3 ms·
We should place a hard cap on political ambitions like these. These utopians will be the end of us with their ridiculous schemes involving always what other peo
by FredPret 3y ago
We should place a hard cap on political ambitions like these. These utopians will be the end of us with their ridiculous schemes involving always what other people should do.
- avgcorrection 3y agoIs political ambition measured in pages published?
- jdiff 3y agoBut the billionaire utopians and their ridiculous schemes, those are totally cool and will save humanity.
- FredPret 3y agoWhen you say "billionaire utopian" a couple of people spring to mind: - Bezos - Musk - et al These can be removed by market power, even during their own lifetimes. I bet you anything that in a generation or two, their fortune will be mostly dissipated. The vast majority of rich people are much less rich than these two; their money will dissipate even quicker. Most of them made their fortunes in their own lifetimes; many will lose it in the same timeframe. They have to keep performing economically (work + investment) to keep their money. But: I will also bet you anything that in a generation or two, the state will be larger than it is today, and will have assigned to itself more rights and prerogatives, and will somehow have inserted itself into our daily lives in an even more intimate way, whether anybody likes it or not.
- tehjoker 3y agoI don't understand why we celebrate the (false) utopian ambitions of the rich who very much make decisions for other people - coercively too bc we need to eat (and they also use lawsuits, media, govt, and assassinations if you cross them).
- lostlogin 3y agoWhat other ideas should we ban?
- FredPret 3y agoI didn't say "ban the idea". I said "ban the ambition to control the lives of others". The best counter to these jumped-up mini-Mao's is to spread the power far and wide; to have lots of little decision-makers rather than a few grand ones; to have those little decision-makers make tons of small but important decisions every day, rather than trusting everything to one election every few years.
- lostlogin 3y agoI think that the description ’mini-Mao’ fits both the ambition to blocking others from excess wealth and the behaviour we are seeing from some billionaires. Extremes promote extremes. Getting lots of people to make lots of small decisions is not easy and the masses are not necessarily that sensible. Delegating decision making to a chosen representative is the least bad system seen so far, but has a way to go.
- FredPret 3y agoI want to believe you are well-intentioned, but > the masses are not necessarily that sensible is an absolutely toxic sentiment. "We, the smart ones, will decide for them" has led to disaster every time.
- lostlogin 3y agoThat’s not quite what I meant but is exactly what I said. I include myself in the masses. I want smart people to decide things for me. I don’t know how to negotiate trade deals, infrastructure projects and a fleet of other things. Short term leaders and changed objectives mess with progress. I want someone to who understands to make good decisions, and the ability to remove them if they start failing. How that’s best done from my perspective is with an electoral cycle that’s fine tuned such that results can be achieved, but that incumbents can’t rest.