7 ms·

Authoritarian governments are arbitrary governments, all decisions are made arbitrarily. Consistency is unnecessary. That's the trouble with choosing power as a

Authoritarian governments are arbitrary governments, all decisions are made arbitrarily. Consistency is unnecessary. That's the trouble with choosing power as a guiding principle over reason or consent.

zanellato19 2y ago
Consistency is undesirable, because if everyone is breaking a law, you apply the hammer of justice only if they aren't a friend. It's one of the best ways to look good to certain people as well,because you can claim to be just following the law.
- elliotec 2y ago
  This comment and the parent’s are the best retorts I’ve seen yet to the “these people are just stupid” idea we hear all the time. These “rules” are not calculated and brilliant, and that’s the point. They’re controlling at any angle they want.
  - Herring 2y ago
    No, it's still stupid. High corruption leads to weaker economic performance (eg compare red vs blue states). Nepotism looks like winning right until it sinks your company.
    - myko 2y ago
      Right, this is why fascist governments tend to fail. In the meantime, though, normal folks will be hurt.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        And in the meantime, the people in power in these fascist governments tend to make out like (literal) bandits.
        Aeolun 2y ago
        This is fine if it ends by being subjected to that convenient device they developed in France somewhere in the 1800s.
        spiderfarmer 2y ago
        That is a divisive issue.
        gortok 2y ago
        By “divisive” you mean dividing heads from bodies, right?
        spiderfarmer 2y ago
        Yeah. Also called "air gapping".
        LeonB 2y ago
        Very unlikely in the first place, but second, that way lies far worse chaos. Similarly, when Julius Caesar turned the republic into an empire, and was subsequently assassinated: it did not mean the empire reverted back to being a republic - rather that centuries of increasingly despotic emperors lay ahead.
        tsimionescu 2y ago
        Agree that it's unlikely, but while knives in the back still led to centuries of imperialism, the guillotine cleanly ended absolutist monarchy in France once, and then some ships and exile ended the second time, and it generally stayed dead afterwards.
        tialaramex 2y ago
        Note that modern France is the Fifth Republic so that's a whole lot of turmoil given how relatively recently they killed their last king.
      - blitzar 2y ago
        Looks to me like a legitimate and democratically elected regime. There are many unsolved issues in the world, having sympathy for people getting exactly what they want seems like a waste of a finite resource.
        beeforpork 2y ago
        It is not a waste. (1) It is still an interesting topic, because in this case, it has world-wide consequences. (2) Many of the problems of the world can only be solved if people are convinced that those are important problems. You need to fix people's closest problems first, like their bread and perceived security. Each individual has just one life, I wouldn't say it's selfish to want an OKish life, and only then think about what's best for the human race. (3) Most of the right voters were convinced (and might still be) that they were doing what is good for them. But it isn't. They voted wrong, they were tricked against their actual will. (4) This is not a singular event. The same may happen somewhere near or around you maybe sooner than later, so analysig how it happened, which groups exactly voted against their own advantage, and how to make the consequences clear and understandable beforehand, and how to prevent it in general -- all this is important. Not wasted resources at all. The opposite. We need to remember that this is not a boring news topic.
        blitzar 2y ago
        Until america experiences the full consequences for their stupidity they will continue being stupid. Children get told 100's of times they will burn their hand if they touch the stove. In the best case scenario they touch it once anyway, with a responsible person nearby and then never again. The sooner that happens the better for everyone it is.
        beeforpork 2y ago
        OK, burning is happening right now, so mission accomplished, I guess? Are you sure people will learn from it? And who is the responsible person nearby in this reality? > Children get told 100's of times they will burn their hand if they touch the stove. In the best case scenario they touch it once anyway, ... That is not the best case. I never burned myself on a stove. Also, this is not an individual Darwin problem like the stove example -- this has consequences for many bystanders who did know better, and many more bystanders who had no say in this.
      - Yeul 2y ago
        Normal folks vote for the fascists. How many Americans despise the liberal universities and their students? How many Americans think the US should be a Christian nation? Fascism is popular. Many people will fall for it. Time and time again. The US is not special- it happened in Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Portugal. It can happen in America.
        Not4Hire 2y ago
        ...has happen3d. <-FTFY
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - zombot 2y ago
      Not stupid, just careless. Trump has fuck-you money, he doesn't care about the rest of the country. He wants means of extortion so people have to lick his boots to get a reprieve.
    - reverendsteveii 2y ago
      They're not selecting to maximize performance, they're selecting to maximize their own control. Pete Hegseth isn't SecDef because he's good at it. He leaks war plans and can't get through a press conference without being seen with a drink in his hand. He's SecDef because he'll do what Trump tells him to do regardless of whether it's legal or a good idea. The tariffs aren't meant to bring manufacturing back. They'd have gradual and consistent and the money raised would be earmarked for developing that industry at home if they were. They're arbitrary because they're the way the people in charge punish countries and companies that don't bend the knee. Everything they're doing is about removing the institution of government with its pesky rules and procedures and bringing everything under the control of one guy who can reward and punish arbitrarily as he sees fit. Overall economic performance simply isn't a factor. It's changed my outlook a lot to make an arbitrary decision to stop assuming people are stupid when their stated goals don't line up with their actions, and to start assuming the easily predictable results of their actions are their actual goals regardless of what their stated goals are. Once I did that, I started being able to understand and even predict what these previously inscrutable people would do next.
