5 ms·

> The coming clash of civilizations will determine which future becomes real. And I know which side I’m on. There are some good bits in this writing, it did po

> The coming clash of civilizations will determine which future becomes real. And I know which side I’m on. There are some good bits in this writing, it did point out some of the core problems, I was going to discuss some of those points, but the sentences kept rolling by, losing focus and getting sidelined into heroic drama like the quote above. Actually, there's nothing new, those who taste power want more of it, and since power corrupts, attaining absolute power requires absolute corruption, at some point it must be made legal, based on some theory of rightful oppresiosn and cannot be allowed to be called corruption - "1984" was written long time ago. It's kind of disturbing to see something so simple and ancient being effectively deployed with absolutely nothing realistically useful against it. It's time to stop acting surprised that this is happening in America, the Constitution won't defend itself, and Hollywood drama isn't the way to defended it. We need politics 101, streetwise edition, which ironically, isn't about going to the streets. The first step is to to discuss the policies of the Democratic party, motivations aside, they appear to be more of an aid than a deterrent of the process unfolding before us.

eightysixfour 1y ago
> We need politics 101, streetwise edition, which ironically, isn't about going to the streets. The first step is to to discuss the policies of the Democratic party, motivations aside, they appear to be more of an aid than a deterrent of the process unfolding before us. I, personally, think we should separate it from the Democratic party to start. The operating paradigm is wrong there. You need to define the new ideal party and then co-opt.
- mrandish 1y ago
  > The operating paradigm is wrong there. Agreed. In the U.S., the two-party duopoly is a manifestation of the problem. Neither party really stands for any long-term principle anymore (if they ever did). Although both parties will still sometimes selectively campaign on some historical principle, once in power they'll strategically weaken legislation, craft loopholes, defund enforcement or stage manage their votes so nothing that really matters to their stakeholders changes meaningfully. Anyone still invested in the Kabuki theater of party vs party, even on a 'lesser of evils' basis, is missing the real meta that's unfolding.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    Funny that, I just looked at your profile, obviously, one (or two) can't sell magic tricks to a magician... Cheers.
    - mrandish 1y ago
      Yeah, as a teenager I was fortunate to get early formal training and direct mentoring in the 'magical arts' from some well-known masters of the craft. While my career as a full-time performing pro didn't outlast my early 20s, that way of thinking and seeing does tend to inform my perceptions in ways I can't really turn off. I used to jokingly refer to it as 'my misspent youth' but training in the creative aspects of magic has also proven surprisingly useful in my tech startup career. The most valuable part was studying formal magic theory - a rather academic specialty focused on human perception and psychology. Very few magicians ever get into it because the vast majority of magicians don't invent their own tricks. Even David Copperfield buys almost all of his tricks from specialized magical inventors you've never heard of, often under exclusive 'performance rights' contracts (which can be fairly lucrative). Most magical inventors don't actually perform magic professionally themselves, in much the same way that many great song writers and music producers aren't singers. To me, magic theory is still the most fascinating and enjoyable part of magic.
nostrademons 1y ago
I'd really like to see examinations of why feudalism seems to be the both the most efficient and most stable social structure in history. If you look at recorded history, it's a few thousand years of feudalism punctuated by democratic blips like Athenian and Roman democracy, the Rennaissance, and today's liberal democracy. The common element to all of those is growth - democracy seems to take root in civilizations that are economically expanding, and then fall to empire or feudalism once that growth slows. And then even within liberal democracy, we end up reinventing feudalism as a way to run corporations, the executive branch, the judicial branch, non-profits, and so on. If you can identify why humanity keeps regressing to feudalism, you could perhaps introduce just the elements that make it successful and stable while keeping the egalitarian ethos of democracy.
- eightysixfour 1y ago
  Power is either in concentration mode or diffusion mode. When certain people perceive the pie is not growing anymore, they switch to power concentration strategies to get bigger slices of the pie. The winners take over, become the new feudal lords, etc. I'd argue the switch in the US happened sometime around the mid to late 60's and started showing up in the policy of the 70s: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ What happened was the United States became, for all intents and purposes, post-scarcity. We had enough stuff, now it was a game of who got it. "Feudal" approaches to running corporations and is because Democracy isn't about being the most competitive, so of course it isn't right for an economically incentivized business. It is making an intentional trade-off from efficiency for long-run stability and human dignity. Feudalism is playing a finite game (you must win). Democracy is trying to play an infinite one (you must make it to the next turn).
- userulluipeste 1y ago
  "I'd really like to see examinations of why feudalism seems to be the both the most efficient and most stable social structure in history." It's the game theory playing on individuals' personal interests. The feudal system is aimed at assuring the status-quo for each participant in the power pyramid. The king relies on the high nobles to keep him and themselves in power, the high nobles rely on lesser nobles in the same way, and so on, everyone having to acknowledge and pledge loyalty/protection to someone else in order to get a modicum of security for their stance. Of course, everyone also has to extract and share resources upward. The collective interest is only secondary and this fact, for better or worse, keeps the life simple and fits the human psychic very well. However, I do not agree that feudal social order is efficient. The nature of relations between people made things very transactional and specific, which imposed hard limits on the amount and degree of mobilizing and engaging people for pretty much anything.

