3 ms·

If your only concern is self interest, you should consider what happens to the "elite" in a revolution. The phrase "civil unrest" is far too tame; it doesn't e

If your only concern is self interest, you should consider what happens to the "elite" in a revolution. The phrase "civil unrest" is far too tame; it doesn't even begin to conjure the horrors that people are capable of when they get angry enough.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Isn't the angry mob also acting in self interest? If the well-being of others is what they actually care about, why can't they enjoy the well-being of the likes of Richard Branson? Anyway, if death is the price you have to pay for living a life true to yourself, in accordance with your values, in accordance with what you think is right and not what you think will appease some hypothetical angry mob, then so be it. Surely it's better to live a short life true to what you believe, than a slightly longer life lacking any sense of integrity.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Yes, the angry mob is acting according to the values you espouse here. That's the natural consequence of pure self interest. And that's why pure self interest is something to be avoided even by people who only care about themselves. Some elites might imagine that they can remain on top forever, unaffected by the violence and oppression they inflict on others. History suggests otherwise.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Maybe it's supposed to be a cycle of elites climbing to the top and being overthrown. Maybe that's like the seasons, it just happens every few hundred years. Sucks for those involved, but that's what human societies do. We even had the cycle of elite-formation and power-accumulation into civil unrest and collapse happen in the Soviet union, which was literally engineered to prevent this exact thing from happening, complete with profound socialist indoctrination of the population. They weren't supposed to be self-interested, yet when it came down to it, they were. Overall I'm fairly skeptical toward the notion that societies can be designed at all, to a meaningful degree. What fundamentally shapes the human societies is human nature which is self-interested and largely immutable. You can try to force it, to artificially make societies that contradict human nature through the imposition of rules, but that's if anything even more volatile, because that makes all their citizens unhappy, like animals in a zoo.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      Well, I think you've found the answer to your original question: why not ignore inequality? As you said: the "cycle of elites climbing to the top and being overthrown...sucks for those involved". Having acknowledged that it sucks, why not try to improve it?
      - marginalia_nu 4y ago
        I've seen no credible evidence it can be improved, all attempts at doing so, and we've been at this for over a hundred years now, all attempts at doing so have sucked for those involved, in a real dystopian boot-stomping-on-face-forever sort of a way. The problem is that while you can convince someone briefly that your new utopia is a good idea, as the years go by, people start having other ideas, they start wanting things. Self-interest never really went away. So you need to stop them from thinking wrong and wanting the wrong things and having the wrong ideas, and the only way to do that is through oppressive totalitarianism. Human institutions ossify and start to serve the ends of their own power accumulation, no matter how noble their initial ideals and goals were.
        leereeves 4y ago
        The original proposal wasn't "we should enforce a socialist utopia", it was: > If you have the benefit of this inequality, you should use it to ensure the availability of life’s necessities That's an individual decision, not an oppressive dystopian institution. In fact, one way we could start working on reducing inequality is to reduce the oppressive dystopian elements of our current institutions. And toward that end, we should note that any elite privileges you may enjoy ultimately rest on the ability to call on the government to use force on your behalf.
- imtringued 4y ago
  They can't enjoy the wellbeing of starvation.
411111111111111 4y ago
From my point of view (which likely differs from marzinalia_nu's) the question isn't really about why we think it matters and more about why the people holding the vast majority of money should care about it. My personal worldview is quiet bleak and I'm very glad to already be in the middle of my thirties, because I struggle to find a reason which would matter to them. I don't think there is any chance we'll avoid mass murder on the average people at this point, and I doubt the average software developer will escape unharmed either long term. Hopefully after I'm dead though.
- stavros 4y ago
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    o rly? Should I notify the police that you've just made a death thread? I'm not sure why you think such an escalation was necessary from that comment.
    - stavros 4y ago
      I'm pointing out that if you're hoping for stuff to happen after you die, you can kill yourself before it happens. I don't see why you think I was making a death threat, but feel free to notify anyone you like.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

Isn't the angry mob also acting in self interest? If the well-being of others is what they actually care about, why can't they enjoy the well-being of the likes of Richard Branson? Anyway, if death is the price you have to pay for living a life true to yourself, in accordance with your values, in accordance with what you think is right and not what you think will appease some hypothetical angry mob, then so be it. Surely it's better to live a short life true to what you believe, than a slightly longer life lacking any sense of integrity.

leereeves 4y ago
Yes, the angry mob is acting according to the values you espouse here. That's the natural consequence of pure self interest. And that's why pure self interest is something to be avoided even by people who only care about themselves. Some elites might imagine that they can remain on top forever, unaffected by the violence and oppression they inflict on others. History suggests otherwise.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Maybe it's supposed to be a cycle of elites climbing to the top and being overthrown. Maybe that's like the seasons, it just happens every few hundred years. Sucks for those involved, but that's what human societies do. We even had the cycle of elite-formation and power-accumulation into civil unrest and collapse happen in the Soviet union, which was literally engineered to prevent this exact thing from happening, complete with profound socialist indoctrination of the population. They weren't supposed to be self-interested, yet when it came down to it, they were. Overall I'm fairly skeptical toward the notion that societies can be designed at all, to a meaningful degree. What fundamentally shapes the human societies is human nature which is self-interested and largely immutable. You can try to force it, to artificially make societies that contradict human nature through the imposition of rules, but that's if anything even more volatile, because that makes all their citizens unhappy, like animals in a zoo.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Well, I think you've found the answer to your original question: why not ignore inequality? As you said: the "cycle of elites climbing to the top and being overthrown...sucks for those involved". Having acknowledged that it sucks, why not try to improve it?
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      I've seen no credible evidence it can be improved, all attempts at doing so, and we've been at this for over a hundred years now, all attempts at doing so have sucked for those involved, in a real dystopian boot-stomping-on-face-forever sort of a way. The problem is that while you can convince someone briefly that your new utopia is a good idea, as the years go by, people start having other ideas, they start wanting things. Self-interest never really went away. So you need to stop them from thinking wrong and wanting the wrong things and having the wrong ideas, and the only way to do that is through oppressive totalitarianism. Human institutions ossify and start to serve the ends of their own power accumulation, no matter how noble their initial ideals and goals were.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        The original proposal wasn't "we should enforce a socialist utopia", it was: > If you have the benefit of this inequality, you should use it to ensure the availability of life’s necessities That's an individual decision, not an oppressive dystopian institution. In fact, one way we could start working on reducing inequality is to reduce the oppressive dystopian elements of our current institutions. And toward that end, we should note that any elite privileges you may enjoy ultimately rest on the ability to call on the government to use force on your behalf.
imtringued 4y ago
They can't enjoy the wellbeing of starvation.

411111111111111 4y ago

From my point of view (which likely differs from marzinalia_nu's) the question isn't really about why we think it matters and more about why the people holding the vast majority of money should care about it. My personal worldview is quiet bleak and I'm very glad to already be in the middle of my thirties, because I struggle to find a reason which would matter to them. I don't think there is any chance we'll avoid mass murder on the average people at this point, and I doubt the average software developer will escape unharmed either long term. Hopefully after I'm dead though.

stavros 4y ago
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  o rly? Should I notify the police that you've just made a death thread? I'm not sure why you think such an escalation was necessary from that comment.
  - stavros 4y ago
    I'm pointing out that if you're hoping for stuff to happen after you die, you can kill yourself before it happens. I don't see why you think I was making a death threat, but feel free to notify anyone you like.