6 ms·

Sadly, I'm with you on this. My immediate reaction after reading that quote was "Who decides what constitutes well-being?" Unfortunately, the answer is whomev

Sadly, I'm with you on this. My immediate reaction after reading that quote was "Who decides what constitutes well-being?" Unfortunately, the answer is whomever is in power.

blagie 5y ago
Honestly, the older I get, the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia. I get up. I have a communal exercise program in the morning. I work for some number of hours, while kids are at school. It's a 32 hour work week, but that's made up for with my 8 hours mandatory education. I'm guaranteed a job, a house, food, and medical care. I'm guaranteed retirement and disability too. There is no advertising. I don't have access to video games, alcohol, drugs, or Facebook. I can describe how I'd set one up, to guarantee personal freedoms and human rights, and reasonable systems of governance, but at the end of the day, I think "whomever is in power" will make better decisions about human well-being than the invisible hand of capitalism. I think China has some elements of the right approach: - Free markets for mass-produced commodities. - Socialized banks, resources, real estate, and other rent-collecting industries. - A hybrid for tech and information
- brianhorakh 5y ago
  China has a technocratic communisim which embraces capitalism since the 1970s. That includes the learnings and notes from a 5,000 year old administrative bueracracy corps formed by qishihuang of the first ming dynasty. China is doing great (today), however poor planning as recently as the 1970s lead to widespread food shortages and people selling their kids to butchers for cannabalism (so it still has capitalism is my point). I like china personally, it's not a utopia, but it is closer to utopia than anything I have experienced in the usa.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    Unless you have to breathe the air in Beijing :)
    - beaunative 5y ago
      Pollution's gonna happen somewhere unless the way we manufacture changes radically. The US never solved the problem, it just outsourced it. Overall, I think progress's been made.
  - blagie 5y ago
    China doesn't embrace capitalism. They're thoughtful about where they have and haven't embraced it. On the whole, I am glad for China. I like having multiple systems, and unlike many others, I feel like the government is trying very hard to improve, and sometimes succeeding. However, I think your view of it as closer to a utopia is a little disconnected from reality. The US is still a nicer place to live than China, unless you're a tourist. The gap has closed rapidly, but it's still there. I think each system has upsides and downsides. I'm glad for having multiple systems. I hope they can learn from each other. The Chinese concepts of meritocracy, family, and long-term planning, as well as the emphasis on education, would go a long ways here. I also like what's socialized and what isn't. I like weak IP laws and contracts; I think China's in the right place there now (I wouldn't have said so a few years back, where it was the wild west) The US still has lower corruption. The US is much more transparent. I also don't like the way Chinese politicians are kinda dicks, openly insulting the US. Then there's issues like Tibet, Honk Kong, Taiwan, and the Uighurs, as well as mass surveillance (although the US is not much better on the last one, as of late). I feel like at some point, China might find a chill government who will let a lot of those slide or move into a more balanced position. I hope they do. I can see path for China to really become closer to a utopia than virtually any other place right now.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >It's a 32 hour work week, but that's made up for with my 8 hours mandatory education. What are you requesting be done to you if you are found to be truant from your mandatory education? That's the other side of laws that seems to be ignored in these kinds of proposals.
  - blagie 5y ago
    In general, I'm a fan of little happening. In the same way as if I don't vacuum or make my bed, nothing happens, but it's what I'm expected to do. There's some social stigma, and little more. With classes, I guess I don't advance in my career as much. Critically, society would be structured with room for this, and a place I'm expected to be without distraction.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  > the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia A utopia for non-minorities, you mean? Because the 1930s were not necessarily a pleasant time for everyone involved.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - blagie 5y ago
