Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

Privatize all roads? So every time you crossed a boundary between competitors you'd have to pay a new toll or mile-based fee? Sounds like a logistical headache and a general pain in the ass for travelers.

Roads are not a monopoly? I live near Chicago. How could a potential competitor try to enter into the market with a new set of roads -- where are they going to get the land to build a new road? In everything else you mentioned, a competitor could create something new and disrupt the industry, although it might take a lot of money (Apple did it a decade ago with smart phones). Good luck to any would-be competition creating an alternative to the street that my driveway is connected to.

If you didn't read my post, I addressed this, for the most part. If you did read my post, I suggest going back over it. Tolls are some of the last things economists would expect to see en masse on private roads.

[wufwugy]

Here's the thing, most laws regarding automobiles arose by necessity.

Most regulations arise out of necessity (or "necessity"). But that doesn't mean that they solve the problems they intend to.

A significant chunk of the field of economics is about explaining why and how regulations seldom solve the problems they intend to and instead mostly create new ones.

[Savy]

If you didn't read my post, I addressed this, for the most part.

I thought it was fairly well accepted that the whole system or roads and individual transport that has arisen is incredibly wasteful and inefficient and were the result of huge lobbying by the road and car lobby.

[wufwugy]

If you didn't read my post, I addressed this, for the most part. If you did read my post, I suggest going back over it. Tolls are some of the last things economists would expect to see on private roads.

One way to understand this is that in a free market of roads, it is extremely unlikely that the roads in a literal marketplace (think: shopping center, malls, blocks and blocks of different stores) would be owned by any company other than one that works with a conglomeration of the businesses in that marketplace or by the businesses themselves. In a place like this, you would not find tolls for access except for higher end stores (like how you don't find tolls for access at Walmart but do at Costco). Most of these marketplaces would have as cheap of transportation to and from and through their offerings as possible. The ones that would include tolls would do so as part of a business model to provide different offerings (again, like how Costco uses memberships to pay for things Walmart can't).

Economics is awesome. It works for all sorts of stuff that societies currently don't apply it to.

[wufwugy]

I thought it was fairly well accepted that the whole system or roads and individual transport that has arisen is incredibly wasteful and inefficient and were the result of huge lobbying by the road and car lobby.

Could be. When the government is involved in stuff, there's typically lots of lobbying by private entities for special treatment.

[wufwugy]

Since the concern about private roads is access, let's look at how governments treat access. On account of governments blocking it, I see billions of people not allowed access to all sorts of things that would make their lives and other peoples' lives better.

If transportation was priced in a marketplace -- based on costs and benefits in enterprise -- total access and mobility would increase significantly.

[JKDS]

Most regulations arise out of necessity (or "necessity"). But that doesn't mean that they solve the problems they intend to.

A significant chunk of the field of economics is about explaining why and how regulations seldom solve the problems they intend to and instead mostly create new ones.

What's your point? Even if your claim is true, it doesn't mean regulations are bad as applied to the automobile industry. This response from you is intellectually lazy.

Are you meaning to suggest that licensing and registration is a mistake, and that all drivers and all vehicles should be permitted? Because that's pure applesauce.

[wufwugy]

What's your point? Even if your claim is true, it doesn't mean regulations are bad as applied to the automobile industry. This response from you is intellectually lazy.

Are you meaning to suggest that licensing and registration is a mistake, and that all drivers and all vehicles should be permitted? Because that's pure applesauce.

I was responding to the idea that laws and regulations arise from necessity. They're billed that way, but most of them don't have the intended effects.

About licensing and registration specifically, our current renditions operate mostly as a tax/fee. Licenses stop very few people from driving, some of which should be stopped. This shows the government's natural incentives in action: the two most important considerations for the government when it comes to roads are collecting revenues and providing virtually equal access to citizens. This isn't what regulations are supposed to do; instead they're supposed to do things like make the roads safer. If licensing was really about safety, we'd see far more rigorous testing, fewer licenses, and fewer vehicle types.

Registrations act largely as a tax/fee on users too. The amount of "problematic" vehicles (things like vehicles that are overly pollutant or destructive to the roads) they keep off the roads is teeny. The main utility that falls within the realm of registration is proof of ownership.

We're already in a situation where pretty much all drivers and vehicles are permitted, with marginal exceptions. Even so, I don't recommend no licensing or registration. I would prefer that they're handled privately so that they would reflect real costs and real concerns instead of mostly just being about revenues.

[JKDS]

I was responding to the idea that laws and regulations arise from necessity. They're billed that way, but most of them don't have the intended effects.

Many regulations don't have the intended effects, true. But my post wasn't about all laws, it was about automobile laws. Licensing and car registration came about specifically because there were too many death machines killing everyone and people couldn't stand it. Your points in the following post are a much better response, and I appreciate that.

About licensing and registration specifically, our current renditions operate mostly as a tax/fee. Licenses stop very few people from driving, some of which should be stopped. This shows the government's natural incentives in action: the two most important considerations for the government when it comes to roads are collecting revenues and providing virtually equal access to citizens. This isn't what regulations are supposed to do; instead they're supposed to do things like make the roads safer. If licensing was really about safety, we'd see far more rigorous testing, fewer licenses, and fewer vehicle types.

How would you suggest improving them? In most states, driving without a license is a criminal offense. In arizona, we're talking up to 6 months jail and $4700 in fines. That's pretty powerful disincentive. You're also required to show a valid drivers license before you can buy a vehicle from a dealership.

Does this stop people? Not all. But how would it be improved? A mandate that cars scan and validate a license prior to operation? That would be incredibly onerous, and the backlash from car companies would be great.

As far as licensing and registration fees go, the mvd has a cost. The employees don't work for free, and the buildings have bills like any other building. Revenue alone isn't enough to say that the government's purpose in making these laws is income based, and not actually public safety. Afterall, while the laws don't stop everybody, they do stop some. In addition, about 1/3 of fatalities a year are caused by those who break one of these laws, so there is a legit government interest in keeping bad drivers and unsafe vehicles at bay.

