3 ms·
Why limit the discussion to the current system and past ones? That's like saying memory safety is bad because before C++ there was assembly code and that was ev
by inigyou 4mo ago
Why limit the discussion to the current system and past ones? That's like saying memory safety is bad because before C++ there was assembly code and that was even less safe.
- Brendinooo 4mo ago> which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.
- inigyou 4mo agoIt's literally the exact same argument.
- Brendinooo 4mo agoRestoring something that was lost is very, very different than creating something that hasn't been done before.
- inigyou 4mo agoWhy?
- Brendinooo 4mo agoBroadly speaking, anything that's been done once is doable again; anything that hasn't been done before might not be possible. Concretely: if the author's perception that a capitalist/calvinist fusion robbed us of/distorted something is true, that he could have existed in a society outside of this shadow in a way he'd find acceptable...that's a very different story than him longing for a world that has never existed. >Even just capitalism with more regulation and safety nets (the ones most countries implement don't work very well) would suffice here. You speak very matter-of-factly, and you might be right, but in reality this is only a hypothesis! Maybe more regulation has a tipping point at which it starts to do more harm than good. Maybe if safety nets are too strong they create perverse incentives.