5 ms·

> Few governments aren’t a massive net surplus for their citizens If the baseline is a complete lack of social organization, yes. But that's a terrible baselin

> Few governments aren’t a massive net surplus for their citizens If the baseline is a complete lack of social organization, yes. But that's a terrible baseline. You compare governments to other potential governments, not to anarchy. That would be like calling eating six ounces of oatmeal per day a massive net surplus to starving to death; of course it is, but that's the easiest curve in the world. And the fact that you can only have one government at a time means that your current one is blocking all of the others.

Retric 2y ago
> But that's a terrible baseline. Fair but it’s such a massive difference there’s steps up the ladder which are still worse. I’d still be careful when suggesting anything but success is theft, because as you say internal transitions are risky. Migration however has improved the living standards of billions throughout history. Meanwhile just about anywhere today is still better for the average person than living in say medieval Europe or antiquity etc. Falling birth rates provide a significant opportunity for improvement. China isn’t a great place to live, but it’s also now the 2nd most populous country.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I feel like you’re defending terrible governments for no particular reason. Of course it might be better to live in modern china than medieval europe, but this doesn’t defeat the notion that modern china could be made much better for its people if the structure of its government were altered. The point of the argument isn’t, or doesn’t have to be, technicality (“bad governance constitutes theft”) but a statement about what one believes the people deserve. Implicit in the argument is a belief in a social contract being voided by one party, wherein the government makes lacking effort to provide “the best possible governance” and the people respond with disobedience. I’d personally disagree with the notion of a social contract, and argue only from the idea that an alteration to the government could produce better outcomes, but that argument would produce the same sentiment as the one they’re expressing, so in what way would you disagree with their sentiment?
  - lupire 2y ago
    Why did you say "Modern China" instead of "Modern USA" or some other country?
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      Read the end of what i responded to
  - Retric 2y ago
    I’m defending social order not terrible government. Governments can be a pure net negative, but that’s really rare. I disagree with the idea that ‘poor performance’ rather than ‘negative performance’ gives someone extra authority. Voiding the social contract by leaving is one thing, but “disobedience” is something else. Anyone can disagree with how a government functions, but individuals who dislike something don’t inherently know how to build a better system. Even non violent means like tax evasion, protests, and voter suppression have real downsides. When people act with the assumption of authority they often result in serious negative consequences and only very rarely cause actual improvement. Taken to the extreme the idea even supports wars of conquest. If your government is even mildly better than another why not ‘improve’ the situation. PS: Which isn’t to say operating within a given system is useless. Convincing others, be that voters or a dictator, can also enact change with less risk. But again well supported arguments are safer than simply persuasive ones, because you can more easily adapt to changing conditions. For example today we have more options, but in the mid 90’s the US environmentalists arguing for nuclear power could have been a meaningful contribution to climate change potentially offsetting ~10 billion tons of CO2 by now. That’s the kind of politics makes strange bedfellows compromise which you don’t see when everyone is throwing around emotionally charged rhetoric. Which sums up my argument, the perfect ideal is often the enemy of the practical.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I’d argue that the solution isn’t for people to avoid protest or disobedience though. The civil rights movement in the US was composed of a lot of different groups, plenty of which were unsatisfied with anything less than radical change. The tactic was then to unite these people under a leader smart enough to negotiate the meeting point of their interests and the pressures of practical political change in the US. The endless civil disobedience and threat of radical violence was then a powerful piece of leverage, really the sole source of leverage, in mlk’s negotiation with lbj. Given that brain enhancement is a while away, it’s gonna be a while before most people are able to weigh the nuanced ripple effects of their actions in order to optimally resist bad leadership, or be able to see the impracticality of otherwise good ideas; these are difficult mental feats that require a lot of self reflection. I wouldn’t then suggest that these people do nothing. I’d suggest that they represent, in essence, a productive force to be taken up and wielded against the subject of their discontent by similarly motivated, but intelligent, leadership. Its the same concept with environmentalism. You can’t expect Joe Environment to be smart enough and critical enough to reason his way around the panic-inducing coverage of nuclear scares, but maybe you can harness his frustration with environmental as a source of political power. I don’t think we’re going to agree though; I think we’re motivated differently. I don’t really find myself enticed by social order in the same way, and I’d trade away much of that stability to get a good shot at change that could make society more pleasant.

