5 ms·

I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? Do you think on some level the idea of some abstract 'government' t

I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? Do you think on some level the idea of some abstract 'government' taking care of things is just a narrative we apply to make ourselves feel better? Sure individual decision makers in that government can concretely affect reality, but beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'?

invig 4y ago
"think on some level the idea of some abstract" This! So much this! These conversations are being held at such a high level of abstraction that they don't make sense. It's one giant "feels" session.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Right. The National Health, turn of the century sanitation, widespread vaccination and the EPA are just all about "the feels".
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I think the parent point is that democracy is an illusion in that only few people have any real power, and the masses choosing government representatives is very different from the masses choosing policy. Did the population at large want National Health, sanitation, vaccination and the EPA? Or did a small group of people in government decide that was best for everyone. I suspect the latter, especially when looking at the National Health system that doesn’t seem to help as well as other systems. You’re right it’s not all “the feels”, but a lot is about making the population feel like they are looked after without doing much to actually look out for their best interests.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      > Did the population at large want National Health, sanitation, vaccination and the EPA? Yes. Literally every one of those was very popular when it was passed. The National Health in particular continues to be popular. The EPA was passed under Nixon and he did not veto it because the feeling that the need for it was so widespread that he didn't dare.
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        I’m not saying they weren’t popular, but that if you had actually implemented what the public wanted then you would have ended up with universal healthcare. Same with the EPA. It’s an improvement, so people like it, but it’s not what people actually want.
Mezzie 4y ago
> beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'? Basically. Or at least that's the impression I'm left with after spending a couple of years in politics work. I had a nice long breakdown.
- trendroid 4y ago
  Possible to Elaborate?
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    tl;dr: Nobody is steering the ship because they don't know they're on a ship. Or that the ocean exists. It's hard without doxxing myself or calling out specific people and organizations which I'd rather not because I'm a nobody and can't afford lawsuits, but for various reasons I ended up political education and marketing for civics advocacy. Ish. To be semi on topic, I know some people who are published in the WSJ (as well as the people who actually wrote the pieces). I'm also a 3rd generation tech nerd in my mid 30s so I'm very comfortable with the digital world - easily the most so outside of the actual software engineering team. I've spoken with and to a lot of politicians and candidates from across the US - mostly on the local and state level but some nationally. And journalists from publications that are high profile, professors of legal studies, heads of think tanks, etc. My read of the situation is that our political class is entangled in a snare of perverse disincentives for action while also being so disassociated from the world outside of their bubble that they've functionally no idea what's going on. Our systems (cultural, political, economic, etc.) have grown exponentially more complex in the past 30 years and those of us on HN (myself included) understand this and why this happened. I'm a 3rd generation tech nerd, I can explain pretty easily how we got here and why things are different. The political class, on the other hand, has had enough power to not need to adapt and to force other people to do things their way. If your 8500 year old senator wants payment by check and to send physical mail, you do it. (Politicians and candidates that would not use the internet were enough of a problem in 2020 that we had to account for it in our data + analyses and do specific no tech outreach). Since they didn't know how the world is changing, they also haven't been considering the effects of the changes at all. Furthermore, even those of them that have some idea still don't know how to problem solve systems instead of relationships. Complex systems thinking is the key skill needed to navigate these waters, and none of them have it. It's fucking terrifying. At best, they can conceive of systems where everything about them is known and their outputs can be precisely predicted. At best. Complex systems are beyond them. Add to this that we have a system which has slowly ground itself to a deadlocked halt. Congress has functionally abandoned most of its actual legislative duties because it's way better for sitting congresspeople to not pass any bills - if you don't do anything, then you don't piss any of your constituents off. Or make mistakes. And you can spend more time campaigning. I left and became a hedonist with a drug problem after a very frank conversation with a colleague who was my political opposite at the time. I'm always open to being wrong, and hearing that they didn't have any answer either was a very 'welp, we're fucked' moment. I'm getting better.