Registrations act largely as a tax/fee on users too. The amount of "problematic" vehicles (things like vehicles that are overly pollutant or destructive to the roads) they keep off the roads is teeny. The main utility that falls within the realm of registration is proof of ownership.

I don't think that's true. It's at minimum a chicken or egg argument, since I don't see too many obviously dangerous cars on the road.

Regardless, it has a huge effect on the trucking industry, who must limit their registered weights so that they don't destroy the roads with a 50,000 ton load.

We're already in a situation where pretty much all drivers and vehicles are permitted, with marginal exceptions. Even so, I don't recommend no licensing or registration. I would prefer that they're handled privately so that they would reflect real costs and real concerns instead of mostly just being about revenues.

I agree that the laws should be tougher. Many would agree on that point to...some licensing laws are a waste of time given how trivial they are (others in some states I would say the opposite).

But I'm not convinced private control would decrease costs. Right now you assume that the government licenses for profit, but businesses presumptively would. Given the absurdly high demand for driving, the equilibrium cost could get unnecessarily high. Idk what power a business would actually have in preventing drivers from driving either...and for their end...they may actually have weaker laws to encourage more people to license and register.

[wufwugy]

I agree that the laws should be tougher. Many would agree on that point to...some licensing laws are a waste of time given how trivial they are (others in some states I would say the opposite).

The thing is that I don't think the laws can be tougher since the government owns the roads and it has an imperative to treat its citizens equally. This makes discrimination from government tough and something that shouldn't happen. However, discrimination is imperative to a well-functioning society. That doesn't mean all kinds or instances of discrimination are good, but many are, like price discrimination.

So, that's to say that I don't think the government can make the licensing laws that rigorous. However, I think private entities can, because they have no imperative to treat people equally. This gets to a crux of how the differences between governments and private entities manifest. Governments that discriminate are bad governments, but discrimination is at the heart of what allows competition among private entities to flourish. These dynamics manifest in governments as a generally inefficient and stagnant but stable function; whereas these dynamics manifest in private environments as efficient and innovative and ultimately creating new things that were previously not imagined and lowering costs.

I have a feeling the way I worded those last two sentences may be confusing as hell, so let me know if they are. I'm basically just describing and contrasting the effects of non-discriminatory governments and the effects of discriminatory private entities.

But I'm not convinced private control would decrease costs. Right now you assume that the government licenses for profit, but businesses presumptively would. Given the absurdly high demand for driving, the equilibrium cost could get unnecessarily high. Idk what power a business would actually have in preventing drivers from driving either...and for their end...they may actually have weaker laws to encourage more people to license and register.

Why is there high demand for transportation? It's not much of an end-good in itself. If there is no store to go to and no job to go to, people would have little reason to drive. Since driving isn't the consumer goal, it means that if its costs are increased, the demand for other products and services that are the consumer goals would have reduced demand, because people would go to stores less, buy things less, have less money, etc.. In a world where the equilibrium price of transportation is unnecessarily high, demand for some other stuff shifts down. In this case that downward shift would likely be enough that profits would fall. Since this other stuff is what consumers want and driving is mostly a means to get it, companies that existed in environments with high transportation costs would suffer. This also means that the cheaper and more efficient transportation is, the more profits companies make.

I like the point in the last sentence a lot. If correct, it means that the costs of our current government road system is higher than the road system would be in a free market. I think it is correct that it would be unnecessarily tough to prevent certain drivers and that doing so would impose too many costs, but I'll make a small change in that I suspect instead of licenses and registrations, patrols or responders to accidents would be looking for insurance. Insurance is already huge, but it would likely be much huger (and less complex IMO) in a free market world.

[JKDS]

I don't get your discrimination argument. Tough laws are equally tough on everyone, so that wouldn't stop the government.

I don't see how you disagree with the high demand of transportation. Almost every family has at least one car, and most families are completely dependent on them for employment and shopping (including for necessities).

Even in a perfect restructuring where all employees live within comfortable walking distance of both stores and employment, they would still be reliant on it for shipping and visiting friends and family. But the cost of creating such a japan-esk system would be incredibly high. As is, a lack of transportation is a huge hindrance to a person's quality of life.

[wufwugy]

I don't get your discrimination argument. Tough laws are equally tough on everyone, so that wouldn't stop the government.

Auto licensing is different than most other laws in this regard since the more exclusionary they are, the more the government is creating inequity since people who can get the licenses would have a massive advantage. If government made licensing regulations rigorous enough to significantly reduce traffic accidents, it would also have the unintended consequence of creating a ton of disadvantaged citizens who can't drive. Or at least this is a type of outcome that could happen. There are some others.

Rigor in standards in a free market tend to not manifest into such divisions because there are more substitutes. A person who can't get licensed by one rigorous company still has recourse to get licensed by a less rigorous company. His equity would be lower (but so would his costs), yet not nearly eradicated like it would be in the former example of a highly exclusionary government auto licensing system. Even then, this isn't a point I want to argue because I don't think licensing is something that naturally occurs in the free market the way that governments do them. Governments like to license service providers and sometimes consumers; free markets like to license property.

I don't see how you disagree with the high demand of transportation. Almost every family has at least one car, and most families are completely dependent on them for employment and shopping (including for necessities).

