4 ms·

Looking back on prior eras of human history, we wonder why people accepted that the state should have the power to make gross infringements on their basic human

Looking back on prior eras of human history, we wonder why people accepted that the state should have the power to make gross infringements on their basic human rights, like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and so on. In the future, humans will look back on our era and wonder why we accepted the idea that governments should have so much power to interfere with the economy. A stable currency is a basic human right.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
solardev 3y ago
(deleted my previous comment)
ta1243 3y ago
Or people will look back and wonder why they weren't protected by their government as "the economy" failed to deliver time and time again. Not every culture shares your libertarian fantasies. Nor do they share your specific limits on free speech (such as copyright) or your disdain for their limits (such as limit on hate speech)
- graphe 3y ago
  Why would topics he mentioned such as "freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and so on" need to be trampled to "protect" it's people/economy from "libertarianism". Which culture hates those things?
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    Plenty of cultures criticize these freedoms, just differently phrased (traditional values, central role of a family, blasphemy...)
    - graphe 3y ago
      I'll word it differently: he seems very politically biased about the economy and makes it a social issue, having a dictatorship on speech and making everyone stop wrongthink or keeping copyright forever isn't going to improve GDP or economy.
      - ta1243 3y ago
        You seem to think that improving GDP is a goal. Many cultures don't think that, they look at the damage from a high GDP and think that it is more important that the environment is protected. If you banned the burning of oil in the US, that would be awful for GDP, but many americans would like that. You seem to think that the ideals of the American view of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and ever increasing GDP, are inalienable. That's a very myopic view of the world.
        graphe 3y ago
        We're talking about the economy so the GDP matters, not the social aspects so it does matter. Culture isn't government either. I don't think the US citizens today agree with the us government. But I don't talk about them interchangeably as you do, perhaps you could somewhat make a case for china but most cultures don't associate the citizens as one with government. >If you banned the burning of oil in the US, that would be awful for GDP, but many americans would like that. If I banned it, nobody would listen to me because people need to heat their homes, and get food to live. You don't get to pretend to turn off the power, lower the GPD a little and say "many Americans happy". That is fantasy.
        addicted 3y ago
        Which cultures don’t have improving GDP, or more accurately, becoming wealthier, because GDP is just a metric to measure wealth (and an unfortunately inaccurate one at that) as a goal?
        ta1243 3y ago
        There's plenty of criticism about GDP https://time.com/5118026/gdp-metric-success-wealth/ https://time.com/5118026/gdp-metric-success-wealth/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/forget-gdp-for-the-21st-century-we-need-a-modern-economic-measure/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/forget-gdp-for-the-21... And many cultures think that a few large companies getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer is not a worthy goal. You may not think that, but given that plenty of people think GDP is terrible now. I'm not sure how you can assert a future culture will look back and go "In the future, humans will look back on our era and wonder why we accepted the idea that governments should have so much power to interfere with the economy" I personally think it's much more likely they'll look back in disgust at the companies that put GDP above other factors, and the governments which didn't interfere with the economy would be the ones to blame given that many cultures today think that.