3 ms·
> which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.
by Brendinooo 3mo ago
> which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.
- inigyou 3mo agoIt's literally the exact same argument.
- Brendinooo 3mo agoRestoring something that was lost is very, very different than creating something that hasn't been done before.
- inigyou 3mo agoWhy?
- Brendinooo 2mo 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.