5 ms·

Troll much?

• grandalf 15y ago
  It's not a troll. Why do governmental institutions deserve an ounce more (or less) credibility than non-governmental ones like the Gates Foundation or the Church of Scientology. We're all just in the habit of glorifying those who have power over us (or who once did) and treating nonsense like this as if it was a real honor. If you want to honor Ives, buy an Apple product.
  • sliverstorm 15y ago
    Err... government props up your life as you know it. You drive on public roads. You engage in an entire economy stabilized by FDIC backing and various other tactics. You are kept safe by public employees- policemen, firemen, et al. Yet you say we should find government no more credible than Scientology?
    • Stratego 15y ago
      In defining who merits respect? You're damned right it is no more credible than Scientology. What you're describing is a proper non-sequitur, why would a government's utility inform its credibility as an arbiter of respectability?
      • grandalf 15y ago
        I think that a government's legitimacy as an arbiter of anything depends on its overall credibility, which varies greatly between governments and within the institutions within governments.
    • grandalf 15y ago
      Not at all. The people who work in some government jobs benefit me, while others harm me. Ironically, whenever anyone tries to defend government the first thing they mention is the roads, which are less than 1% of the budget and an even smaller percentage of personnel, and toward which the actual work is done by locally contracted private firms. Sure, there are a lot of coordination problems that government tries (with varying degrees of success) to solve, but this doesn't put it beyond reproach. And it's certainly the case that even the US government has a fairly high degree of corruption, much of which diverts resources away from those in need toward those with political connections. So in my view, governments derive legitimacy from their ability to solve coordination problems, adapt to changing circumstances, and stave off policies that incentivize corruption or put human rights at risk. In the case of figurehead monarchies and the hereditary titles they grant, I think the best that could be said is that they offer nostalgia for a past era when such things mattered. In reality, vane humans strive to show status by meeting with royalty, since in spite of the monarchy's utter backwardness and absurdity, is still not something everyone gets to do, so the scarcity of the opportunity creates social value. The reality of knighthoods past is that they were titles awarded to warlords in exchange for tributes (aka voluntary taxes) paid to a more powerful warlord (aka king) who granted privileges, land, etc., in exchange for those tributes. This still happens today only w/o the pageantry: Imagine a US military truck with crates full of cash paying Afghan warlords for intel and mercenary troops. This is ugly business and there is no honor whatsoever in it.
      • sliverstorm 15y ago
        You may need to brush up on your use of "Ironically".
        • Tycho 15y ago
          What? He used it correctly...
          • sliverstorm 15y ago
            the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention Nope, doesn't qualify A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean something different from, or the opposite of what is written literally Don't see how this works either. I'll skip over Socratic irony and Dramatic irony- hopefully it is obvious this is neither. I could be wrong, of course. The colloquial & popular use is so different from the actual meaning of the word, I am never quite sure I have the right of it.
            • grandalf 15y ago
              See explanation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
          • vacri 15y ago
            No he didn't. Simplified, his statement reads "Ironically, those who defend government start by listing a thing provided by government that is a small facet of what they do". There's no irony there, no juxtaposition, no opposite. He's trying to get across the gist of "why the hell is it always roads!?", but it's frustration, not irony.
            • Tycho 15y ago
              It is ironic that the chief reason trumpeted by proponents of government action turns out to be a relatively part of their operations. It does the opposite of support their intention and presents a juxtaposition of what they think is a really good argument and what it actually amounts to. It would be like if I claimed male authors were better than female authors, then cited George Eliot as my first example of a great male author. That would be ironic.
  • EToS 15y ago
    The post was about honouring and giving recognition to a talented designer and craftsman. I personally dont see how appending anti-governmental sentiments to a thread like this are helpful. Whilst we're on the subject, gaining legitimacy through association has always been human social trait rather than one limited to governments, its a lot more prevalent than i fear anyone likes to admit.
    • grandalf 15y ago
      Why do we allow governments to control a scarce supply of "honor" that can be bestowed in circumstances like this? Legitimacy through association, honor from titles, etc., is part of a desperate, dark-ages mentality that is completely opposite to creativity, novelty, and the democratization of technology. Apple did not succeed b/c it made devices fit for kings, but because it made devices loved by normal people who use them to do actual work, not simply to inhabit a position enjoyed via birthright, etc. The amazing design of Apple products is based on smart supply chain provisioning, clever design, and judicious use of materials. Contrast this to the stolen gold wasted to make medallions, crowns, etc. The two just couldn't be further apart, and so yes it tremendously disappoints me that Ives didn't scoff at the supposed honor.
      • EToS 15y ago
        Governments (decent ones at least) should be elected representatives of the people, surely that makes them the best body to supply honors? I personally wish the Queen would have total control in this area though in the UK, as she is technically still the head of state. 'merit' as a concept doesnt have to be in opposition to any of the qualities mentioned, i dont believe democracy is about abolishing hierarchy, as much as it is offering equal opportunity into it. Ironically im more worried by Apple, which can manipulate customers left, right and center to make an extra buck: - Overpriced hardware - inconsistent pricing of products internationally - making deals with telecoms companies locking iphone users to certain providers - non-open platforms such as OSX and iOS - taking the free out of freebsd They are walking a close line themselves in promoting the anti-democratization of technology