      - Herring 2y ago
        ? I look forward to your article about Americans obviously being pro-obesity, and finding heart disease super attractive.
        reverendsteveii 2y ago
        their stated goals (avoiding obesity) don't line up with their actions (food choices that promote obesity), so they must have different goals (enjoying food regardless of whether it promotes obesity). not the opposite of their stated goal, just a different one.
        Herring 2y ago
        Then I can agree with that: short-sighted decision-making on both obesity and Trump's tariffs.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > No, it's still stupid. It doesn't serve the goals you think it should, that's not necessarily stupid. > High corruption leads to weaker economic performance (eg compare red vs blue states). Yes, but the people who are pursuing corruption don't care about maximizing aggregate economic performance, they care about maximizing their power over others, which is isn't the same as "economic performance" and, to the extent that it related to economic performance, doesn't have any necessary relation to a broad aggregate, its more concerned with very specific aspects of relative distribution.
      - Herring 2y ago
        Who is "others"? Who is "aggregate"? You're being vague because your idea doesn't make any sense. Let's be clear: 1) Trump very clearly - very obviously - cares a lot about broad US economic performance compared to China. 2) This is at odds with his desire for unlimited power within the US, because corruption and oppression doesn't do very well economically. That's why it's stupid - it doesn't serve its own goals. One of those two has to give. He and his voters don't understand "Woke" is great for the modern economy. You want everyone working at their absolute full potential. Slaves don't invent chips, corruption drives away business investment, etc. It's very simple to understand if you're not a racist, but the South has been stuck on this point for generations.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        > It doesn't serve the goals you think it should I maen, what are their goals? To make more money? Yes, stupid to crash the economy just to insider trade. Power and influence? Yes, it's stupid to overextend too fast. Ask 99% of regines from human history (Rome, Soviet Union, Great Britian). Ideaological warfare? Yes, it's stupid to outright declare constitutional war on day 9x out of 1400. What are their goals? > the people who are pursuing corruption don't care about maximizing aggregate economic performance, they care about maximizing their power over others, which is isn't the same as "economic performance" well they should have. Again, Bread and circuses. Mess with people's money and they get neither. Again, stupid move. This could have been an easy, silent, calculated takeover in the course of two years. Instead they just swung a hammer at the house and are frustrated that people are yelling at them.
    - elliotec 2y ago
      It’s not about the economy! They don’t need that anymore. It’s about POWER. They already have more than everything money can buy, and more than the GDP of most countries. It’s not about the “company” anymore. They want _everything_. And will do whatever they can do get it, even if we think it looks stupid. “Whoopsie doopsie we said something contradictory, anyway you’re all wrong and deported - don’t call back ever, and your school doesn’t get your taxes anymore but bombs for killing people in the Middle East does!”
- aitchnyu 2y ago
  Is there any political tool to prevent rampant rule breaking and making the disliked rulebreaker specially vulnerable? Rule breaking is common and apocrypal form of strike involve following the rules to the letter and paralyzing the business. The prevailing principle is "you cant defend yourself by pointing to other rulebreakers" while reality is "its legal if a hundred businessmen do it".
  - soco 2y ago
    The whole society functions on a set of agreements. Some get codified in laws, many not. And as soon as some of those rules, laws or habits, get constantly broken, it means the society has changed. Now what? Do you accept the new change, or do you try to change it again? Remember, you can't enact a new rule - if it's not agreed upon it will simply not be applied.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > Is there any political tool It's a social problem. Smaller democratic political arenas work closer to the ideal. Larger political arenas have more noise and less concise agendas, because of the disparate groups being appealed to. The US is too big. Large societies, across time trend toward authoritarianism (sometimes leading to full-fledged) until revolution and dissolution. Then the remaining states fight amongst themselves within a region, assembling into a singular organization due to practical and political factors, until it starts over again. Eventually you get something like europe and most of southeast asia. States tend to be more stable if they roughly match their regional terrain boundaries and aren't too large.
- thelastgallon 2y ago
  For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.
tmountain 2y ago
The normative government continues to shrink while the prerogative government grows.
thegreatpeter 2y ago
[flagged]

zanellato19 2y ago

Consistency is undesirable, because if everyone is breaking a law, you apply the hammer of justice only if they aren't a friend. It's one of the best ways to look good to certain people as well,because you can claim to be just following the law.

