3 ms·

> There's an implication here, that people exercised free will when they voted. There's no such implication. > This is plainly incorrect, because free will qu

> There's an implication here, that people exercised free will when they voted. There's no such implication. > This is plainly incorrect, because free will quite clearly does not exist. > Since free will does not exist, there is simply no a priori reason to believe that people voted in their interests. What are you even talking about. People (and living beings in general) acting in their own self-interest - pretty much all the time - it is the most universal general principle of life if there ever was one. This doesn't require or involve free will. How well a biorobot (no free will!) executes in pursuing his self-interests, is the selection critereon. Now, the people make mistakes pursuing their self-interests, doesn't mean they aren't acting in their self-interest. Because they sure as hell are - all the frigging time! It's their whole firmware! Deindustrialization / nikefication all the way through the value chain except the very, very top last step of the value add - hasn't been in their self-interest, it isn't in the interests of their nation either. It's only in the self-interests of short-term thinking shareholders that min-max asset valuations with great costs to everyone else but themselves.

sunshowers 2y ago
> People (and living beings in general) acting in their own self-interest - pretty much all the time - it is the most universal general principle of life if there ever was one. Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest.
- Johanx64 2y ago
  >Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest. What are you talking about? Base evolutionary pressures and instincts have translated in exactly that. Complex modern societies, and emergent behaviors and strategies arise from agents acting in their own self-interest (organizing in groups or otherwise to further their goals). The idea that not only people don't act in their self-interest, but you - in fact - know better what's in their best interest is truly some mid-tier thinking. Or that you have some unique ability to know what's in their best self-interest, but they... for some reason... don't. Now it doesn't mean that acting in self-interest doesn't sometimes result in ruin, because it surely can! That however doesn't mean that all these choices weren't made with self-interest in mind, front and center, despite people claiming otherwise. The groups and societies that enact the winning, most sensible strategy, economic and industrial policy will win out. Those individually or in groups that don't, will go to shitter and or be selected out. It's that simple.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    I think people with expertise and training do generally know what's in people's interest more than untrained people themselves, yes. I also think that the fact that this isn't blindingly obvious to most folks is at the heart of a lot of the rot in modern society.
    - Johanx64 2y ago
      > I think people with expertise and training do generally know what's in people's interest more than untrained people themselves For petes sake dude, people act in their own self-interests. That includes so called "people with expertise and training", or more correctly put - credentialed people. They worked towards getting these credentials (fancy law or economics degree at a fancy university) - not because they were interested in acting in interests of the "untrained people". They just wanted a cushy, high status, well paid job. What do you think governments are ran by - generally speaking? People without "expertise"(cough, cough) and "training"? No, they are ran by people with "expertise and training" (ie. credentialed)! The problem is that they mainly act in their self-interests (and interests of their social group) first and foremost, and not for their expertise or lack-thereof. And the people that vie for positions of power and status act in their self-interests and interests of their social clique squared or cubed. Everything else is an afterthought. >I also think that the fact that this isn't blindingly obvious to most folks is at the heart of a lot of the rot in modern society. You vastly overestimate your mental acuity
      - sunshowers 2y ago
        Experience and training makes you better at things. What can I say.
        Johanx64 2y ago
        > Experience and training makes you better at things. What can I say. The orange has a degree in economics by the way (from a ivy league uni too). So you could say he has both the credentials, the experience and the training. You could even... dare I say... call him an expert. Or you could just accept the obvious - any barely functioning middling brain can get credentials and become an "expert". And that they do. It is neither a competency nor an intellect filter. Neither is there personal responsibility or real liability if they are wrong about their economic and other policies that lead to ruin (endless list of examples of this in past). Seen any heads on the pike lately? Yeah, me neither. Nor are there incentives in place to think what's in other "common" peoples best interests. So why would they? There's a long line of "expert economists", Paul Krugman among others who advocated for free-trade policies that directly led to nikefication, deindustrialization of US. Now they are nowhere to be seen to take the credit, woops! The presumption that the credentialed ("expert") knows (or even cares frankly) what's in other common peoples best interest is completely baseless and extremely naive. The credentialed "experts" being so incompetent and confidently wrong is what gave you the orange. Now orange is the "expert"! And you better listen!

sunshowers 2y ago

> People (and living beings in general) acting in their own self-interest - pretty much all the time - it is the most universal general principle of life if there ever was one. Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest.

Johanx64 2y ago
>Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest. What are you talking about? Base evolutionary pressures and instincts have translated in exactly that. Complex modern societies, and emergent behaviors and strategies arise from agents acting in their own self-interest (organizing in groups or otherwise to further their goals). The idea that not only people don't act in their self-interest, but you - in fact - know better what's in their best interest is truly some mid-tier thinking. Or that you have some unique ability to know what's in their best self-interest, but they... for some reason... don't. Now it doesn't mean that acting in self-interest doesn't sometimes result in ruin, because it surely can! That however doesn't mean that all these choices weren't made with self-interest in mind, front and center, despite people claiming otherwise. The groups and societies that enact the winning, most sensible strategy, economic and industrial policy will win out. Those individually or in groups that don't, will go to shitter and or be selected out. It's that simple.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sunshowers 2y ago
  I think people with expertise and training do generally know what's in people's interest more than untrained people themselves, yes. I also think that the fact that this isn't blindingly obvious to most folks is at the heart of a lot of the rot in modern society.
  - Johanx64 2y ago
    > I think people with expertise and training do generally know what's in people's interest more than untrained people themselves For petes sake dude, people act in their own self-interests. That includes so called "people with expertise and training", or more correctly put - credentialed people. They worked towards getting these credentials (fancy law or economics degree at a fancy university) - not because they were interested in acting in interests of the "untrained people". They just wanted a cushy, high status, well paid job. What do you think governments are ran by - generally speaking? People without "expertise"(cough, cough) and "training"? No, they are ran by people with "expertise and training" (ie. credentialed)! The problem is that they mainly act in their self-interests (and interests of their social group) first and foremost, and not for their expertise or lack-thereof. And the people that vie for positions of power and status act in their self-interests and interests of their social clique squared or cubed. Everything else is an afterthought. >I also think that the fact that this isn't blindingly obvious to most folks is at the heart of a lot of the rot in modern society. You vastly overestimate your mental acuity
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      Experience and training makes you better at things. What can I say.
      - Johanx64 2y ago
        > Experience and training makes you better at things. What can I say. The orange has a degree in economics by the way (from a ivy league uni too). So you could say he has both the credentials, the experience and the training. You could even... dare I say... call him an expert. Or you could just accept the obvious - any barely functioning middling brain can get credentials and become an "expert". And that they do. It is neither a competency nor an intellect filter. Neither is there personal responsibility or real liability if they are wrong about their economic and other policies that lead to ruin (endless list of examples of this in past). Seen any heads on the pike lately? Yeah, me neither. Nor are there incentives in place to think what's in other "common" peoples best interests. So why would they? There's a long line of "expert economists", Paul Krugman among others who advocated for free-trade policies that directly led to nikefication, deindustrialization of US. Now they are nowhere to be seen to take the credit, woops! The presumption that the credentialed ("expert") knows (or even cares frankly) what's in other common peoples best interest is completely baseless and extremely naive. The credentialed "experts" being so incompetent and confidently wrong is what gave you the orange. Now orange is the "expert"! And you better listen!