3 ms·

So you are comparing idiots that fall for "financial advice" on youtube to pregnant women who were given a radioactive cocktail without knowing about it? You s

by lynx23 4y ago

So you are comparing idiots that fall for "financial advice" on youtube to pregnant women who were given a radioactive cocktail without knowing about it? You seem to confirm that everyone has different sort of values...

dale_glass 4y ago
I'm saying that if you don't trust the "establishment", then other people will very gladly take its place. The only solution I see is to fix the "establishment", because the alternative seems to be mostly a free-for-all where everyone tries to convince you that they have your best interests at heart, and I don't see how not being part of the government suddenly makes one trustworthy.
- pigeonhole123 4y ago
  Blind trust in a centralized authority is by no means necessary. You can for example just not put blind trust in other people, and teach your children to understand other people's lack of aligned incentives. A free-for-all is called free speech and freedom of association, where people are responsible for their own choices. You are responsible in the end anyway, since none of these central authorities will be there for you when they fuck up.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > Blind trust in a centralized authority is by no means necessary. Definitely not blind. The trust has to be earned, and there has to be oversight. > You can for example just not put blind trust in other people, and teach your children to understand other people's lack of aligned incentives. A free-for-all is called free speech and freedom of association, where people are responsible for their own choices. You are responsible in the end anyway, since none of these central authorities will be there for you when they fuck up. I don't think this is viable long-term. I see it as a defect, in some measure. You can't be an expert on computers, and engineering, and food safety, and economics, and health. Each of those subjects is completely gigantic in modern times, and we can't expect the population at large to figure out how to tell which restaurant will poison them. Those are valuable skills, but IMO in society at large they're at best a contingency measure. We specialized for a reason, and that means that all of us will have huge holes in our knowledge somewhere.
  - Haga 4y ago
    [dead]
- lynx23 4y ago
  Sure, trust in centralized hierarchies as much as you like. IMO, the problem is more linked to missing accountability then trust in whatever system is called establishment. A single doctor is enough to do a lot of harm. If we, as a society, are not able to enforce heavy penalties even for those who seem priviledged, we are lost. Because a few bad apples can do whatever they want, without fearing repercussions. And people like you will come up and point "Hey, the establishment isn't at fault" and pretend nothing happened.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    No, my point is that the establishment is at fault, but the only real solution isn't to reject it and seek non-establishment alternatives, but to fix it.
- brvsft 4y ago
  > I don't see how not being part of the government suddenly makes one trustworthy. Blatant strawman.

by lynx23 4y ago

dale_glass 4y ago

I'm saying that if you don't trust the "establishment", then other people will very gladly take its place. The only solution I see is to fix the "establishment", because the alternative seems to be mostly a free-for-all where everyone tries to convince you that they have your best interests at heart, and I don't see how not being part of the government suddenly makes one trustworthy.

pigeonhole123 4y ago
Blind trust in a centralized authority is by no means necessary. You can for example just not put blind trust in other people, and teach your children to understand other people's lack of aligned incentives. A free-for-all is called free speech and freedom of association, where people are responsible for their own choices. You are responsible in the end anyway, since none of these central authorities will be there for you when they fuck up.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > Blind trust in a centralized authority is by no means necessary. Definitely not blind. The trust has to be earned, and there has to be oversight. > You can for example just not put blind trust in other people, and teach your children to understand other people's lack of aligned incentives. A free-for-all is called free speech and freedom of association, where people are responsible for their own choices. You are responsible in the end anyway, since none of these central authorities will be there for you when they fuck up. I don't think this is viable long-term. I see it as a defect, in some measure. You can't be an expert on computers, and engineering, and food safety, and economics, and health. Each of those subjects is completely gigantic in modern times, and we can't expect the population at large to figure out how to tell which restaurant will poison them. Those are valuable skills, but IMO in society at large they're at best a contingency measure. We specialized for a reason, and that means that all of us will have huge holes in our knowledge somewhere.
- Haga 4y ago
  [dead]
lynx23 4y ago
Sure, trust in centralized hierarchies as much as you like. IMO, the problem is more linked to missing accountability then trust in whatever system is called establishment. A single doctor is enough to do a lot of harm. If we, as a society, are not able to enforce heavy penalties even for those who seem priviledged, we are lost. Because a few bad apples can do whatever they want, without fearing repercussions. And people like you will come up and point "Hey, the establishment isn't at fault" and pretend nothing happened.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  No, my point is that the establishment is at fault, but the only real solution isn't to reject it and seek non-establishment alternatives, but to fix it.
brvsft 4y ago
> I don't see how not being part of the government suddenly makes one trustworthy. Blatant strawman.