eightysixfour 1y ago

> We need politics 101, streetwise edition, which ironically, isn't about going to the streets. The first step is to to discuss the policies of the Democratic party, motivations aside, they appear to be more of an aid than a deterrent of the process unfolding before us. I, personally, think we should separate it from the Democratic party to start. The operating paradigm is wrong there. You need to define the new ideal party and then co-opt.

mrandish 1y ago
> The operating paradigm is wrong there. Agreed. In the U.S., the two-party duopoly is a manifestation of the problem. Neither party really stands for any long-term principle anymore (if they ever did). Although both parties will still sometimes selectively campaign on some historical principle, once in power they'll strategically weaken legislation, craft loopholes, defund enforcement or stage manage their votes so nothing that really matters to their stakeholders changes meaningfully. Anyone still invested in the Kabuki theater of party vs party, even on a 'lesser of evils' basis, is missing the real meta that's unfolding.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  Funny that, I just looked at your profile, obviously, one (or two) can't sell magic tricks to a magician... Cheers.
  - mrandish 1y ago
    Yeah, as a teenager I was fortunate to get early formal training and direct mentoring in the 'magical arts' from some well-known masters of the craft. While my career as a full-time performing pro didn't outlast my early 20s, that way of thinking and seeing does tend to inform my perceptions in ways I can't really turn off. I used to jokingly refer to it as 'my misspent youth' but training in the creative aspects of magic has also proven surprisingly useful in my tech startup career. The most valuable part was studying formal magic theory - a rather academic specialty focused on human perception and psychology. Very few magicians ever get into it because the vast majority of magicians don't invent their own tricks. Even David Copperfield buys almost all of his tricks from specialized magical inventors you've never heard of, often under exclusive 'performance rights' contracts (which can be fairly lucrative). Most magical inventors don't actually perform magic professionally themselves, in much the same way that many great song writers and music producers aren't singers. To me, magic theory is still the most fascinating and enjoyable part of magic.

nostrademons 1y ago

I'd really like to see examinations of why feudalism seems to be the both the most efficient and most stable social structure in history. If you look at recorded history, it's a few thousand years of feudalism punctuated by democratic blips like Athenian and Roman democracy, the Rennaissance, and today's liberal democracy. The common element to all of those is growth - democracy seems to take root in civilizations that are economically expanding, and then fall to empire or feudalism once that growth slows. And then even within liberal democracy, we end up reinventing feudalism as a way to run corporations, the executive branch, the judicial branch, non-profits, and so on. If you can identify why humanity keeps regressing to feudalism, you could perhaps introduce just the elements that make it successful and stable while keeping the egalitarian ethos of democracy.

eightysixfour 1y ago
Power is either in concentration mode or diffusion mode. When certain people perceive the pie is not growing anymore, they switch to power concentration strategies to get bigger slices of the pie. The winners take over, become the new feudal lords, etc. I'd argue the switch in the US happened sometime around the mid to late 60's and started showing up in the policy of the 70s: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ What happened was the United States became, for all intents and purposes, post-scarcity. We had enough stuff, now it was a game of who got it. "Feudal" approaches to running corporations and is because Democracy isn't about being the most competitive, so of course it isn't right for an economically incentivized business. It is making an intentional trade-off from efficiency for long-run stability and human dignity. Feudalism is playing a finite game (you must win). Democracy is trying to play an infinite one (you must make it to the next turn).
userulluipeste 1y ago
"I'd really like to see examinations of why feudalism seems to be the both the most efficient and most stable social structure in history." It's the game theory playing on individuals' personal interests. The feudal system is aimed at assuring the status-quo for each participant in the power pyramid. The king relies on the high nobles to keep him and themselves in power, the high nobles rely on lesser nobles in the same way, and so on, everyone having to acknowledge and pledge loyalty/protection to someone else in order to get a modicum of security for their stance. Of course, everyone also has to extract and share resources upward. The collective interest is only secondary and this fact, for better or worse, keeps the life simple and fits the human psychic very well. However, I do not agree that feudal social order is efficient. The nature of relations between people made things very transactional and specific, which imposed hard limits on the amount and degree of mobilizing and engaging people for pretty much anything.