elliotec 2y ago
This comment and the parent’s are the best retorts I’ve seen yet to the “these people are just stupid” idea we hear all the time. These “rules” are not calculated and brilliant, and that’s the point. They’re controlling at any angle they want.
- Herring 2y ago
  No, it's still stupid. High corruption leads to weaker economic performance (eg compare red vs blue states). Nepotism looks like winning right until it sinks your company.
  - myko 2y ago
    Right, this is why fascist governments tend to fail. In the meantime, though, normal folks will be hurt.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      And in the meantime, the people in power in these fascist governments tend to make out like (literal) bandits.
      - Aeolun 2y ago
        This is fine if it ends by being subjected to that convenient device they developed in France somewhere in the 1800s.
        spiderfarmer 2y ago
        That is a divisive issue.
        gortok 2y ago
        By “divisive” you mean dividing heads from bodies, right?
        spiderfarmer 2y ago
        Yeah. Also called "air gapping".
        LeonB 2y ago
        Very unlikely in the first place, but second, that way lies far worse chaos. Similarly, when Julius Caesar turned the republic into an empire, and was subsequently assassinated: it did not mean the empire reverted back to being a republic - rather that centuries of increasingly despotic emperors lay ahead.
        tsimionescu 2y ago
        Agree that it's unlikely, but while knives in the back still led to centuries of imperialism, the guillotine cleanly ended absolutist monarchy in France once, and then some ships and exile ended the second time, and it generally stayed dead afterwards.
        tialaramex 2y ago
        Note that modern France is the Fifth Republic so that's a whole lot of turmoil given how relatively recently they killed their last king.
    - blitzar 2y ago
      Looks to me like a legitimate and democratically elected regime. There are many unsolved issues in the world, having sympathy for people getting exactly what they want seems like a waste of a finite resource.
      - beeforpork 2y ago
        It is not a waste. (1) It is still an interesting topic, because in this case, it has world-wide consequences. (2) Many of the problems of the world can only be solved if people are convinced that those are important problems. You need to fix people's closest problems first, like their bread and perceived security. Each individual has just one life, I wouldn't say it's selfish to want an OKish life, and only then think about what's best for the human race. (3) Most of the right voters were convinced (and might still be) that they were doing what is good for them. But it isn't. They voted wrong, they were tricked against their actual will. (4) This is not a singular event. The same may happen somewhere near or around you maybe sooner than later, so analysig how it happened, which groups exactly voted against their own advantage, and how to make the consequences clear and understandable beforehand, and how to prevent it in general -- all this is important. Not wasted resources at all. The opposite. We need to remember that this is not a boring news topic.
        blitzar 2y ago
        Until america experiences the full consequences for their stupidity they will continue being stupid. Children get told 100's of times they will burn their hand if they touch the stove. In the best case scenario they touch it once anyway, with a responsible person nearby and then never again. The sooner that happens the better for everyone it is.
        beeforpork 2y ago
        OK, burning is happening right now, so mission accomplished, I guess? Are you sure people will learn from it? And who is the responsible person nearby in this reality? > Children get told 100's of times they will burn their hand if they touch the stove. In the best case scenario they touch it once anyway, ... That is not the best case. I never burned myself on a stove. Also, this is not an individual Darwin problem like the stove example -- this has consequences for many bystanders who did know better, and many more bystanders who had no say in this.
    - Yeul 2y ago
      Normal folks vote for the fascists. How many Americans despise the liberal universities and their students? How many Americans think the US should be a Christian nation? Fascism is popular. Many people will fall for it. Time and time again. The US is not special- it happened in Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Portugal. It can happen in America.
      - Not4Hire 2y ago
        ...has happen3d. <-FTFY
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - zombot 2y ago
    Not stupid, just careless. Trump has fuck-you money, he doesn't care about the rest of the country. He wants means of extortion so people have to lick his boots to get a reprieve.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    They're not selecting to maximize performance, they're selecting to maximize their own control. Pete Hegseth isn't SecDef because he's good at it. He leaks war plans and can't get through a press conference without being seen with a drink in his hand. He's SecDef because he'll do what Trump tells him to do regardless of whether it's legal or a good idea. The tariffs aren't meant to bring manufacturing back. They'd have gradual and consistent and the money raised would be earmarked for developing that industry at home if they were. They're arbitrary because they're the way the people in charge punish countries and companies that don't bend the knee. Everything they're doing is about removing the institution of government with its pesky rules and procedures and bringing everything under the control of one guy who can reward and punish arbitrarily as he sees fit. Overall economic performance simply isn't a factor. It's changed my outlook a lot to make an arbitrary decision to stop assuming people are stupid when their stated goals don't line up with their actions, and to start assuming the easily predictable results of their actions are their actual goals regardless of what their stated goals are. Once I did that, I started being able to understand and even predict what these previously inscrutable people would do next.
