5 ms·
Author posits a causal relationship in a zero-sum game that he provides no evidence for. Paraphrasing, that uncontrollable intangibles like technology gave slig
by solatic 1y ago
Author posits a causal relationship in a zero-sum game that he provides no evidence for. Paraphrasing, that uncontrollable intangibles like technology gave slightly more power to individuals and much more power to large organizations at the expense of small organizations. Since when do these uncontrollable intangibles exhibit a genuine agency of their own? Is there some zero-sum pie of power to be distributed? So if I go into the desert or wilderness, somewhere where there are no individuals, small organizations, or large organizations as of yet; that means it is literally impossible for any of them to come in, develop it, and make it a center of power?
There's a much simpler explanation. Most entities most of the time (with such probabilities increasing with the size and age of the entity) seek to defend and expand their power. The American political tradition held that the blessings of liberty would be granted and prosperity would grow if the power of the largest such entities were kept in check; first and foremost the British Crown, second the newfound American governments (at different levels), and eventually the largest private entities as well. But America abandoned its commitment to that tradition in all but name. America is no longer committed to property rights, free markets, free expression, or free association, such protections exist today only on paper. So every entity makes locally optimal decisions, leading society into a slow collapse.
- brap 1y agoOn one hand you’re saying property rights and free markets, on the other you’re saying private entities should be kept in check (by who? I assume the government). Isn’t that a contradiction?
- bootsmann 1y agoIs it? Is it not Americas refusal to step in the reason why most of the web today is based on and designed around the things Google deems important? Doesn’t seem like a free market to me.
- solatic 1y agoWho said a belief in property rights and free markets made you an anarchist? Strong governments are required to protect property rights and free markets; still, the government is supposed to have a system of checks and balances that helps to keep its power from being abused. There is a tension, but one that was supposed to be guided by the north star of protecting American values. Sadly, in the modern American government, legislation is too slow, justice is sold, and the executive runs amok unchecked. None of them are able to effectively attack the zoning and permitting processes that prevent developers from exercising their property rights to develop additional housing; markets have been captured by oligarchs who actively undermine the competition necessary for a free market, again with complicit legislative, judicial, and executive branches.
- GeoAtreides 1y ago>Is there some zero-sum pie of power Yes, that's exactly how power works. You can dilute power (in non-hierarchical organizations) or you can concentrate it (in rigidly hierarchical societies), but there's a finite amount of it and it's deeply coveted by all
- shiandow 1y agoThat is a symplistic view, two people can achieve a lot more together than individually and today's society can achieve a lot more than prehistoric humanity. I can get fruit and spices delivered to me that a Roman emperor would barely be aware of, and I can do so without leaving my bed.
- GeoAtreides 1y agoThe issue was power, not cooperation. Not sure where modern logistic chains come into play when talking about power.
- shiandow 1y agoIf power is not the ability to make things happen then what is it?
- GeoAtreides 1y agoPower is a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
- solatic 1y agoNo, this isn't how power works. Money/wealth is economic power, which can be grown through the application of renewable resources (e.g. human labor, electricity, resources that can be grown like wood) to build that which is more valuable to the participants of a transaction than the sum of its parts. As more wealth is created, more areas of power are created. If you disband a hierarchy (e.g. a company goes bankrupt/out of business), power hasn't been diluted back down to the individual level, rather power has been destroyed. Hypothetically, if humanity went extinct tomorrow, there would be no power left at all.
- mmmore 1y ago> a zero-sum game I don't see any reference to the game being zero-sum in Tao's words. > Since when do these uncontrollable intangibles exhibit a genuine agency of their own? I don't think Tao is saying the uncontrollable force of technological and economic advancement exhibits a genuine agency of its own. Just that our current technology and society and has expanded the role of the extremely large organization/power structures compared to other times in history. This is a bit of technological determinist argument, and of course there's many counter-arguments, but it at least has a broad base of support. And at the very least it's a little bit true; pre-agricultural the biggest human organizations were 50 person hunter-gatherer bands. Honestly, I feel like you are filtering his words through your own worldview a bit, and his opinions might be less oppositional to your own than you might think.
- elliotto 1y agoYour example of firms setting up in the desert or wilderness assumes there is some desert or wilderness left to expand into. This is Marx's concepts of the expansion of capital. Marx argues that with nowhere to expand it begins to eat itself. You posit that the situation has a political cause, but I think this is just what happens when a system requiring exponential growth reaches the limits of its bounding box.