the same planet are simply too great to sit and enjoy the view.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I'm an anarchist so I'm inclined to agree with you about state power - but in terms of relative goodness, a social democracy is demonstrably better than a neoliberal state. I can say that from experience of Conservative rule in the UK - essential public services just get worse and the savings are collected in the pockets of the already-wealthy. I do agree about becoming multiplanetary too, but if we're talking about existential risk then climate change is the most urgent one and we need state power and institutional change to avert that one.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Don't judge governing systems using a small number of countries, try to look at more. For example, with their work ethic maybe Nordics can arguably make Social Democracy work, but would it work in say Bulgaria? The only way to solve climate change is through technological evolution. I see almost zero progress with policy changes. BTW, we wouldn't even be in this mess if would've completed the previous energy tech transition from hydrocarbons to nuclear as planned. What stopped us? Politics.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        You need a taxable base to implement social democracy - so yeah you'd need a functioning economy in order to fund social services, and Bulgaria is, AFAIK, pretty corrupt. But solving corruption is a political issue. We'd also need to move off of ICE cars, and it was the car industry that tried to suppress that. Also the fossil fuel industry that puts out propaganda against new forms of energy - capital and the state are in alliance. Some parties can be better (left wing ones) but there's a ton of propaganda against them by corporations too.
        nickpp 5y ago
        I lived under communism so please don't tell me about left-wing parties. Not that I find other-wing parties that much better, but leftists have destroyed countries. Politicians are by definition corruptible - that is why they are there. They failed to succeed through merit in the free market so politics is their last resort. That is why power to the State and politicians means yielding to corruption. The biggest opponents to nuclear were not corporations but parties: greens and ecologists. Ideologists and luddites. We are living the world the anti-nukes protests of the 60's built.