Yes, the demand is high, but the demand isn't for the car for the purpose of the car. The demand is for the car for the purpose of the job or the shop. As cost of driving increases, the people will go to the shop less. They will even go to work less. They'll shop less because each visit will have an increased cost, and they'll work less because they'll have gotten a pay cut. Keep in mind, this is in aggregate. In some ways this is counter-intutive, because it makes a lot of sense to work more when you make less money (because obviously you need more money so you have to work more, right?), but that's just not how it falls out. Lower pay incentivizes less work. Higher cost of transportation to work, when all else is equal, decreases incentive to work and increases incentives to do other things thought to be more beneficial. Opportunity cost is an important concept here. If a father thinks his opportunity cost to spend more time with his kids is lower than making 4k/mo, so he works the hours to get 4k/mo instead of spending more time with his kids, but then he gets a pay cut to 3.8k/mo on the same hours, he may think that the opportunity cost of more time with his kids is now higher than making 3.8k/mo. He could then settle on dropping work hours and move to spending more time with kids and making just 3.6k/mo.

Even in a perfect restructuring where all employees live within comfortable walking distance of both stores and employment

One of the neat things about free markets is that substitutions like this evolve out of disincentive or prohibitive costs like you mentioned. For example, if the cost of transportation goes up, the benefit of substitutes increases. This can include other forms of transportation, restructuring where and what resources are acquired from, and even reforming entire regions. We see it in real time as people are emigrating from the high cost of living big government cities and into lower cost of living small government regions. Of course, in this regard, not all government is the same. Specifically, migration patterns within the US appear to have the most to do with income taxes and housing regulations, i.e., places with low housing restrictions and no income taxes are getting the most people and places with the opposite are losing people.

[wufwugy]

I, for one, am completely in favor of more ridiculous policies that increase the number of total pussies and office drones that are being raised. Every year, there's going to be a fresh new batch of dumbasses just waiting to be exploited for the betterment of the superior men and women who have the balls and brains to take what's theirs.

I've been stewing on this for a while. It colors where your unconventional stance comes from, and I've been trying to figure out exactly how I feel about the concept.

I have an opinion now, but a hard time clearly substantiating why. I guess I'll just drop the statement that I think if we were to contrast two worlds: (1) you and a small minority of others are smarter, more willful, and overall more capable people than the vast majority, or (2) most everybody is as smart, willful, and capable as you, your life would be better in (2) than in (1).

[spoonitnow]

I've been stewing on this for a while. It colors where your unconventional stance comes from, and I've been trying to figure out exactly how I feel about the concept.

I have an opinion now, but a hard time clearly substantiating why. I guess I'll just drop the statement that I think if we were to contrast two worlds: (1) you and a small minority of others are smarter, more willful, and overall more capable people than the vast majority, or (2) most everybody is as smart, willful, and capable as you, your life would be better in (2) than in (1).

While your point is well taken, it's also completely irrelevant to how this situation plays out in reality. Thanks to our biology, there will always be a small minority who are significantly more intelligent, willful and capable than everyone else, and this will give them a certain power. Since power is amoral, any discussion of the morals or ethics of being in such a position is overwhelmingly asinine. Instead, it's much better to learn to handle the situation as best you can, regardless of which side you belong.

[wufwugy]

While your point is well taken, it's also completely irrelevant to how this situation plays out in reality. Thanks to our biology, there will always be a small minority who are significantly more intelligent, willful and capable than everyone else, and this will give them a certain power. Since power is amoral, any discussion of the morals or ethics of being in such a position is overwhelmingly asinine. Instead, it's much better to learn to handle the situation as best you can, regardless of which side you belong.

I get that, but I don't get how this means that it's good for dumb policy to be enacted and dumbness of people to be encouraged/created. That's what I thought your post implied, at least.

[JKDS]

Fishermen need fish in the sea.

[spoonitnow]

Fishermen need fish in the sea.

This pretty much covers it. There's also the issue of having the 99 percent fight among themselves, this time for the sake of equality and an egalitarian fantasy world, to keep them from ever going after the 1 percent, who can't really be challenged by that type of bullshit.

[wufwugy]

If you're a lawyer who needs a dentist, you get low utility by having fish address your dental needs. What you want is a fisherman in his own right. This lesson extends, well, probably to the edges of society. This shows that the fisherman-fish metaphor is broken, at least in this scenario and the many others like it. I can't think of a more fitting metaphor that wouldn't be a direct pull from economics.

So my question is then: what are fish good for? Yeah, if you want people to be stupid and give you things, well, then fish are good for you. But that's seriously small stuff. Outside of that, what are they good for?

[spoonitnow]

If you're a lawyer who needs a dentist, you get low utility by having fish address your dental needs. What you want is a fisherman in his own right. This lesson extends, well, probably to the edges of society. This shows that the fisherman-fish metaphor is broken, at least in this scenario and the many others like it. I can't think of a more fitting metaphor that wouldn't be a direct pull from economics.

So my question is then: what are fish good for? Yeah, if you want people to be stupid and give you things, well, then fish are good for you. But that's seriously small stuff. Outside of that, what are they good for?

The metaphor isn't broken at all. You're trying to assign an absolute value to the fish instead of assessing the value of the fish relative to the fisherman. Your approach leads to the assumption that a fish is completely useless, which isn't the case. A very good dentist from your example could very easily be a fish in this metaphor.

Incompetency at power does not imply incompetency at dentistry, or anything else for that matter.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I said, FISH!
huuh
good god, y'all
(what are they good for)
absolutely nothing
(aside from tasty meals, and sustaining ecosystems)


***
People have varied talents. Power has many forms.

Seeking to be powerful in and of itself is great. Pretending that this quest is somehow superior to other quests is not a given, not even implied. Power is one path and the world needs powerful leaders. The utility of power is mitigated by the domain over which the power is asserted. Power asserted over "fish" wouldn't be much of a power if not used to empower the fish to be more better at fishy things which thereby increase the power of the domain over which the powerful leader is overseeing.

So go ahead and seek that power, but be careful of thinking that you have taken the power, because in notable ways you have the power by the submission of the fish, who will turn on you if they feel it's worth the effort.


