5 ms·

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 amou

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
        Gonna be honest dude, that paragraph barely made any sense. I think productive conversation is done here
        sebastianconcpt 4y ago
        Then I have no choice but agree there is a limit right there dude. But take a picture and read it again in 2032 see if it still doesn't "make any sense". The prediction is that it will because the culture war won't stop at your limit of understanding (and I'm not even blaming you for expressing that limit, as not understanding it is the designed behavioral default in our societies). I've enjoyed your honest dialogue attempt. Take care.

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
      Gonna be honest dude, that paragraph barely made any sense. I think productive conversation is done here
      - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
        Then I have no choice but agree there is a limit right there dude. But take a picture and read it again in 2032 see if it still doesn't "make any sense". The prediction is that it will because the culture war won't stop at your limit of understanding (and I'm not even blaming you for expressing that limit, as not understanding it is the designed behavioral default in our societies). I've enjoyed your honest dialogue attempt. Take care.