6 ms·

> aligned self-interest The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with col

> aligned self-interest The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest. 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone.

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest Often, but not always. Successful societies amplify that exception. The whole notion of non-kinship based societies rests on mastering this alignment. When it collapses, so does the civilisation. > 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.
- asdf88990 3mo ago
  Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation. Not only is this demonstrated throughout human history but holds true to this day. Go ahead and show me a more profitable industry than diamonds or anything that runs on exploitation even to this day.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation This is constructed nonsense. Literally upheld by the competitiveness of maritime republics over their neighbourhing land powers.
    - asdf88990 3mo ago
      “Maritime Republics” that issued letters of marque for privateers to attack and pillage enemy trade ships? Talk about nonsense.
      - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        > “Maritime Republics” that issued letters of marque for privateers to attack and pillage enemy trade ships? Straw man. You said "exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation." [EDIT: Deleted. Unsure if this is a troll account.]
        asdf88990 3mo ago
        Of course it does. Why don’t you show me a counter-example? Tell me which enterprise wouldn’t be more profitable with exploitation? Just one.
- asdf88990 3mo ago
  How do you come up with this math? > The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    Did you mean to duplicate comments?
    - asdf88990 3mo ago
      Yes. How dod you come up with that math?
- AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
  > The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age. The problem here is that it's true of specific things, not specific epochs. If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive. Meanwhile in reality the government takes billions of dollars from ordinary people and gives it to the likes of Lockheed, Oracle and Microsoft. For the amount of money the US government pays Microsoft for Office subscriptions and the like, it could pay to have an office suite developed and released into the public domain many times over. Instead it uses the incumbent, in turn requiring others to do so in order to have formats compatible with the what the government uses. Who benefits from this other than Microsoft?
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > it's true of specific things, not specific epochs It's true of all epochs. If it isn't in the indivdual interest of most people in a society to continue participating it, at a certain point, they don't. > If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive Most people obviously disagree. And for obvious reason. If you're my neighbouring sovereign doing this shtick, I can invade and extract a premium.

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago

> self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest Often, but not always. Successful societies amplify that exception. The whole notion of non-kinship based societies rests on mastering this alignment. When it collapses, so does the civilisation. > 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.

asdf88990 3mo ago
Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation. Not only is this demonstrated throughout human history but holds true to this day. Go ahead and show me a more profitable industry than diamonds or anything that runs on exploitation even to this day.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation This is constructed nonsense. Literally upheld by the competitiveness of maritime republics over their neighbourhing land powers.
  - asdf88990 3mo ago
    “Maritime Republics” that issued letters of marque for privateers to attack and pillage enemy trade ships? Talk about nonsense.
    - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
      > “Maritime Republics” that issued letters of marque for privateers to attack and pillage enemy trade ships? Straw man. You said "exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation." [EDIT: Deleted. Unsure if this is a troll account.]
      - asdf88990 3mo ago
        Of course it does. Why don’t you show me a counter-example? Tell me which enterprise wouldn’t be more profitable with exploitation? Just one.
asdf88990 3mo ago
How do you come up with this math? > The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  Did you mean to duplicate comments?
  - asdf88990 3mo ago
    Yes. How dod you come up with that math?
AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
> The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age. The problem here is that it's true of specific things, not specific epochs. If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive. Meanwhile in reality the government takes billions of dollars from ordinary people and gives it to the likes of Lockheed, Oracle and Microsoft. For the amount of money the US government pays Microsoft for Office subscriptions and the like, it could pay to have an office suite developed and released into the public domain many times over. Instead it uses the incumbent, in turn requiring others to do so in order to have formats compatible with the what the government uses. Who benefits from this other than Microsoft?
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > it's true of specific things, not specific epochs It's true of all epochs. If it isn't in the indivdual interest of most people in a society to continue participating it, at a certain point, they don't. > If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive Most people obviously disagree. And for obvious reason. If you're my neighbouring sovereign doing this shtick, I can invade and extract a premium.