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    As I say, the US does not like certain speech, but it does like other speech. Some cultures do not like "freedom of religion" either. For an example which mixes them both, the US protects the Westboro Baptist Church, many cultures wouldn't. The US criminalises people using freedom of speech to copy a movie, many cultures are quite happy with that. The US limits incitement to suicide, libel, threats, all sorts of things. US law is even at odds with what many consider US culture -- they tried banning, and there's always larges movements to ban burning a piece of cloth. The US world view is not the only valid one. It limits speech in one way and allows it in another, same with religion. The merger of "economy" with "people" is another world view that not everyone agrees with. The American view is generally growth and free trade should be allowed, but even America has limitations on that, and those limits go more that others in some areas and less in others. Many cultures -- including western ones -- look at Reganomics and deregluation as something that should not be allowed despite . A future civilisation will hopefully look back at the difference between how the rich live in their penthouses and how someone sleeping rough in San Francisco and think "how terrible was america to allow this"
quonn 3y ago
A currency is a tool, not a store for wealth. Stability is to be balanced against employment and economic productivity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 3y ago
You can't inflation-proof purchasing power against price rises, and trying to ration out a truly fixed money supply against a growing economy creates other problems. But Turkey really has just chosen a disastrous path through Erdogan and his poor economic understanding. (not unusual, of course, we got a tiny blip of this in the UK during the brief reign of Liz Truss, but the electorate are willing to punish that and do not prioritize culture war over economic stability. Yet.)
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  It doesn't really cause problems. Academic economists claim deflation is destructive, but it's a misanalysis caused by extrapolating from a tiny number of samples and ignoring all the counter evidence. If you have a fixed monetary base and the economy grows, all that happens is that things get cheaper, which is what you'd intuitively expect if a society gets wealthier. Economists claim that this will trigger hoarding cycles but this is a strange almost pseudo-psychological claim. It doesn't happen in reality, where there are many examples of prices falling continuously over time in a sector without it causing recession within that sector.
addicted 3y ago
> A stable currency is a basic human right. This is just a complete misunderstanding of what a currency is.
- guidoism 3y ago
  Indeed. Additionally I’m sick of people using “human right” to describe every conceivable characteristic of an ideal modern society. Some things should be basic and a minimum and other characteristics should be add-ons you get for advancing civilization. Pooling them all together waters down the most important ones.
  - tim333 3y ago
    I dare say 'human rights' are a list of things people agree to go for and you can make up new ones. I could back the right to a reasonably stable currency. I think it might make more sense than the right to paid holidays (UDHR article 24).
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    It also allows the usual culprits to reject the whole package as "western cultural imperialism" which is why you can find dictator shills load up the concept with every ridiculous western concept to the breaking point.
- d_burfoot 3y ago
  All rights are phrased in terms of nebulous concepts such as "religion", "speech", or "arms". But more importantly, my statement is not about external facts. It's a statement of who I am willing to ally with and befriend. Any person who substantially agrees with me about what rights must be protected is my friend and ally. Any person who substantially disagrees is at best a neutral bystander (if he does not try to interfere with my rights) and at worst a bitter enemy (if he actively tries to suppress my rights).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