***
Spoony for Pres!

[wufwugy]

The metaphor isn't broken at all. You're trying to assign an absolute value to the fish instead of assessing the value of the fish relative to the fisherman. Your approach leads to the assumption that a fish is completely useless, which isn't the case. A very good dentist from your example could very easily be a fish in this metaphor.

It appears we're talking about different things. Give an example of the good dentist being a fish, so I can be sure what you're talking about.

[spoonitnow]

It appears we're talking about different things. Give an example of the good dentist being a fish, so I can be sure what you're talking about.

I'm using fishermen/fish here for the sake of simplicity to refer to the ruling class and fish to refer to everyone else, which includes multiple classes of people in and of itself. There are varying degrees of power within different classes of people, and the nuances of that are lost in this analogy for the sake of me not having to type five paragraphs at a time in this discussion. With that having been said, there is an upper echelon (ie: the ruling class) that has the most influence (ie: power) by far, and it's in their best interests to maintain the lower classes to a degree.

The ruling class (fisherman) wants to have power over a nation that includes a class of extremely capable, skilled workers (dentist) in all professions.

Pretending that this quest is somehow superior to other quests is not a given, not even implied.

Every single person's life is a quest for power (ie: having influence over events) whether they acknowledge it or not. Finding food so that you don't starve to death is an example. Ong's lifestyle choices are another example.

Power is one path and the world needs powerful leaders.

Again, power is the only path. The only difference is in the degree and application.

The utility of power is mitigated by the domain over which the power is asserted.

A critical component in handling power of any type is managing the corresponding domain.

Power asserted over "fish" wouldn't be much of a power if not used to empower the fish to be more better at fishy things which thereby increase the power of the domain over which the powerful leader is overseeing.

In case you missed it, I was referencing the metaphor JKDS gave to note the need for the ruling class to keep everyone else adequately provisioned. Some people mistake this as being kindness for the sake of kindness, but it's necessary in cultivating and preserving power with longevity.

So go ahead and seek that power, but be careful of thinking that you have taken the power, because in notable ways you have the power by the submission of the fish, who will turn on you if they feel it's worth the effort.

I mentioned that, "A critical component in handling power of any type is managing the corresponding domain." This includes managing the preservation of power. With that having been said, note that submission is not the ideal arrangement. Instead, you would prefer that the "fish" from the analogy aren't even aware of the arrangement, or if they are, they aren't aware of any way to effectively change the status quo. The SJW "movement" is a good example of providing a movement to get behind that will actually keep the fish in line while giving the illusion of challenging the fishermen.

This is an extremely deep subject with a lot of intricate parts, but I'm trying to keep from this becoming a time sink for myself, so bear with me.

[wufwugy]

Even in this power-user/power-used dichotomy, are not the fishermen better off if the fish aren't fish?

[spoonitnow]

Even in this power-user/power-used dichotomy, are not the fishermen better off if the fish aren't fish?

You're tagging some connotation on the word fish that isn't there. Fish here means non-ruling class. The ruling class is not better off if the ruling class simply gets bigger.

[JKDS]

You have a business. To succeed, you need a business model that takes money from your customer's pocket and puts it into yours. The easier it is to do that, the better off you'll be. The less competition you have, the better off you'll be.

Fishermen want few other fishermen and plenty of stupid fish.

This started off as a discussion about whether it's better if everyone was as smart, willful, etc as everyone else. The answer is no. Spoon is a writer, he would make far less money at writing if every other writer was just as good as him. He'd make far less money if every reader knew as much as him. His business depends on a large knowledge gap between him and his audience and other writers, and so shrinking that gap is bad for business.

Fishermen and fish.

[wufwugy]

You have a business. To succeed, you need a business model that takes money from your customer's pocket and puts it into yours. The easier it is to do that, the better off you'll be. The less competition you have, the better off you'll be.

Fishermen want few other fishermen and plenty of stupid fish.

This started off as a discussion about whether it's better if everyone was as smart, willful, etc as everyone else. The answer is no. Spoon is a writer, he would make far less money at writing if every other writer was just as good as him. He'd make far less money if every reader knew as much as him. His business depends on a large knowledge gap between him and his audience and other writers, and so shrinking that gap is bad for business.

Fishermen and fish.

I've been not characterizing people being bad at something as fish. I'm not sure what to do with this topic because I'm honestly confused. Could be I'm just tired.

If we talk about specific instances, yeah then people who are bad at things are fish in them. But it looked to me like the fisherman/fish dichotomy was talking about some other sort of power dynamic, which is why I brought up the idea that when people are less fishy, things are better for everybody. The contrast I was thinking of is if you have one situation where you have a lawyer and a bum versus another situation where you have a lawyer and a dentist instead of a bum. The latter scenario makes the sample better off, but I mentioned it because I thought it also made the sample less fishy. But it seems I may not be interpreting the power context correctly.

[JKDS]

I'm just sticking to the initial question; which can be simplified as such: Would the advantaged be better off with their advantage or without? The answer is clear.

[spoonitnow]

You have a business. To succeed, you need a business model that takes money from your customer's pocket and puts it into yours. The easier it is to do that, the better off you'll be. The less competition you have, the better off you'll be.

Fishermen want few other fishermen and plenty of stupid fish.

This started off as a discussion about whether it's better if everyone was as smart, willful, etc as everyone else. The answer is no. Spoon is a writer, he would make far less money at writing if every other writer was just as good as him. He'd make far less money if every reader knew as much as him. His business depends on a large knowledge gap between him and his audience and other writers, and so shrinking that gap is bad for business.

Fishermen and fish.

I'm just sticking to the initial question; which can be simplified as such: Would the advantaged be better off with their advantage or without? The answer is clear.

If wuf can't turn it into 12 straight posts at about 5 paragraphs each, then he doesn't know what to do with it.

[wufwugy]

I'm just sticking to the initial question; which can be simplified as such: Would the advantaged be better off with their advantage or without? The answer is clear.

