4 ms·

> some problems aren't best solved through technology, or through "people caring", but simply through better governance. And here you run up against a religiou

by cbd1984 12y ago

> some problems aren't best solved through technology, or through "people caring", but simply through better governance. And here you run up against a religious belief named "The Government Is The Problem", which is utterly intractable and ineradicable in someone with an advanced case, and will never die off because it's founded on either blatant self-interest (A regulatory body is harming my profits!) or soured optimism (I thought everything was perfect until the scales fell from my eyes! Now I think everything is perfectly horrible!). It's related to cynicism, which has posed as maturity for so long some people honestly cannot tell the difference.

rattray 12y ago
I can't tell if you're accusing me of this religious belief or not, since I framed this as "the government is (could be) the solution" - a rather opposite attitude to the one you described. There are many sorts of cynical, overly sour people. The kind you describe is certainly one of them. But I don't see the relevance of their existence?
- sirsar 12y ago
  They are relevant because they control a large part of Congress.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>It's related to cynicism, which has posed as maturity for so long some people honestly cannot tell the difference. It's worse than that: I often see paranoia and even outright malice posing as maturity, and it seems most people cannot actually tell the difference.
innguest 12y ago
I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). Keep in mind what you're doing with that message is trying to discredit a whole school of thought by throwing ad hominem arguments. You are saying those like me have an advanced case of a cultish disease, and that we are selfish and cynical. You're entitled to those opinions, but this strategy of trying to taint a philosophy by attacking its messengers does not work on free thinkers like me that actually try to focus on arguments. You're distracting and not helping the discussion. This is still an open discussion in philosophy and you're welcome to participate if you can argue with civility.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). So how does that work when the government is the one preventing people from hurting people and taking their stuff? How does that square with the fact you can hurt people and deprive them of things without doing the kind of stuff NAP fundamentalists rail against, if you've rigged the game in your favor? If I own the only employer in town, and I don't like your face, you're going to be pretty damned deprived unless you magically work up the wherewithal to move. > You're distracting and not helping the discussion. There is no discussion with the people I'm describing. They're utterly dogmatic and will ignore or twist anything you tell them so their worldview isn't challenged.
  - innguest 12y ago
    "The government is preventing people from hurting people" is not a binary assertion, but a spectrum. An agency can have a success rate of 20% at preventing violence (in which case they are lousy at it) or they can have a 70% or 80% rate or higher and so on. So sure, the government is preventing people from hurting people at some particular rate. Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. Now on to your example. You're the only employer in town. Maybe you even own the land where people live, just to make it more challenging. Now you can "exploit" people all you want by choosing not to employ someone you think is ugly or annoying, let's say. Well, let's say I'm ugly and you don't employ me. I'm ugly but I have friends. People know me and because I'm a nice guy they like me and are willing to help me. Several things can come from this. If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)

by cbd1984 12y ago

rattray 12y ago

I can't tell if you're accusing me of this religious belief or not, since I framed this as "the government is (could be) the solution" - a rather opposite attitude to the one you described. There are many sorts of cynical, overly sour people. The kind you describe is certainly one of them. But I don't see the relevance of their existence?

sirsar 12y ago
They are relevant because they control a large part of Congress.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>It's related to cynicism, which has posed as maturity for so long some people honestly cannot tell the difference. It's worse than that: I often see paranoia and even outright malice posing as maturity, and it seems most people cannot actually tell the difference.

innguest 12y ago

I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). Keep in mind what you're doing with that message is trying to discredit a whole school of thought by throwing ad hominem arguments. You are saying those like me have an advanced case of a cultish disease, and that we are selfish and cynical. You're entitled to those opinions, but this strategy of trying to taint a philosophy by attacking its messengers does not work on free thinkers like me that actually try to focus on arguments. You're distracting and not helping the discussion. This is still an open discussion in philosophy and you're welcome to participate if you can argue with civility.

cbd1984 12y ago
> I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). So how does that work when the government is the one preventing people from hurting people and taking their stuff? How does that square with the fact you can hurt people and deprive them of things without doing the kind of stuff NAP fundamentalists rail against, if you've rigged the game in your favor? If I own the only employer in town, and I don't like your face, you're going to be pretty damned deprived unless you magically work up the wherewithal to move. > You're distracting and not helping the discussion. There is no discussion with the people I'm describing. They're utterly dogmatic and will ignore or twist anything you tell them so their worldview isn't challenged.
- innguest 12y ago
  "The government is preventing people from hurting people" is not a binary assertion, but a spectrum. An agency can have a success rate of 20% at preventing violence (in which case they are lousy at it) or they can have a 70% or 80% rate or higher and so on. So sure, the government is preventing people from hurting people at some particular rate. Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. Now on to your example. You're the only employer in town. Maybe you even own the land where people live, just to make it more challenging. Now you can "exploit" people all you want by choosing not to employ someone you think is ugly or annoying, let's say. Well, let's say I'm ugly and you don't employ me. I'm ugly but I have friends. People know me and because I'm a nice guy they like me and are willing to help me. Several things can come from this. If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)