3 ms·

I 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 fa

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    That’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.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      A lot of these collective decisions aren't even needed but are simply the consequence of runaway states having to make all sorts calls on behalf of regular people because they've inserted themselves into everyday life in a million different ways. For the few collective decisions that really do have to be made, regular elections are the only way to keep the decision-makers on their toes.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jimbokun 3y ago
  > 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. I'm with William F. Buckley on this one: > “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory,” he said, “than by the Harvard University faculty.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/31/telegovern/#google_vignette https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/31/telegovern/#google_...
  - FredPret 3y ago
    One ancient form of democracy was to draw lots and the unlucky winners had to go and be the senate for a term. I kind of like it! Like jury duty, but you have to run the country. It can work if you draw enough lots.

lostlogin 3y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  That’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.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    A lot of these collective decisions aren't even needed but are simply the consequence of runaway states having to make all sorts calls on behalf of regular people because they've inserted themselves into everyday life in a million different ways. For the few collective decisions that really do have to be made, regular elections are the only way to keep the decision-makers on their toes.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jimbokun 3y ago
> 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. I'm with William F. Buckley on this one: > “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory,” he said, “than by the Harvard University faculty.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/31/telegovern/#google_vignette https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/31/telegovern/#google_...
- FredPret 3y ago
  One ancient form of democracy was to draw lots and the unlucky winners had to go and be the senate for a term. I kind of like it! Like jury duty, but you have to run the country. It can work if you draw enough lots.