4 ms·

It's individualism vs collectivism (if I got my terms right), with one side being "got mine, fuck you", whereas the other says that we're better together. Take

It's individualism vs collectivism (if I got my terms right), with one side being "got mine, fuck you", whereas the other says that we're better together. Take wealth distribution, on the one side we have the super and hyper-rich who live like kings, on the other we have the working poor who are one paycheck or bill away from bankruptcy and/or homelessness. Kings and serfs.

Joker_vD 2y ago
> the super and hyper-rich who live like kings, Including having lots of offsprings. Apparently, "not procreating to save the planet" is for the poor.
MichaelZuo 2y ago
Why does the opinion of any ‘side’ outweigh the opinions of any other ‘side’, beyond the ballot box? Seems more sensible to just assume they all negate each other out in the long run, unless proven otherwise by voting records.
- Retric 2y ago
  Politics is tricky because non wealthy very much support the wealthy politically. Agree or disagree it’s just reality in modern politics. As for why we shouldn’t actually care abstractly there simply aren’t that many ultra wealthy. Any subsidies given to them just cost an incredible amount relative to the number of people helped etc. They also don’t directly matter in terms of broad metrics like human health, lifespan, happiness etc.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    How does this relate to my comment? Did you intend to reply to the other comment?
    - Retric 2y ago
      You brought up politics in relation to different economic class. My point was how we treat ultra wealthy as a political issue is independent from the underlying reality. They aren’t directly outvoting poor people to revive more benefits, it’s instead a question of influence. Billionaires tend to see positive ROI from getting involved in politics, which is self reinforcing over time. But, stepping back you can judge such systems not in terms of current politics parties operate, but in the broader context of how efficient systems are. In that context the ROI is negative for society even if it can be positive for some individuals that comes at significant cost.
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Huh? A ‘side’ doesn’t imply an ‘economic class’? Many millions of people can genuinely believe in something, be on a ‘side’, while being spread across the entire economic spectrum. At best it can be said to be an ideological differentiation, not an economic differentiation.
        Retric 2y ago
        > A ‘side’ doesn’t imply an ‘economic class’? It does when the side described was the edges of a distribution. > wealth distribution, on the one side we have the super and hyper-rich Replace a few words and: > height distribution, on the one side we have the tall and hyper-tall PS: To be clear the political interests of a group exist even if the group doesn’t map to a specified political party or ideology. Groups have specific interests independent of which other stances they take. We don’t think of short people in political terms, but there would be a real outrage if gas stations put their credit card readers 7 feet off the ground.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        HN users can write anything they want, but that doesn’t automatically imply what they wrote is credible or must be assumed to be true for all subsequent replies… Hence why I wrote ‘side’ in quotation marks, because I didn’t fully agree with the original parent comment’s characterization. e.g. HN user 1 can say X part of the population is on the ‘side’ of the moon being made of blue cheese and Y part is on the ‘side’ of the moon being made of cheddar cheese. But future replies by HN user 2 and user 3 are free to treat that as all meaningless gibberish.
arethuza 2y ago
There were different kinds of kings though - before a certain point in the history of most countries kings had to actively fight and wage war to achieve and maintain their positions. Over time this became more of a position where the king would deserve their positions simply by having ancestors who were "stupendous badasses" but otherwise actually had to do very little.
- organsnyder 2y ago
  > otherwise actually had to do very little The risk of being overthrown was always there. They had to maintain their power through some combination of force, propaganda, and actual good rulership.
- Maken 2y ago
  Early medieval kings - like those of the Franks, the Visigoths or the Nordic people - were more often than not elected for life. Arguably the distinction between royalty, nobility and commonfolk grew larger the longer the feudal system was in place, to the point where kings inherited entire countries by birthright at the end of the XVIII century.
  - mountainb 2y ago
    In practice, even later English kings were effectively elected and could have their terms ended early. Taking a few Plantagenet examples, the nobles imprisoned Edward II as retaliation for the plots of Hugh Despenser, and then the king died mysteriously (adverb used ironically). Edward III was far more popular with the nobles due to his many victories in Scotland and France. His successor, Richard II, tried to make a lasting peace with France, but that was much less popular with the most powerful burghers and nobles. So Richard II was deposed, imprisoned, and died mysteriously. No doubt if they had security cameras in those days, they would have mysteriously ceased functioning at some critical moment. So ended the Plantagenets and began the line of Lancastrian kings. I would push back slightly and say that this trend is more even and there is less disruption to it than sometimes historians try to present. E.g. the execution of Charles I during the English Civil War of the 17th century is often presented as a sharp break with tradition, but if one accepts that dissatisfactory kings usually wind up murdered via artful legalism combined with some negligent-jailor theater, it just looks like business as usual.