It depends on which context. If we're talking societal level, generational stuff, then the answer is that the upper classes are better off when the lower classes rise. This is how modern economies were created. Without this, the rich of today would still be riding horses to get from one place to another.

[JKDS]

Nonsense. This isnt about class, its about advantages and power. In every context, I would rather have a large advantage than a small one.

[wufwugy]

Nonsense. This isnt about class, its about advantages and power. In every context, I would rather have a large advantage than a small one.

It's the same regardless of which descriptor you use.

Of course at every given point in time it's better to be higher than lower. But I'm not talking about isolated points in time. I'm talking about societies at every point in time. If you want the hypothetical lives of people 200 years from now to be better off and you could choose one of two kinds of societies for the next 200 years -- one with a few advantaged or one with tons of advantaged -- the one with the few advantaged would be far less better off after the 200 years than the one with the tons of advantaged.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm still mulling over the notion that every goal is power, and whether or not that is a overly encompassing way to define power or not.

Still on the fence. It's not within the ambition of most people to be in the ruling class. So it's not like everyone seeks the same forms of power. I am fine seeing power as ability to affect change and/or control over one's life.

***
Wuf, I assume you're not claiming to see the future, so you'd be far better off citing events from 200 years ago and relating them to current affairs than speculating on what it's going to be like 200 years from now.

It's still a simple matter of the fact that a ruling class with no ruled class is pointless. Your point that a ruling class is benefited by a more capable ruled class is a separate issue.

[spoonitnow]

It's still a simple matter of the fact that a ruling class with no ruled class is pointless.

This can't exist. The "ruling class" would then divide into a true ruling class and a new ruled class.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm so ready to be a hooooman. I can do all the things.

[spoonitnow]

This can't exist. The "ruling class" would then divide into a true ruling class and a new ruled class.

Related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...slave_morality

[wufwugy]

Given that Nietzsche describes slave morality as utility, it's no wonder that slave morality has won. Master morality is less useful. The less useful dies off.

I suspect that if Nietzsche were alive today, his criticisms would flip, given that master morality has brought the greatest disasters the world has ever known (Nazi Germany) and slave morality has brought the greatest benefit the world has ever known (free-ish market capitalism)

[spoonitnow]

Given that Nietzsche describes slave morality as utility, it's no wonder that slave morality has won. Master morality is less useful. The less useful dies off.

I suspect that if Nietzsche were alive today, his criticisms would flip, given that master morality has brought the greatest disasters the world has ever known (Nazi Germany) and slave morality has brought the greatest benefit the world has ever known (free-ish market capitalism)

Slave morality is focused on utility of the community aka of the oppressed. Along these lines, slave morality can only win if it pulls the oppressor to the same state of the oppressed, which it has certainly attempted to do, but it has not done so completely, so I couldn't say that it has won. Your previous fascination with victim culture ties in here, etc.

I think "free-ish market capitalism" is clearly of a master morality. To make my point as simply as possible, slave morality consists of forced equality (communism), the opposite of capitalism which awards effort, the accumulation of power, etc., the virtues of the master morality.

You are correct, however, in that a bastardized version of master morality was used as a part of the Nazi propaganda machine.

If you read through On the Genealogy of Morality, the book where he expanded on these ideas in the most of his works (before getting a bit too metaphysical for my tastes), there's a very close connection between victim culture and the slave morality just as there is between a dignity (and honor, to an extent) culture and the master mentality. The commonalities of the honor and dignity cultures, in terms of personal responsibility to drive towards an end (though each uses different means), are more or less at the core of the master mentality.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. There are a non-zero percentage of people who take responsibility for themselves and their own position in life, regardless of where they fall in the lens of "privilege" that's so popular now. These people have the master morality, and they will ultimately come to accumulate more power than those who do not take on this morality through the simple function of said morality. Slave morality is a direct attack on those who have the master morality in an attempt to drag them down in a perfect example of the "crabs in a bucket" scenario.

[spoonitnow]

I can see that interpretation. The wiki describes slave morality in some ways that I think mis-characterizes that though. Freedom and utility are essential for free market capitalism, yet the wiki calls those slave morality values.

Sorry for the ninja edit. Both forms of morality in that model are based on utility, but it's the context of that utility that changes.

Also, the master morality is more freedom-centric than the slave morality, the latter of which is reactive and inherently binding, and the former of which is active and inherently freeing.

[wufwugy]

Your explanation makes a little more sense, at least as far as Nazi Germany goes, because that was very victimization based. The sensibilities that brought forth the Bolsheviks and communism are not that different than what brought forth the Nazis. I've argued that they're essentially the same.

[wufwugy]

heh, i deleted it in an attempt to avoid the confusion. no matter.

[JKDS]

It seems like a capitalism v socialism dichotomy.

Blegh, spoon posted this first

[JKDS]

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work. If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work.

If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

[spoonitnow]

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work. If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

Git r done

[spoonitnow]

It seems like a capitalism v socialism dichotomy.

Blegh, spoon posted this first

Related: When people go from not having to pay for their own shit to having to pay for their own shit, they tend to move from favoring socialism to capitalism in large numbers.

[Savy]

Related: When people go from not having to pay for their own shit to having to pay for their own shit, they tend to move from favoring socialism to capitalism in large numbers.

I'm not sure why this is that relevant, it's pretty obvious that humans are massively self-centred.

I have noticed the more time I spend on here the more fun I have annoying people in real life with how capitalism >>>> is good times.

I got offered a job today, a month of marking exam papers. Going to be riveting. Thankfully it's in the evening so tides me over money wise and I can apply for some proper long term jobs in the process & don't have to worry about not being able to make interviews during the day.

[spoonitnow]

I'm not sure why this is that relevant, it's pretty obvious that humans are massively self-centred.

It's relevant because it shows that increasing responsibility for oneself can change someone from having a slave morality to a master morality. Moreover, it shows the transition from slave morality to master morality can be culturally driven (as opposed to someone having to just be born with it).

