2 ms·

>> "...people who disagree with my opinion are ..." No, merely pointing out how those shibboleths are used. Demagogic and populist politicians of all stripes

by toss1 4y ago

>> "...people who disagree with my opinion are ..." No, merely pointing out how those shibboleths are used. Demagogic and populist politicians of all stripes consistently oversimplify and divert blame for their followers problems, and do it consistently to get them to vote against their own best interests. We have an advanced technological society of vast scale and complexity. Without very substantial continual investment and reinvestment in infrastructure, standards, management, governance, defense, R&D, and science, it literally would not continue to work. If you think not, provide one counterexample of a similarly advanced and complex society that actually worked in your ungoverned libertarian fantasy. >>It is also always tempting and/or an organizational tendency to oversell increasingly more complex solutions. With intellectually ambitious people coming in to make a living out of managing the bureaucracy and ride the inefficiencies they helped create. Yup, there are always some fringe people and professional scammers who will attempt to overcomplicate things to their own advantage. Any sufficiently scaled-up organization or process will have inefficiencies, and even microscopic percentages of budgetary waste can look like high nominal numbers when the overall amount is in the trillions. Squawking about the waste in this way is an example of such oversimplifying demagoguery, so thank you for providing an example ("see, govt has big people making inefficiency for themselves, so let's eliminate govt').

coldtea 4y ago
>We have an advanced technological society of vast scale and complexity. Without very substantial continual investment and reinvestment in infrastructure, standards, management, governance, defense, R&D, and science, it literally would not continue to work. Well, some people also think it doesn't work, and it shouldn't continue to operate badly, with all the externalities cost and inefficiencies... And that we don't need "exponentially more" but to do with less, and distribute it better.
- toss1 4y ago
  Less may be fine to a point, but exponentially less is demonstrably bad. I used to feel the same way about the default should be no govt until I started looking at the system dynamics. I notice you provide no example of a highly advanced society over 100 million people with a massively lightweight government. As we even approach that scale, the data show that actually MORE govt is better, e.g., the numerous studies showing both better wealth & resources distribution and unrivaled overall happiness in the Nordic countries more govt, better distributed. One huge problem with any gathering of people is that some will always try to arrogate to themselves the control over all the resources - without a collective government of some kind, you wind up with warlords in political space or oligarchs in the economic space, and the resources and freedom are all consumed by the few... As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.". No govt or even tiny govt isn't a valid option. If it was, we'd see libertarian paradises arising the various failed states around the globe. With not a lot of funds, like minded no-govt types could just go and setup to do anything they want where there is a literal absence of govt. But it turns out that you can't get anything done, literally, when there's no damn roads, communication, laws, or other infrastructure...

by toss1 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago

>We have an advanced technological society of vast scale and complexity. Without very substantial continual investment and reinvestment in infrastructure, standards, management, governance, defense, R&D, and science, it literally would not continue to work. Well, some people also think it doesn't work, and it shouldn't continue to operate badly, with all the externalities cost and inefficiencies... And that we don't need "exponentially more" but to do with less, and distribute it better.

toss1 4y ago
Less may be fine to a point, but exponentially less is demonstrably bad. I used to feel the same way about the default should be no govt until I started looking at the system dynamics. I notice you provide no example of a highly advanced society over 100 million people with a massively lightweight government. As we even approach that scale, the data show that actually MORE govt is better, e.g., the numerous studies showing both better wealth & resources distribution and unrivaled overall happiness in the Nordic countries more govt, better distributed. One huge problem with any gathering of people is that some will always try to arrogate to themselves the control over all the resources - without a collective government of some kind, you wind up with warlords in political space or oligarchs in the economic space, and the resources and freedom are all consumed by the few... As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.". No govt or even tiny govt isn't a valid option. If it was, we'd see libertarian paradises arising the various failed states around the globe. With not a lot of funds, like minded no-govt types could just go and setup to do anything they want where there is a literal absence of govt. But it turns out that you can't get anything done, literally, when there's no damn roads, communication, laws, or other infrastructure...