Retric 2y ago

> But that's a terrible baseline. Fair but it’s such a massive difference there’s steps up the ladder which are still worse. I’d still be careful when suggesting anything but success is theft, because as you say internal transitions are risky. Migration however has improved the living standards of billions throughout history. Meanwhile just about anywhere today is still better for the average person than living in say medieval Europe or antiquity etc. Falling birth rates provide a significant opportunity for improvement. China isn’t a great place to live, but it’s also now the 2nd most populous country.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I feel like you’re defending terrible governments for no particular reason. Of course it might be better to live in modern china than medieval europe, but this doesn’t defeat the notion that modern china could be made much better for its people if the structure of its government were altered. The point of the argument isn’t, or doesn’t have to be, technicality (“bad governance constitutes theft”) but a statement about what one believes the people deserve. Implicit in the argument is a belief in a social contract being voided by one party, wherein the government makes lacking effort to provide “the best possible governance” and the people respond with disobedience. I’d personally disagree with the notion of a social contract, and argue only from the idea that an alteration to the government could produce better outcomes, but that argument would produce the same sentiment as the one they’re expressing, so in what way would you disagree with their sentiment?
- lupire 2y ago
  Why did you say "Modern China" instead of "Modern USA" or some other country?
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Read the end of what i responded to
- Retric 2y ago
  I’m defending social order not terrible government. Governments can be a pure net negative, but that’s really rare. I disagree with the idea that ‘poor performance’ rather than ‘negative performance’ gives someone extra authority. Voiding the social contract by leaving is one thing, but “disobedience” is something else. Anyone can disagree with how a government functions, but individuals who dislike something don’t inherently know how to build a better system. Even non violent means like tax evasion, protests, and voter suppression have real downsides. When people act with the assumption of authority they often result in serious negative consequences and only very rarely cause actual improvement. Taken to the extreme the idea even supports wars of conquest. If your government is even mildly better than another why not ‘improve’ the situation. PS: Which isn’t to say operating within a given system is useless. Convincing others, be that voters or a dictator, can also enact change with less risk. But again well supported arguments are safer than simply persuasive ones, because you can more easily adapt to changing conditions. For example today we have more options, but in the mid 90’s the US environmentalists arguing for nuclear power could have been a meaningful contribution to climate change potentially offsetting ~10 billion tons of CO2 by now. That’s the kind of politics makes strange bedfellows compromise which you don’t see when everyone is throwing around emotionally charged rhetoric. Which sums up my argument, the perfect ideal is often the enemy of the practical.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I’d argue that the solution isn’t for people to avoid protest or disobedience though. The civil rights movement in the US was composed of a lot of different groups, plenty of which were unsatisfied with anything less than radical change. The tactic was then to unite these people under a leader smart enough to negotiate the meeting point of their interests and the pressures of practical political change in the US. The endless civil disobedience and threat of radical violence was then a powerful piece of leverage, really the sole source of leverage, in mlk’s negotiation with lbj. Given that brain enhancement is a while away, it’s gonna be a while before most people are able to weigh the nuanced ripple effects of their actions in order to optimally resist bad leadership, or be able to see the impracticality of otherwise good ideas; these are difficult mental feats that require a lot of self reflection. I wouldn’t then suggest that these people do nothing. I’d suggest that they represent, in essence, a productive force to be taken up and wielded against the subject of their discontent by similarly motivated, but intelligent, leadership. Its the same concept with environmentalism. You can’t expect Joe Environment to be smart enough and critical enough to reason his way around the panic-inducing coverage of nuclear scares, but maybe you can harness his frustration with environmental as a source of political power. I don’t think we’re going to agree though; I think we’re motivated differently. I don’t really find myself enticed by social order in the same way, and I’d trade away much of that stability to get a good shot at change that could make society more pleasant.