    - Herring 2y ago
      ? I look forward to your article about Americans obviously being pro-obesity, and finding heart disease super attractive.
      - reverendsteveii 2y ago
        their stated goals (avoiding obesity) don't line up with their actions (food choices that promote obesity), so they must have different goals (enjoying food regardless of whether it promotes obesity). not the opposite of their stated goal, just a different one.
        Herring 2y ago
        Then I can agree with that: short-sighted decision-making on both obesity and Trump's tariffs.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > No, it's still stupid. It doesn't serve the goals you think it should, that's not necessarily stupid. > High corruption leads to weaker economic performance (eg compare red vs blue states). Yes, but the people who are pursuing corruption don't care about maximizing aggregate economic performance, they care about maximizing their power over others, which is isn't the same as "economic performance" and, to the extent that it related to economic performance, doesn't have any necessary relation to a broad aggregate, its more concerned with very specific aspects of relative distribution.
    - Herring 2y ago
      Who is "others"? Who is "aggregate"? You're being vague because your idea doesn't make any sense. Let's be clear: 1) Trump very clearly - very obviously - cares a lot about broad US economic performance compared to China. 2) This is at odds with his desire for unlimited power within the US, because corruption and oppression doesn't do very well economically. That's why it's stupid - it doesn't serve its own goals. One of those two has to give. He and his voters don't understand "Woke" is great for the modern economy. You want everyone working at their absolute full potential. Slaves don't invent chips, corruption drives away business investment, etc. It's very simple to understand if you're not a racist, but the South has been stuck on this point for generations.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      > It doesn't serve the goals you think it should I maen, what are their goals? To make more money? Yes, stupid to crash the economy just to insider trade. Power and influence? Yes, it's stupid to overextend too fast. Ask 99% of regines from human history (Rome, Soviet Union, Great Britian). Ideaological warfare? Yes, it's stupid to outright declare constitutional war on day 9x out of 1400. What are their goals? > the people who are pursuing corruption don't care about maximizing aggregate economic performance, they care about maximizing their power over others, which is isn't the same as "economic performance" well they should have. Again, Bread and circuses. Mess with people's money and they get neither. Again, stupid move. This could have been an easy, silent, calculated takeover in the course of two years. Instead they just swung a hammer at the house and are frustrated that people are yelling at them.
  - elliotec 2y ago
    It’s not about the economy! They don’t need that anymore. It’s about POWER. They already have more than everything money can buy, and more than the GDP of most countries. It’s not about the “company” anymore. They want _everything_. And will do whatever they can do get it, even if we think it looks stupid. “Whoopsie doopsie we said something contradictory, anyway you’re all wrong and deported - don’t call back ever, and your school doesn’t get your taxes anymore but bombs for killing people in the Middle East does!”
aitchnyu 2y ago
Is there any political tool to prevent rampant rule breaking and making the disliked rulebreaker specially vulnerable? Rule breaking is common and apocrypal form of strike involve following the rules to the letter and paralyzing the business. The prevailing principle is "you cant defend yourself by pointing to other rulebreakers" while reality is "its legal if a hundred businessmen do it".
- soco 2y ago
  The whole society functions on a set of agreements. Some get codified in laws, many not. And as soon as some of those rules, laws or habits, get constantly broken, it means the society has changed. Now what? Do you accept the new change, or do you try to change it again? Remember, you can't enact a new rule - if it's not agreed upon it will simply not be applied.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > Is there any political tool It's a social problem. Smaller democratic political arenas work closer to the ideal. Larger political arenas have more noise and less concise agendas, because of the disparate groups being appealed to. The US is too big. Large societies, across time trend toward authoritarianism (sometimes leading to full-fledged) until revolution and dissolution. Then the remaining states fight amongst themselves within a region, assembling into a singular organization due to practical and political factors, until it starts over again. Eventually you get something like europe and most of southeast asia. States tend to be more stable if they roughly match their regional terrain boundaries and aren't too large.
thelastgallon 2y ago
For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.

tmountain 2y ago

The normative government continues to shrink while the prerogative government grows.

thegreatpeter 2y ago

[flagged]