[spoonitnow]

People with a master morality seem to have more tools to help other people than those with the slave morality. There's a saying that you have to be able to help yourself before you can help other people, and a big part of it is that simply having power gives you more influence and more resources to help.

The main tool that those of the slave morality have is that they are a majority of the population, and they can try to leverage this majority through things like purchasing power.

It would seem that today's game is making those of the slave morality believe they are attacking the masters when they are really attacking other slaves. [Insert a stock discussion of cultivating infighting here.]

Along the same lines, you can leverage those of the slave morality to make them believe they are supporting other slaves when they are really supporting masters. There was a good example of this concept that happened last year when some straight, white, cis-gendered males made a ton of money by selling items with feminist and SJW catch phrases on them.

What is probably my favorite recent example of this is found here (source):

The march prompted Amazon to warn employees that they could be targeted by protesters.

“Please remember to not wear anything that has Amazon logos and keep your badges covered or put away and out of site [sight],” an internal Amazon memo read.

Marchers walked by the Amazon buildings as employees watched from inside, many filming the protest.

Three of the protesters who gathered earlier in the day at Westlake Park told a reporter they had purchased their Guy Fawkes masks online by using the Amazon Prime membership of a parent.

“We’re here for the movement,” said one of the protesters, who declined to give her name. ”We’re part of the 99 percent against the 1 percent.”

[spoonitnow]

I want to say a few more quick things regarding the master/slave morality, the elite minority vs the not elite majority, or whatever other semantics you want to use to describe the concentration of power towards a few of any group. I promise I'll be done with it after this.

First, it absolutely has to be this way, and there is no other way for things to play out for a group of human beings. If you start off a group of people being absolutely equal, then some of them will accumulate more power over time than the others. There are some fun studies on this sort of thing, and it's generally understood that it will happen pretty much regardless of the size of the group or the purpose of the group.

Second, there are certain checks available against the accumulation of power that limit over-the-top abuse. The main check is the simple fact that the elite will always be a minority, usually a very small minority, and we've seen repeatedly through history that revolution happens when the conditions of the majority get to be too bad. Now we have things like welfare and copious amounts of entertainment to systematically keep the minority from rising up, and the majority has gotten better at maintaining their position as a result.

Finally, it's much better in terms of overall happiness to be a part of the elite in your group than to be a part of the not-elite majority. To give an example of this, there have been a lot of studies to show things like people would much rather make $70,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $35,000 than to make $125,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $250,000.

[wufwugy]

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work. If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

Grats. Glimpse into the future:

[wufwugy]

I quite like the model. It fits my own theories. I think it provides a much more accurate reading of history and politics. For example, what people tend to call left-wing and right-wing are really just subsets of slave morality. They were called opposites because they battled each other; this is how communism and fascism got called opposites even though they spring from the same branch.

As best I can see it, the real division is between the Enlightenment and Romanism. That is, ideals of individualism, liberty, and capitalism on the one side, and ideals of collectivism, subservience, socialism on the other side.

An issue I have is that I'm unsure if it's accurate to say that master morality is inherently a minority. I would argue that a lot of what that has allowed Enlightenment ideals to flourish comes from wide adoption of elements of master morality among the people.

[wufwugy]

I never liked the Fermi Paradox. Where's the paradox in a bunch of civilizations that don't bother expanding beyond their solar systems because they've already reached technological bliss?

[Savy]

I never liked the Fermi Paradox. Where's the paradox in a bunch of civilizations that don't bother expanding beyond their solar systems because they've already reached technological bliss?

Hand wavy bullshit isn't it.

And what you've said is one of the explanations used against it.

One of the "google doodles" (ewww) led me to this. Possibly the best thing ever.

[spoonitnow]

Anyone here played Factorio? It's a pretty solid game that's a lot like the automation/wiring aspects of Terraria.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I never liked the Fermi Paradox. Where's the paradox in a bunch of civilizations that don't bother expanding beyond their solar systems because they've already reached technological bliss?

It's not science. It's a fundamentally hand-waving argument based on unfounded assumptions which sound pretty good, but which are not backed by actual evidence.

It's all based off of assumptions about what constitutes "intelligent" life and what those intelligent species would desire in realm of general exploration.

Given that it takes "only" a few tens of millions of years to cross the galaxy using our current level of technology, it seems a huge stretch to assume every species would do it when we still haven't done it (and for quite good reasons).

Even if it were "easy" to make an interstellar colony ship, it's still not clear what kind of profit model would need to be invoked to justify the economic investment in the ship. When it takes decades to reach even our closest neighbor star and no guarantee of sufficient resources to justify said expenditure in time and money ... well ... what's the motivation again?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Anyone here played Factorio? It's a pretty solid game that's a lot like the automation/wiring aspects of Terraria.

I've voyeured the pants off of it, but not played it.

It looks like a very fun game for a once-through, but as a base-builder game, it doesn't leave you too many options for each system you automate. I.e. Once you've built an assembly line for a thing, there is really only one way to make that thing, so you can't redesign your assembly line in the next play-through utilizing a different assembly process.

Sure, you can re-arrange your base and its various assembly lines, but the changes will be minor and the fun of problem-solving how to get all the assembly lines working is kind of lost.


Do you disagree? Am I missing something about this game?

[boost]

First, it absolutely has to be this way, and there is no other way for things to play out for a group of human beings. If you start off a group of people being absolutely equal, then some of them will accumulate more power over time than the others. There are some fun studies on this sort of thing, and it's generally understood that it will happen pretty much regardless of the size of the group or the purpose of the group.

This is what bugs me the most about idealistic progressives-- egalitarianism as a fuzzy goal is great, but as a concrete true to definition destination is ridiculous. But then I think, maybe this is simply how the system works-- individual actors have no clue what the actual goal is. They have their ideals and they fight for an unrealistic goal, and their counterparts on the other side of the isle have opposing ideals. In this dichotomy we stay anchored to the actual goal, yet the slack in the line lets both groups feel like they are winning or losing the battle, which keeps them engaged, and ensures neither is ever capable of snapping the line and sending us adrift.