    The 1930s were a horrible time, but had plenty of beautiful utopian visions of the future. That's when communism and fascism were sparring with democracy in Europe, China had the Kuomintang and CCP visions, the Soviet system was new, and so on. There was a lot of interesting political thought.
- clouddrover 5y ago
  > Honestly, the older I get, the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia Fundamentally all you're saying is that you're a child who needs to be told what to do. That is not compelling. The solution you're looking for is to grow up. You don't need a totalitarian government to do that for you. You can get that done on your own. > I can describe how I'd set one up, to guarantee personal freedoms and human rights, and reasonable systems of governance Maybe just do what Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are doing. They're not perfect, but they sound more like what you want while also allowing you to be an adult.
  - blagie 5y ago
    No. I'm saying I like structure in my life. It's work to get that done on my own, and I'd like someone else to do that for me. I'm managing several major projects, and I like having a project manager tell me what to do. Before that, I had an admin to boss me around. At some point, I figured out that scheduling and planning all this stuff is no fun. If I wake up, and have a calendar of meetings, or a big block of time for writing, or whatever, I am much happier than if I'm planning it myself. If I have a project, deadlines are nice. I set them, but an RPM or admin can harass me to make sure I remember them and meet them. My project manager, and before that, my admin, report to me. It's not totalitarian at all. I don't see why a government needs to be totalitarian to structure my life. I think everyone should have a free basic home. I also think everyone should be welcome to buy a nicer home if they choose.
    - clouddrover 5y ago
      - blagie 5y ago
        In that case, you might be surprised at how many executives are childish.... ... There's a point in your life you learn to delegate.
        clouddrover 5y ago
- openknot 5y ago
  I get the appeal of having structure, but I only think it works if it's voluntary to sign up for it. What you're describing sounds like a voluntary military enlistment (communal exercise, job, house, food, medical care, retirement, and disability), except with access to video games, alcohol, drugs, and Facebook (and also more hours). However, the system will fall apart if it's mandatory for all. People will shirk their 32-hour work week, do the bare minimum for 8 hours mandatory education (e.g. clicking through modules super fast, or Googling all of the answers), make their own video games (which would be great), go through the motions of mandatory exercise, brew alcohol, grow or synthesize drugs, and create their own social network, even via amateur radio. The counter-culture sounds a lot more fun. Also, the utopia is incompatible with people with dreams of becoming game developers, people who critique expensive wine, and people who spend a variable amount of time self-learning on their own, versus fixed hours. The imposition of how a person spends their time is a separate principle from guarantees of a job (an income guarantee is preferred, because a lot of people will effectively and potentially rationally do the bare minimum/no work at the job), housing, food, and medical care.
emodendroket 5y ago
If that's your objection then anything other than tyranny is impossible. By definition the people who do anything have power.
- inamiyar 5y ago
  the point is the people in power represent a limited set of elites that are not invested in the best interests of anyone but themselves
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Maybe but it’s just a thought-terminating cliche that someone always throws out at any proposal at all besides shrugging your shoulders and accepting every problem.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      I disagree, this is an objection that applies to this particular solution. Its a global truth that corruption and tyranny is always a risk, but the amount of that risk varries with the solution proposed, and there are plenty of ways it could be mitigated to varrying degrees.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Devolving power to many smaller regional entities can offer a kind of open corruption that would be hard to pull off at a national level without attracting attention.
  - LoveMortuus 5y ago
    Still though, being able to turn off the recommendation algorithm is a good option to have.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Yes, any system that relies on a set of guardians to protect the masses from themselves has the strong potential to be tyranical. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. The standard solution of course is to divide up power and create checks and balances amongst trusted groups.