olao99 4y ago
history is a simplified, prettified story that we tell ourselves about how things happened.
beepbooptheory 4y ago
The more we remember the possibility of true collective self determination, the more likely we are to survive all this mess we're making. These days we are constantly bombarded by this contradiction of individualism being primary and desirable, but at the same time impotent in the face of the world this individualism has wrought. And its all a convenient way to demoralize us and let us forget how effective motivated collective interest is. Real history begins and ends with the collective!
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Yes. There is a reason that when Britain felt threatened by the turmoil in France they didn't just bar unions or political clubs. They banned "combination" almost entirely in general.
DubiousPusher 4y ago
The actions that idnoviduals take on behalf of government are a direct reflection of the "abstract" policies and laws of that government. If you cannot discern this from 20th century history I don't know what to tell you.
- davnicwil 4y ago
  Policies and laws aren't abstract, they're a good example in fact of what I said - things that have a concerete effect on reality typically authored by a small number of specific individuals within a government.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    1) You are the one who implied some abstract meta-conversation. I did not. 2) In a democracy, you get the policies you want through organization and direct action. Maybe I'm somehow entirely missing your point.
    - davnicwil 4y ago
      Yeah I think so, I also misinterpreted your quoted 'abstract' I think :-) Basically my main point (or question really, I am not sure in it) is that we should resist thinking about government as an abstract entiry different in character from any org - really what it does or looks after is just, in the end, some small set of humans doing some actions that have some effect. They're democratically elected yes, but that is a bit meaningless in the practical detail of any one given situation. In a sense it's not different, safer, or better, than some company led by some small set of individuals also makikg concrete decisons, for any one concrete decision. Maybe democracy and policy has some aggregate influence over all decisions, making them lean in a certain way. But it's not like 'the government' as an entity is one thing led by a concrete conciousness or plan. Does that make more sense?
runarberg 4y ago
> I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? That is like saying: “Aren’t human brains just series of neurons, firing at specific moments.” History is as much—if not more—about interactions between people, feedback loops, collective actions, collective reactions, environmental changes, etc. I would argue that the individual is really really insignificant next to the system this individual resides under, and interacts with.
- davnicwil 4y ago
  I think you're agreeing while arguing against my point :-) Like what is collective action, really? It's as you say - a series of individuals interacting, setting a course in a feedback loop, and then more people getting on board with that. It doesn't just happen, it takes individual instigators. It also doesn't just self-propagate. You need individuals, typically the same individuals, to show up regularly and consistently and make sure stuff happens and people are doing what they need to be doing.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    What you are arguing for is a philosophical position called atomism or reductionism, (which contrasts with holism). It is a rather old school philosophy honestly (with holism also being old school, but not quite as much) as we are are learning more how important interactions are really to study anything honestly. Modern philosophy of science kind of rejects the notion that you can study anything really by only looking at the atomic structure of it. This is to say, you can’t really study history by only looking at the actions of individual actors. Even in particle physics you have the 4 fundamental interactions, you have virtual particles, etc. not just. This isn’t to say that fermions and bosons aren’t important, it is just that it is hard to describe any physical phenomena without looking at the interactions between them. And in fact, by studying those interactions, you can derive certain laws and behaviors. History is no different, except the complexity is many many orders of magnitude greater.
    - davnicwil 4y ago
nborwankar 4y ago
Government does not actually “do” the executive action in everything. But government is a rough and messy consensus on the set of rules and constraints within which the “specific people doing concrete actions” act. Large scope actions that impact the public need to be within such rules and constraints. Historically CEO’s of large corporations have quite often acted so as to ignore said rules and constraints primarily for rapid aggregation of monopolistic power and concomitant profit. There is harm from monopolistic power in new and emerging industries hence government action via enforcement of rules and constraints is important. Individuals eg in the office of the AG may be the “specific people doing concrete actions” but they do it on behalf and with the full power and authority of the US Govt which acts through “specific people doing concrete actions”. It’s not an either or.