I suppose it's a pretty cynical nihilistic view, but it certainly feels more right than what any activist, on any side, is pushing.

Finally, it's much better in terms of overall happiness to be a part of the elite in your group than to be a part of the not-elite majority. To give an example of this, there have been a lot of studies to show things like people would much rather make $70,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $35,000 than to make $125,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $250,000.

Sup, wuf?

[wufwugy]

Sup, wuf?

It can be said that beyond basic necessities (like enough food to not die), people find relative status to be more important than absolute status. This can explain why things get better yet they don't feel better. The poor today are in a better position (in an absolute sense) than kings of the past, yet people would probably feel much better as the king who has to shit on cold stone by candlelight than the poor person of today who watches Game of Thrones on wifi.

[rong]

I minute in the life of my head, every day at one point at least:

Don't fuck it up. Don't fuck it up. Don't fuck it up. You're gonna fuck it up. You don't know what you're doing. Everyone is going to see what fraud you are. You're gonna fuck it up. You don't deserve to be here. You just got lucky. You don't know what you're doing. You're gonna fuck it up. You're exposed now. Everyone will see how useless you are. Why are you wasting this opportunity? Do you realise what a massive opportunity this is? You got such a big opportunity and you're gonna fuck it up. Bring in more business. You need to bring in more. You haven't done enough. Why aren't you bringing in more? People see through you. You don't know what you're doing. You're gonna fail. You're failing right now. You don't know what you're doing. You can't deliver on that promise. You're exposed. Everyone will see that you don't know what you're doing. How have you got here?

[wufwugy]

[rong]

Nah, it's only for a minute.

[Savy]

Nah, it's only for a minute.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36082469

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgsv9qt

From my limited working experience I'd argue lots of people in higher up jobs are incompetent frauds so should be feeing that way.

[JKDS]

Nah, it's only for a minute.

Sounds normal.

[rong]

Sounds normal.

I guess that's what I was hoping to hear.

[JKDS]

I guess that's what I was hoping to hear.

I didnt know if you wanted actual advice or not; but the short answer is competition.

You are competing, even in your current state, for your job. Every day is a question of "how do I justify my boss's (investor's / partner's / etc) faith in me". What stops them from moving on and picking someone else?

You're also competing with your image. When you see someone you used to know, and they say "I'm happy with a job, wife, house, and kids", what do you say that will satisfy you?

Then finally with your ego. You are now ___ years old. Are you doing enough to achieve your goals in a timely manner? Are you on the right path

Thats what you get for having a goal :P

[Savy]

Have been watching some whatculture WWE videos on youtube so thought I'd see if there was anything to watch turns out there was a PPV event on & I found some footage of it to watch.

First match someone gets injured and they have to stop it. Which considering it's meant to be a fight is hilarious. Should have dragged him back into the ring and pinned him then he can be taken off on a stretcher.

[spoonitnow]

Have been watching some whatculture WWE videos on youtube so thought I'd see if there was anything to watch turns out there was a PPV event on & I found some footage of it to watch.

First match someone gets injured and they have to stop it. Which considering it's meant to be a fight is hilarious. Should have dragged him back into the ring and pinned him then he can be taken off on a stretcher.

Third match counting the pre-show, but there's no reason to drag him into the ring and pin him because they will have won by count out or ref stoppage anyway. Going outside of the ring to pull him back in could have resulted in a DQ loss or a double count out for a draw, both of which are worse than winning, especially since it was a number one contender's match for the tag team championships.

Somewhat related, but the two matches (with accompanying segments) right after that was some of the best professional wrestling that WWE has put out in the past ten years. Kevin Owens (aka Kevin Steen) seems like he was finally allowed to really do his thing, and it was tremendous.

[spoonitnow]

To elaborate on the above without editing the fuck out of my already edited post, one of the biggest things that kills interest in professional wrestling is a lack of logic or storyline continuity. For reasons that would require a much more detailed post than I want to go in on right now, both WWE and TNA (the #1 and #2 North American companies, respectively) have been pretty bad about this.

For example, having a character turn (ie: switch from good guy to bad guy, or vice versa) too often can kill off interest in the character. It's often the result of lazy planning, and it's hard to understand why they do that because of the lack of an upside.

[OngBonga]

Now we have things like welfare and copious amounts of entertainment to systematically keep the minority from rising up, and the majority has gotten better at maintaining their position as a result.

I just want to say that welfare totally keeps me under control. It's no secret that I hate the system and that I refuse to give my life to support it, but I'm content and happy so long as I'm fed and sheltered, I don't feel the need to enforce my views on others. If I had literally no choice other than to work at a shitty factory, I would be much more vocal about my feelings, and probably a lot more proactive in trying to change things. Of course, alone I would change nothing, but there would be millions who find themselves deseprate.

This is one reason I feel that welfare is necessary in a civilised capitalist society. Without welfare, we truly are slaves to the system, and that's a dangerous mindset to put a great many people in.

Finally, it's much better in terms of overall happiness to be a part of the elite in your group than to be a part of the not-elite majority. To give an example of this, there have been a lot of studies to show things like people would much rather make $70,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $35,000 than to make $125,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $250,000.

I don't agree with this though. People might think it's better to be part of the elite, but I don't think that's true at all. It's what people aspire to because we think it's a better world. Of course, it is a better world, if you're a sociopath who can deal with the knowledge that what is to your benefit is to the 99%'s detriment. Unfortunately for me, I suffer from empathy, and a perhaps deluded view of the world, which means I'd rather be poor than rich.

