14 ms·

You are basically agreeing with what I've said then. Political class power expansion is always growing. A little regulation removal, a little pullback, doesn't

You are basically agreeing with what I've said then. Political class power expansion is always growing. A little regulation removal, a little pullback, doesn't make them not to stay power growth bullish. If you see that rule isn't fair to what is generally happening countries, please prove me wrong, show me in history in what countries the political class went bear on power growth without a revolt or revolution. Again, not a little pullback, but a bearish correction. What are the chances of the political class individuals current psychology suddenly make them agree, collectively enough, to say "hey, let's make ourselves this amount of less powerful for the benefit of the people"? It simply doesn't happen because before even trying, their propaganda collapses so bad that people revolts on the realization of the lies and revolt and replace their political class or even system. The left is a master at this by the way, that's why a good limiting constitution might be the last source of hope.

lovich 4y ago
I’m not basically agreeing with you. You are declaring that any class of pullback short of a revolution doesn’t count as fixing itself. I fundamentally do not agree with that viewpoint.
- sebastianconcpt 4y ago
  Well by "fixing itself" you seem to be talking about something else. Maybe functionalism or utilitarianism. But my thesis is not about function, it's about amount of population behavioral control (power). You didn't denied that "the political class power expansion is always growing" (being bullish on that dimension)
  - lovich 4y ago
    I do deny it. Governments reducing the amount of regulation they have on society is the opposite of power expansion. You seem to be of the mindset that governments cannot improve as an axiom and only the free market can. I categorically disagree with that kind of view
    - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
      As you can see in me questioning: > What are the chances of the political class individuals current psychology suddenly make them agree, collectively enough, to say "hey, let's make ourselves this amount of less powerful for the benefit of the people"? I am leaving that quantity of chances as theoretical room for the possibility, so no, you saying I have an axiomatic "mindset" about it demonstrates an issue you have reading my "mindset". In any case, we're digressing, you have way more faith in the political class than I could ever have. That is way too much blue pill for me.
      - lovich 4y ago
        > As you can see in me questioning: > What are the chances of the political class individuals current psychology suddenly make them agree, collectively enough, to say "hey, let's make ourselves this amount of less powerful for the benefit of the people"? The chances? Definitely more than the zero you make them out to be because they have explicitly reduced their power in the past. If you want an exact number that's a ridiculous ask. >I am leaving that quantity of chances as theoretical room for the possibility, so no, you saying I have an axiomatic "mindset" about it demonstrates an issue you have reading my "mindset". I am referring to you having an "axiomatic mindset" in regards to the government never improving, because you literally said >No, goverments never shrink themselves. The political class only vote for power growth over the population. If that was in the heat of the moment and needs to be modified to be more specific, I'm willing to hear it. But if you are standing by that statement I can't see any interpretation other than that you believe governments are incapable of improvement with regards to releasing power
        sebastianconcpt 4y ago
        Is not a bad discussion to have but the problem we have is that we can engage in an utilitarian/functional debate of option A being more beneficial for society than option B. The problem we have is that as much as we can stay in that realm, which is a civilizational realm, there are too many ideologues that pose as they care about "beneficial" things for society but they secretly are engaged in a sort of anti-civilizational religious war where argument doesn't matter: only them gaining more power over you and you just obeying more the rules, taxes and regulations they infinitely vomit. So as much I am not axiomatic, I am pragmatic in not willingly ignore these radicals. Have you heard about Negative Dialectics?

lovich 4y ago

I’m not basically agreeing with you. You are declaring that any class of pullback short of a revolution doesn’t count as fixing itself. I fundamentally do not agree with that viewpoint.

sebastianconcpt 4y ago
Well by "fixing itself" you seem to be talking about something else. Maybe functionalism or utilitarianism. But my thesis is not about function, it's about amount of population behavioral control (power). You didn't denied that "the political class power expansion is always growing" (being bullish on that dimension)
- lovich 4y ago
  I do deny it. Governments reducing the amount of regulation they have on society is the opposite of power expansion. You seem to be of the mindset that governments cannot improve as an axiom and only the free market can. I categorically disagree with that kind of view
  - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
    As you can see in me questioning: > What are the chances of the political class individuals current psychology suddenly make them agree, collectively enough, to say "hey, let's make ourselves this amount of less powerful for the benefit of the people"? I am leaving that quantity of chances as theoretical room for the possibility, so no, you saying I have an axiomatic "mindset" about it demonstrates an issue you have reading my "mindset". In any case, we're digressing, you have way more faith in the political class than I could ever have. That is way too much blue pill for me.
    - lovich 4y ago
      > As you can see in me questioning: > What are the chances of the political class individuals current psychology suddenly make them agree, collectively enough, to say "hey, let's make ourselves this amount of less powerful for the benefit of the people"? The chances? Definitely more than the zero you make them out to be because they have explicitly reduced their power in the past. If you want an exact number that's a ridiculous ask. >I am leaving that quantity of chances as theoretical room for the possibility, so no, you saying I have an axiomatic "mindset" about it demonstrates an issue you have reading my "mindset". I am referring to you having an "axiomatic mindset" in regards to the government never improving, because you literally said >No, goverments never shrink themselves. The political class only vote for power growth over the population. If that was in the heat of the moment and needs to be modified to be more specific, I'm willing to hear it. But if you are standing by that statement I can't see any interpretation other than that you believe governments are incapable of improvement with regards to releasing power
      - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
        Is not a bad discussion to have but the problem we have is that we can engage in an utilitarian/functional debate of option A being more beneficial for society than option B. The problem we have is that as much as we can stay in that realm, which is a civilizational realm, there are too many ideologues that pose as they care about "beneficial" things for society but they secretly are engaged in a sort of anti-civilizational religious war where argument doesn't matter: only them gaining more power over you and you just obeying more the rules, taxes and regulations they infinitely vomit. So as much I am not axiomatic, I am pragmatic in not willingly ignore these radicals. Have you heard about Negative Dialectics?