Joker_vD 2y ago

> the super and hyper-rich who live like kings, Including having lots of offsprings. Apparently, "not procreating to save the planet" is for the poor.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

Why does the opinion of any ‘side’ outweigh the opinions of any other ‘side’, beyond the ballot box? Seems more sensible to just assume they all negate each other out in the long run, unless proven otherwise by voting records.

Retric 2y ago
Politics is tricky because non wealthy very much support the wealthy politically. Agree or disagree it’s just reality in modern politics. As for why we shouldn’t actually care abstractly there simply aren’t that many ultra wealthy. Any subsidies given to them just cost an incredible amount relative to the number of people helped etc. They also don’t directly matter in terms of broad metrics like human health, lifespan, happiness etc.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  How does this relate to my comment? Did you intend to reply to the other comment?
  - Retric 2y ago
    You brought up politics in relation to different economic class. My point was how we treat ultra wealthy as a political issue is independent from the underlying reality. They aren’t directly outvoting poor people to revive more benefits, it’s instead a question of influence. Billionaires tend to see positive ROI from getting involved in politics, which is self reinforcing over time. But, stepping back you can judge such systems not in terms of current politics parties operate, but in the broader context of how efficient systems are. In that context the ROI is negative for society even if it can be positive for some individuals that comes at significant cost.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Huh? A ‘side’ doesn’t imply an ‘economic class’? Many millions of people can genuinely believe in something, be on a ‘side’, while being spread across the entire economic spectrum. At best it can be said to be an ideological differentiation, not an economic differentiation.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > A ‘side’ doesn’t imply an ‘economic class’? It does when the side described was the edges of a distribution. > wealth distribution, on the one side we have the super and hyper-rich Replace a few words and: > height distribution, on the one side we have the tall and hyper-tall PS: To be clear the political interests of a group exist even if the group doesn’t map to a specified political party or ideology. Groups have specific interests independent of which other stances they take. We don’t think of short people in political terms, but there would be a real outrage if gas stations put their credit card readers 7 feet off the ground.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        HN users can write anything they want, but that doesn’t automatically imply what they wrote is credible or must be assumed to be true for all subsequent replies… Hence why I wrote ‘side’ in quotation marks, because I didn’t fully agree with the original parent comment’s characterization. e.g. HN user 1 can say X part of the population is on the ‘side’ of the moon being made of blue cheese and Y part is on the ‘side’ of the moon being made of cheddar cheese. But future replies by HN user 2 and user 3 are free to treat that as all meaningless gibberish.

arethuza 2y ago

There were different kinds of kings though - before a certain point in the history of most countries kings had to actively fight and wage war to achieve and maintain their positions. Over time this became more of a position where the king would deserve their positions simply by having ancestors who were "stupendous badasses" but otherwise actually had to do very little.

organsnyder 2y ago
> otherwise actually had to do very little The risk of being overthrown was always there. They had to maintain their power through some combination of force, propaganda, and actual good rulership.
Maken 2y ago
Early medieval kings - like those of the Franks, the Visigoths or the Nordic people - were more often than not elected for life. Arguably the distinction between royalty, nobility and commonfolk grew larger the longer the feudal system was in place, to the point where kings inherited entire countries by birthright at the end of the XVIII century.
- mountainb 2y ago
  In practice, even later English kings were effectively elected and could have their terms ended early. Taking a few Plantagenet examples, the nobles imprisoned Edward II as retaliation for the plots of Hugh Despenser, and then the king died mysteriously (adverb used ironically). Edward III was far more popular with the nobles due to his many victories in Scotland and France. His successor, Richard II, tried to make a lasting peace with France, but that was much less popular with the most powerful burghers and nobles. So Richard II was deposed, imprisoned, and died mysteriously. No doubt if they had security cameras in those days, they would have mysteriously ceased functioning at some critical moment. So ended the Plantagenets and began the line of Lancastrian kings. I would push back slightly and say that this trend is more even and there is less disruption to it than sometimes historians try to present. E.g. the execution of Charles I during the English Civil War of the 17th century is often presented as a sharp break with tradition, but if one accepts that dissatisfactory kings usually wind up murdered via artful legalism combined with some negligent-jailor theater, it just looks like business as usual.