[wufwugy]

I just want to say that welfare totally keeps me under control. It's no secret that I hate the system and that I refuse to give my life to support it, but I'm content and happy so long as I'm fed and sheltered, I don't feel the need to enforce my views on others. If I had literally no choice other than to work at a shitty factory, I would be much more vocal about my feelings, and probably a lot more proactive in trying to change things. Of course, alone I would change nothing, but there would be millions who find themselves deseprate.

This is one reason I feel that welfare is necessary in a civilised capitalist society. Without welfare, we truly are slaves to the system, and that's a dangerous mindset to put a great many people in.

An economy with welfare is one where people have increased dependency on shitty circumstances.

Do you find it ironic that you described a situation where you have agency and called it being under control, and also described a different situation where you're under control and called it agency?

[Savy]

Third match counting the pre-show, but there's no reason to drag him into the ring and pin him because they will have won by count out or ref stoppage anyway. Going outside of the ring to pull him back in could have resulted in a DQ loss or a double count out for a draw, both of which are worse than winning, especially since it was a number one contender's match for the tag team championships.

Somewhat related, but the two matches (with accompanying segments) right after that was some of the best professional wrestling that WWE has put out in the past ten years. Kevin Owens (aka Kevin Steen) seems like he was finally allowed to really do his thing, and it was tremendous.

I thought the bold after posting but it's somewhat irrelevant to my point.

I'd agree that the matches after were very enjoyable, the LO one especially. His commentary on the match after was annoying though. After the CJ match it got a bit boring again.

[OngBonga]

An economy with welfare is one where people have increased dependency on shitty circumstances.

As opposed dependancy on forced employment? That's shitty circumstances in my opinion, at least when one considers the type of employment that is generally available to the unskilled.

Who are you to judge if my circumstances are shitty? Or anyone else's for that matter? You can only judge your own circumstances.

[wufwugy]

As opposed dependancy on forced employment? That's shitty circumstances in my opinion, at least when one considers the type of employment that is generally available to the unskilled.

What forced employment? The only thing being forced here is welfare forcing economies to be less productive and their people to have to work more for the same benefit.

Who are you to judge if my circumstances are shitty? Or anyone else's for that matter? You can only judge your own circumstances.

You alluded to some kinds of hard work making people stuck in shitty circumstances. I pointed out that welfare increases the amount of this kind of thing.

[OngBonga]

What forced employment?

Well what options do you have if there's no welfare?

The only thing being forced here is welfare forcing economies to be less productive and their people to have to work more for the same benefit.

Welfare obviously has a huge cost to the economy, but so too for unproductive workers, crime, social unrest. These things would rise massively if welfare were taken away. Forcing a drug addict into work is not going to make the economy any better off than forcing the taxpayer to keep him out of the workforce. I would argue that welfare is of overall benefit to the economy, if it wasn't they'd take it away. They won't do that because the economy would not be able to cope with the fallout.

So don't tell me that welfare is less of a benefit to the working class than no welfare, because it's an extremely short sighted viewpoint.

I guess I took issue with your "shitty circumstances" comment because it makes the assumption that being on welfare is a worse position to find oneself in than working a shitty job, as though those of us who rely on the state to survive should aspire to better things, like a 40-hr week in a dirty factory. One's circumstances are only as bad as one finds them. What you consider bad circumstances, another might find excellent. Like, earlier you said something like "if not for capitalism then today the ruling class would ride around on horseback" or whatever, like it's a given that cars are better than horses. That's a matter of opinion too, and the same can be said for everything that capitalism has done for us. Whatever way you look at it, industrialisation and the economic system that has evolved with it has caused a huge population boom over the last century. That's a good thing? I'm not so sure. We're nearing saturation point, in fact we're probably already past it.

I digress. The point I was making is that I strongly feel that society has a responsibility to provide welfare, for multiple reasons. Without it, employment is practically enforced, unless crime or begging appeal more. It would create a more unstable society and would not even be of huge benefit to the economy because those who really resent being forced to work will be unproductive. The monetry cost of negating these aspects would greatly outweight the current welfare cost, imo. And I believe that the very fact we have welfare is proof of this.

[wufwugy]

Well what options do you have if there's no welfare?

If you didn't want to work, you could just not work. Your circumstances would reflect your level of productivity. If you wanted to work, markets provide you with ample choice regarding a variety of different kind of work.

Welfare obviously has a huge cost to the economy, but so too for unproductive workers, crime, social unrest. These things would rise massively if welfare were taken away.

These things correlate with welfare.

Forcing a drug addict into work is not going to make the economy any better off than forcing the taxpayer to keep him out of the workforce.

Nobody's forcing somebody to work. You're in favor of forcing workers to subsidize those who don't want to work.

I would argue that welfare is of overall benefit to the economy, if it wasn't they'd take it away. They won't do that because the economy would not be able to cope with the fallout.

It gets votes and makes people feel like they're doing good. The same is true of belief in God. Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct, especially when the data demonstrates otherwise and the theory explains why.

So don't tell me that welfare is less of a benefit to the working class than no welfare, because it's an extremely short sighted viewpoint.

Welfare is like the belief that subtraction is addition. Productivity is subtracted from the productive (taxes) to fund anti-productivity. This is unarguable subtraction of net productivity, yet proponents of welfare claim it is addition.

I guess I took issue with your "shitty circumstances" comment because it makes the assumption that being on welfare is a worse position to find oneself in than working a shitty job

I did not claim that. Being on welfare is great in a vacuum. It's the existence of welfare that makes things worse for everybody in aggregate. Welfare benefits the recipient at the expense of non-recipients, which increases the amount of "shitty jobs" non-recipients have. Keep in mind that this is in a vacuum. Welfare has such unintended consequences that it hurts recipients as well over the long run, but that's a different point.

I digress. The point I was making is that I strongly feel that society has a responsibility to provide welfare

Look at the terminology you're using. Society doesn't provide welfare; people do, people who produce and develop skills that you don't want to.