Sadly, I'm with you on this. My immediate reaction after reading that quote was "Who decides what constitutes well-being?" Unfortunately, the answer is whomever is in power.

blagie 5y ago

Honestly, the older I get, the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia. I get up. I have a communal exercise program in the morning. I work for some number of hours, while kids are at school. It's a 32 hour work week, but that's made up for with my 8 hours mandatory education. I'm guaranteed a job, a house, food, and medical care. I'm guaranteed retirement and disability too. There is no advertising. I don't have access to video games, alcohol, drugs, or Facebook. I can describe how I'd set one up, to guarantee personal freedoms and human rights, and reasonable systems of governance, but at the end of the day, I think "whomever is in power" will make better decisions about human well-being than the invisible hand of capitalism. I think China has some elements of the right approach: - Free markets for mass-produced commodities. - Socialized banks, resources, real estate, and other rent-collecting industries. - A hybrid for tech and information

brianhorakh 5y ago
China has a technocratic communisim which embraces capitalism since the 1970s. That includes the learnings and notes from a 5,000 year old administrative bueracracy corps formed by qishihuang of the first ming dynasty. China is doing great (today), however poor planning as recently as the 1970s lead to widespread food shortages and people selling their kids to butchers for cannabalism (so it still has capitalism is my point). I like china personally, it's not a utopia, but it is closer to utopia than anything I have experienced in the usa.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Unless you have to breathe the air in Beijing :)
  - beaunative 5y ago
    Pollution's gonna happen somewhere unless the way we manufacture changes radically. The US never solved the problem, it just outsourced it. Overall, I think progress's been made.
- blagie 5y ago
  China doesn't embrace capitalism. They're thoughtful about where they have and haven't embraced it. On the whole, I am glad for China. I like having multiple systems, and unlike many others, I feel like the government is trying very hard to improve, and sometimes succeeding. However, I think your view of it as closer to a utopia is a little disconnected from reality. The US is still a nicer place to live than China, unless you're a tourist. The gap has closed rapidly, but it's still there. I think each system has upsides and downsides. I'm glad for having multiple systems. I hope they can learn from each other. The Chinese concepts of meritocracy, family, and long-term planning, as well as the emphasis on education, would go a long ways here. I also like what's socialized and what isn't. I like weak IP laws and contracts; I think China's in the right place there now (I wouldn't have said so a few years back, where it was the wild west) The US still has lower corruption. The US is much more transparent. I also don't like the way Chinese politicians are kinda dicks, openly insulting the US. Then there's issues like Tibet, Honk Kong, Taiwan, and the Uighurs, as well as mass surveillance (although the US is not much better on the last one, as of late). I feel like at some point, China might find a chill government who will let a lot of those slide or move into a more balanced position. I hope they do. I can see path for China to really become closer to a utopia than virtually any other place right now.
whatshisface 5y ago
>It's a 32 hour work week, but that's made up for with my 8 hours mandatory education. What are you requesting be done to you if you are found to be truant from your mandatory education? That's the other side of laws that seems to be ignored in these kinds of proposals.
- blagie 5y ago
  In general, I'm a fan of little happening. In the same way as if I don't vacuum or make my bed, nothing happens, but it's what I'm expected to do. There's some social stigma, and little more. With classes, I guess I don't advance in my career as much. Critically, society would be structured with room for this, and a place I'm expected to be without distraction.
cercatrova 5y ago
> the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia A utopia for non-minorities, you mean? Because the 1930s were not necessarily a pleasant time for everyone involved.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- blagie 5y ago
  The 1930s were a horrible time, but had plenty of beautiful utopian visions of the future. That's when communism and fascism were sparring with democracy in Europe, China had the Kuomintang and CCP visions, the Soviet system was new, and so on. There was a lot of interesting political thought.
clouddrover 5y ago
> Honestly, the older I get, the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia Fundamentally all you're saying is that you're a child who needs to be told what to do. That is not compelling. The solution you're looking for is to grow up. You don't need a totalitarian government to do that for you. You can get that done on your own. > I can describe how I'd set one up, to guarantee personal freedoms and human rights, and reasonable systems of governance Maybe just do what Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are doing. They're not perfect, but they sound more like what you want while also allowing you to be an adult.
- blagie 5y ago
  No. I'm saying I like structure in my life. It's work to get that done on my own, and I'd like someone else to do that for me. I'm managing several major projects, and I like having a project manager tell me what to do. Before that, I had an admin to boss me around. At some point, I figured out that scheduling and planning all this stuff is no fun. If I wake up, and have a calendar of meetings, or a big block of time for writing, or whatever, I am much happier than if I'm planning it myself. If I have a project, deadlines are nice. I set them, but an RPM or admin can harass me to make sure I remember them and meet them. My project manager, and before that, my admin, report to me. It's not totalitarian at all. I don't see why a government needs to be totalitarian to structure my life. I think everyone should have a free basic home. I also think everyone should be welcome to buy a nicer home if they choose.
  - clouddrover 5y ago
    - blagie 5y ago
      In that case, you might be surprised at how many executives are childish.... ... There's a point in your life you learn to delegate.
      - clouddrover 5y ago
openknot 5y ago
I get the appeal of having structure, but I only think it works if it's voluntary to sign up for it. What you're describing sounds like a voluntary military enlistment (communal exercise, job, house, food, medical care, retirement, and disability), except with access to video games, alcohol, drugs, and Facebook (and also more hours). However, the system will fall apart if it's mandatory for all. People will shirk their 32-hour work week, do the bare minimum for 8 hours mandatory education (e.g. clicking through modules super fast, or Googling all of the answers), make their own video games (which would be great), go through the motions of mandatory exercise, brew alcohol, grow or synthesize drugs, and create their own social network, even via amateur radio. The counter-culture sounds a lot more fun. Also, the utopia is incompatible with people with dreams of becoming game developers, people who critique expensive wine, and people who spend a variable amount of time self-learning on their own, versus fixed hours. The imposition of how a person spends their time is a separate principle from guarantees of a job (an income guarantee is preferred, because a lot of people will effectively and potentially rationally do the bare minimum/no work at the job), housing, food, and medical care.

emodendroket 5y ago

If that's your objection then anything other than tyranny is impossible. By definition the people who do anything have power.

inamiyar 5y ago
the point is the people in power represent a limited set of elites that are not invested in the best interests of anyone but themselves
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Maybe but it’s just a thought-terminating cliche that someone always throws out at any proposal at all besides shrugging your shoulders and accepting every problem.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I disagree, this is an objection that applies to this particular solution. Its a global truth that corruption and tyranny is always a risk, but the amount of that risk varries with the solution proposed, and there are plenty of ways it could be mitigated to varrying degrees.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Devolving power to many smaller regional entities can offer a kind of open corruption that would be hard to pull off at a national level without attracting attention.
- LoveMortuus 5y ago
  Still though, being able to turn off the recommendation algorithm is a good option to have.
bawolff 5y ago
Yes, any system that relies on a set of guardians to protect the masses from themselves has the strong potential to be tyranical. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. The standard solution of course is to divide up power and create checks and balances amongst trusted groups.