invig 4y ago

"think on some level the idea of some abstract" This! So much this! These conversations are being held at such a high level of abstraction that they don't make sense. It's one giant "feels" session.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
Right. The National Health, turn of the century sanitation, widespread vaccination and the EPA are just all about "the feels".
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I think the parent point is that democracy is an illusion in that only few people have any real power, and the masses choosing government representatives is very different from the masses choosing policy. Did the population at large want National Health, sanitation, vaccination and the EPA? Or did a small group of people in government decide that was best for everyone. I suspect the latter, especially when looking at the National Health system that doesn’t seem to help as well as other systems. You’re right it’s not all “the feels”, but a lot is about making the population feel like they are looked after without doing much to actually look out for their best interests.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    > Did the population at large want National Health, sanitation, vaccination and the EPA? Yes. Literally every one of those was very popular when it was passed. The National Health in particular continues to be popular. The EPA was passed under Nixon and he did not veto it because the feeling that the need for it was so widespread that he didn't dare.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I’m not saying they weren’t popular, but that if you had actually implemented what the public wanted then you would have ended up with universal healthcare. Same with the EPA. It’s an improvement, so people like it, but it’s not what people actually want.

Mezzie 4y ago

> beyond that are we just telling a story and really nobody is 'in control'? Basically. Or at least that's the impression I'm left with after spending a couple of years in politics work. I had a nice long breakdown.

trendroid 4y ago
Possible to Elaborate?
- Mezzie 4y ago
  tl;dr: Nobody is steering the ship because they don't know they're on a ship. Or that the ocean exists. It's hard without doxxing myself or calling out specific people and organizations which I'd rather not because I'm a nobody and can't afford lawsuits, but for various reasons I ended up political education and marketing for civics advocacy. Ish. To be semi on topic, I know some people who are published in the WSJ (as well as the people who actually wrote the pieces). I'm also a 3rd generation tech nerd in my mid 30s so I'm very comfortable with the digital world - easily the most so outside of the actual software engineering team. I've spoken with and to a lot of politicians and candidates from across the US - mostly on the local and state level but some nationally. And journalists from publications that are high profile, professors of legal studies, heads of think tanks, etc. My read of the situation is that our political class is entangled in a snare of perverse disincentives for action while also being so disassociated from the world outside of their bubble that they've functionally no idea what's going on. Our systems (cultural, political, economic, etc.) have grown exponentially more complex in the past 30 years and those of us on HN (myself included) understand this and why this happened. I'm a 3rd generation tech nerd, I can explain pretty easily how we got here and why things are different. The political class, on the other hand, has had enough power to not need to adapt and to force other people to do things their way. If your 8500 year old senator wants payment by check and to send physical mail, you do it. (Politicians and candidates that would not use the internet were enough of a problem in 2020 that we had to account for it in our data + analyses and do specific no tech outreach). Since they didn't know how the world is changing, they also haven't been considering the effects of the changes at all. Furthermore, even those of them that have some idea still don't know how to problem solve systems instead of relationships. Complex systems thinking is the key skill needed to navigate these waters, and none of them have it. It's fucking terrifying. At best, they can conceive of systems where everything about them is known and their outputs can be precisely predicted. At best. Complex systems are beyond them. Add to this that we have a system which has slowly ground itself to a deadlocked halt. Congress has functionally abandoned most of its actual legislative duties because it's way better for sitting congresspeople to not pass any bills - if you don't do anything, then you don't piss any of your constituents off. Or make mistakes. And you can spend more time campaigning. I left and became a hedonist with a drug problem after a very frank conversation with a colleague who was my political opposite at the time. I'm always open to being wrong, and hearing that they didn't have any answer either was a very 'welp, we're fucked' moment. I'm getting better.

olao99 4y ago

history is a simplified, prettified story that we tell ourselves about how things happened.

beepbooptheory 4y ago

The more we remember the possibility of true collective self determination, the more likely we are to survive all this mess we're making. These days we are constantly bombarded by this contradiction of individualism being primary and desirable, but at the same time impotent in the face of the world this individualism has wrought. And its all a convenient way to demoralize us and let us forget how effective motivated collective interest is. Real history begins and ends with the collective!