solardev 3y ago

(deleted my previous comment)

ta1243 3y ago

Or people will look back and wonder why they weren't protected by their government as "the economy" failed to deliver time and time again. Not every culture shares your libertarian fantasies. Nor do they share your specific limits on free speech (such as copyright) or your disdain for their limits (such as limit on hate speech)

graphe 3y ago
Why would topics he mentioned such as "freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and so on" need to be trampled to "protect" it's people/economy from "libertarianism". Which culture hates those things?
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Plenty of cultures criticize these freedoms, just differently phrased (traditional values, central role of a family, blasphemy...)
  - graphe 3y ago
    I'll word it differently: he seems very politically biased about the economy and makes it a social issue, having a dictatorship on speech and making everyone stop wrongthink or keeping copyright forever isn't going to improve GDP or economy.
    - ta1243 3y ago
      You seem to think that improving GDP is a goal. Many cultures don't think that, they look at the damage from a high GDP and think that it is more important that the environment is protected. If you banned the burning of oil in the US, that would be awful for GDP, but many americans would like that. You seem to think that the ideals of the American view of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and ever increasing GDP, are inalienable. That's a very myopic view of the world.
      - graphe 3y ago
        We're talking about the economy so the GDP matters, not the social aspects so it does matter. Culture isn't government either. I don't think the US citizens today agree with the us government. But I don't talk about them interchangeably as you do, perhaps you could somewhat make a case for china but most cultures don't associate the citizens as one with government. >If you banned the burning of oil in the US, that would be awful for GDP, but many americans would like that. If I banned it, nobody would listen to me because people need to heat their homes, and get food to live. You don't get to pretend to turn off the power, lower the GPD a little and say "many Americans happy". That is fantasy.
      - addicted 3y ago
        Which cultures don’t have improving GDP, or more accurately, becoming wealthier, because GDP is just a metric to measure wealth (and an unfortunately inaccurate one at that) as a goal?
        ta1243 3y ago
        There's plenty of criticism about GDP https://time.com/5118026/gdp-metric-success-wealth/ https://time.com/5118026/gdp-metric-success-wealth/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/forget-gdp-for-the-21st-century-we-need-a-modern-economic-measure/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/forget-gdp-for-the-21... And many cultures think that a few large companies getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer is not a worthy goal. You may not think that, but given that plenty of people think GDP is terrible now. I'm not sure how you can assert a future culture will look back and go "In the future, humans will look back on our era and wonder why we accepted the idea that governments should have so much power to interfere with the economy" I personally think it's much more likely they'll look back in disgust at the companies that put GDP above other factors, and the governments which didn't interfere with the economy would be the ones to blame given that many cultures today think that.
- ta1243 3y ago
  As I say, the US does not like certain speech, but it does like other speech. Some cultures do not like "freedom of religion" either. For an example which mixes them both, the US protects the Westboro Baptist Church, many cultures wouldn't. The US criminalises people using freedom of speech to copy a movie, many cultures are quite happy with that. The US limits incitement to suicide, libel, threats, all sorts of things. US law is even at odds with what many consider US culture -- they tried banning, and there's always larges movements to ban burning a piece of cloth. The US world view is not the only valid one. It limits speech in one way and allows it in another, same with religion. The merger of "economy" with "people" is another world view that not everyone agrees with. The American view is generally growth and free trade should be allowed, but even America has limitations on that, and those limits go more that others in some areas and less in others. Many cultures -- including western ones -- look at Reganomics and deregluation as something that should not be allowed despite . A future civilisation will hopefully look back at the difference between how the rich live in their penthouses and how someone sleeping rough in San Francisco and think "how terrible was america to allow this"

quonn 3y ago

A currency is a tool, not a store for wealth. Stability is to be balanced against employment and economic productivity.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pjc50 3y ago

You can't inflation-proof purchasing power against price rises, and trying to ration out a truly fixed money supply against a growing economy creates other problems. But Turkey really has just chosen a disastrous path through Erdogan and his poor economic understanding. (not unusual, of course, we got a tiny blip of this in the UK during the brief reign of Liz Truss, but the electorate are willing to punish that and do not prioritize culture war over economic stability. Yet.)

nvm0n2 3y ago
It doesn't really cause problems. Academic economists claim deflation is destructive, but it's a misanalysis caused by extrapolating from a tiny number of samples and ignoring all the counter evidence. If you have a fixed monetary base and the economy grows, all that happens is that things get cheaper, which is what you'd intuitively expect if a society gets wealthier. Economists claim that this will trigger hoarding cycles but this is a strange almost pseudo-psychological claim. It doesn't happen in reality, where there are many examples of prices falling continuously over time in a sector without it causing recession within that sector.

addicted 3y ago

> A stable currency is a basic human right. This is just a complete misunderstanding of what a currency is.

guidoism 3y ago
Indeed. Additionally I’m sick of people using “human right” to describe every conceivable characteristic of an ideal modern society. Some things should be basic and a minimum and other characteristics should be add-ons you get for advancing civilization. Pooling them all together waters down the most important ones.
- tim333 3y ago
  I dare say 'human rights' are a list of things people agree to go for and you can make up new ones. I could back the right to a reasonably stable currency. I think it might make more sense than the right to paid holidays (UDHR article 24).
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  It also allows the usual culprits to reject the whole package as "western cultural imperialism" which is why you can find dictator shills load up the concept with every ridiculous western concept to the breaking point.
d_burfoot 3y ago
All rights are phrased in terms of nebulous concepts such as "religion", "speech", or "arms". But more importantly, my statement is not about external facts. It's a statement of who I am willing to ally with and befriend. Any person who substantially agrees with me about what rights must be protected is my friend and ally. Any person who substantially disagrees is at best a neutral bystander (if he does not try to interfere with my rights) and at worst a bitter enemy (if he actively tries to suppress my rights).