3 ms·

> I will lay out my argument very clearly I think I got it, but it still seems that you were talking past the point from OP. You are trying to make some state

> I will lay out my argument very clearly I think I got it, but it still seems that you were talking past the point from OP. You are trying to make some statement about how individuals have more power with functional democratic institutions vs the despotic-like nature of the "town company". What OP seems to be getting at is the point how communities before had higher levels of inner trust, and how this relates with TFA. In a time where things were not globalized and people actually knew and interact with their neighbors (instead of getting stuck on Hacker News talking with people on the different side of the planet), the idea of the "town company" as the institution that coordinated the society vs "the government" didn't matter so much, as long as there was some sense of community and high-trust. It was this local community with insular trust that we lost with globalization, and this why it makes no sense to talk about "company loyalty" anymore.

kbenson 5y ago
My whole point rests on the assertion that things are not static. Explicitly stated as companies changing from benevolent to less so, or politicians going from working for the people to against them. Implicitly, I expected this to be applied to other things as well, and I think it should be applied to things such as inner trust in communities. You cannot expect the current conditions to persist indefinitely. Ceding what power you have to control parts of that, or even just to control tools which themselves affect that (such as politicians), just because right now things are good and you trust your community and the companies in it is a losing strategy. Even back in the past when people had much more trust that a company would not treat them badly, any actions to make that the status quo (by weakening methods which those people had active input and ways to influence) was a bad choice, but possibly a less understood one. Additionally, my response to rmason was meant less as a rebuttal, and more as an aside to do with the entire concept that relying on a company was ever a good idea, regardless of whether it often turned out okay for people during a certain time period. Not all replies are counters directly to what was stated, even if we are sometimes primed to view them that way. I didn't view myself as rebutting someone when I wrote that, but instead exploring the idea of why relying on a company was always a bad idea.

kbenson 5y ago

My whole point rests on the assertion that things are not static. Explicitly stated as companies changing from benevolent to less so, or politicians going from working for the people to against them. Implicitly, I expected this to be applied to other things as well, and I think it should be applied to things such as inner trust in communities. You cannot expect the current conditions to persist indefinitely. Ceding what power you have to control parts of that, or even just to control tools which themselves affect that (such as politicians), just because right now things are good and you trust your community and the companies in it is a losing strategy. Even back in the past when people had much more trust that a company would not treat them badly, any actions to make that the status quo (by weakening methods which those people had active input and ways to influence) was a bad choice, but possibly a less understood one. Additionally, my response to rmason was meant less as a rebuttal, and more as an aside to do with the entire concept that relying on a company was ever a good idea, regardless of whether it often turned out okay for people during a certain time period. Not all replies are counters directly to what was stated, even if we are sometimes primed to view them that way. I didn't view myself as rebutting someone when I wrote that, but instead exploring the idea of why relying on a company was always a bad idea.