DubiousPusher 4y ago
Yes. There is a reason that when Britain felt threatened by the turmoil in France they didn't just bar unions or political clubs. They banned "combination" almost entirely in general.

DubiousPusher 4y ago

The actions that idnoviduals take on behalf of government are a direct reflection of the "abstract" policies and laws of that government. If you cannot discern this from 20th century history I don't know what to tell you.

davnicwil 4y ago
Policies and laws aren't abstract, they're a good example in fact of what I said - things that have a concerete effect on reality typically authored by a small number of specific individuals within a government.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  1) You are the one who implied some abstract meta-conversation. I did not. 2) In a democracy, you get the policies you want through organization and direct action. Maybe I'm somehow entirely missing your point.
  - davnicwil 4y ago
    Yeah I think so, I also misinterpreted your quoted 'abstract' I think :-) Basically my main point (or question really, I am not sure in it) is that we should resist thinking about government as an abstract entiry different in character from any org - really what it does or looks after is just, in the end, some small set of humans doing some actions that have some effect. They're democratically elected yes, but that is a bit meaningless in the practical detail of any one given situation. In a sense it's not different, safer, or better, than some company led by some small set of individuals also makikg concrete decisons, for any one concrete decision. Maybe democracy and policy has some aggregate influence over all decisions, making them lean in a certain way. But it's not like 'the government' as an entity is one thing led by a concrete conciousness or plan. Does that make more sense?

runarberg 4y ago

> I don't know, isn't history really just a series of specific people doing concrete actions? That is like saying: “Aren’t human brains just series of neurons, firing at specific moments.” History is as much—if not more—about interactions between people, feedback loops, collective actions, collective reactions, environmental changes, etc. I would argue that the individual is really really insignificant next to the system this individual resides under, and interacts with.

davnicwil 4y ago
I think you're agreeing while arguing against my point :-) Like what is collective action, really? It's as you say - a series of individuals interacting, setting a course in a feedback loop, and then more people getting on board with that. It doesn't just happen, it takes individual instigators. It also doesn't just self-propagate. You need individuals, typically the same individuals, to show up regularly and consistently and make sure stuff happens and people are doing what they need to be doing.
- runarberg 4y ago
  What you are arguing for is a philosophical position called atomism or reductionism, (which contrasts with holism). It is a rather old school philosophy honestly (with holism also being old school, but not quite as much) as we are are learning more how important interactions are really to study anything honestly. Modern philosophy of science kind of rejects the notion that you can study anything really by only looking at the atomic structure of it. This is to say, you can’t really study history by only looking at the actions of individual actors. Even in particle physics you have the 4 fundamental interactions, you have virtual particles, etc. not just. This isn’t to say that fermions and bosons aren’t important, it is just that it is hard to describe any physical phenomena without looking at the interactions between them. And in fact, by studying those interactions, you can derive certain laws and behaviors. History is no different, except the complexity is many many orders of magnitude greater.
  - davnicwil 4y ago

nborwankar 4y ago

Government does not actually “do” the executive action in everything. But government is a rough and messy consensus on the set of rules and constraints within which the “specific people doing concrete actions” act. Large scope actions that impact the public need to be within such rules and constraints. Historically CEO’s of large corporations have quite often acted so as to ignore said rules and constraints primarily for rapid aggregation of monopolistic power and concomitant profit. There is harm from monopolistic power in new and emerging industries hence government action via enforcement of rules and constraints is important. Individuals eg in the office of the AG may be the “specific people doing concrete actions” but they do it on behalf and with the full power and authority of the US Govt which acts through “specific people doing concrete actions”. It’s not an either or.