pear01

Just to address parts of this where we may have some small slice of agreement:

No kings might be cringe in that way, but then again can you really say that the tea party wasn't? Are Sarah Palin and the like effective avatars for intelligent government reform? It seems to me evoking 1776 and literal revolution because idk the government might subsidize healthcare is about as silly as calling an opposing president a king. To be clear, I'm also going out of my way to be extremely charitable to your position despite my personal beliefs. And assuming you will also in good faith attempt a willingness to assess protests movements along lines that go beyond your individual sympathies.

I would contend the reason the tea party was "successful" is because mainstream Republicans co-opted it and thought they could control it to temper an extremely charismatic incumbent Democrat who they wanted to weaken as they feared the extent of his mandate. Cue mitch mcconnell saying he will make Obama a "one-term president". Fox News and others became incessant boosters of it. Of course, this turned against them in 2016 when their plans to nominate another Bush collided with Trump riding the grassroots insurgency, which now somewhat controls them (we'll see what happens in the coming post-Trump era).

Democrats have simply not had such an insurgency, although it seems obvious given the failures of both sides of the mainstream that such a thing is coming. In some cases vis a vis "the deep state" (as vacuous as I find that term) those farther from the center agree, even if from opposite sides of the spectrum. If nothing more one can say a move to populism on either side is self evidently a move to some shared common representation of "populism", even if both left and right strenuously disagree on implementation and so on.

So anyway, I wouldn't pat the tea party on the back too hard. Their success has more to do with institutional Republican hubris than their own effectiveness. It's not like the current administration is actually implementing limited government, if you haven't noticed. But I suspect any hope we have of a good faith discussion will quickly evaporate if I stray any closer to that topic. Fwiw I think the collapse of successful civil movements has far more to do with trends we see causing other declines in our society, that is the collective elevation of self-interest, greed, bombast and mob makes right. In that way, perhaps the lack of success of some movements - given the environment in which they operate - is actually in a weird way a credit to them. If you are successful in an increasingly inane society, what does that say about you? What benchmark would you even articulate to define a successful protest movement in the modern United States?

Odd, I've never seen a theory of state creation that starts with the benefits of scaling "electrical grids, public transit, and plumbing". Those are quite modern benefits, so seem like odd choices to illustrate your point.

I think the comment you were replying to has a better sense of things. Government becomes an entity onto itself, and prioritizes its own existence, far past the original mandate at its genesis. A constitution becomes acculturated as a default, not because each successive generation ratifies and legitimizes it anew, but simply because with its perpetuation comes power that is hard to displace.

This isn't merely cultural. The powerful interests as the head of the state have an interest in maintaining such a thing. Yes there are benefits, but your modern list ignores the true driver, which is far less luxurious. State formation is simply another form of human domination. Dressing it up as economic efficiency might make for good academic papers after the fact, but the reality is they arose out of the need to dominate others or be dominated. Feats of engineering in the ancient world were constructed to revere the state or benefit in wartime. The United States used the same rocket technology it contemplated annihilating the Soviet Union with to put men on the moon. In all cases some benefits do trickle down to the common man, but always the state itself ends up as the highest priority.

I think the issue today is, on balance if you look at the real equation between whose domination do I fear, increasingly it is your own state, there are less trickle down benefits occuring, and far more avenues for such "benefits" - like the phone in your pocket - to be deceptive, ie appear as a benefit while actually being another instrument of control.

Plumbing doesn't spy on you. And it solved a real problem and improved lives. Increasingly today in modern societies people see states with more contrived demand, "bullshit jobs", less external threats, and yet more and more state domination. Democratic checks may prove even more fatal - turn over the ancient apparatuses of domination over to a mob.

So anyway, I just ask you not ignore the obvious. People didn't want states to get cheap electrical grids. They submitted to it because they didn't want to be hacked and pillaged in their own beds. The true "natural needs" of our species are far more dire than any of those relative luxuries you have listed.

It's a fair rejoinder, except I think it mixes idealism about government for realism. In reality, the government becomes an entity unto itself. This is a universal problem of government. Democratic institutions are themselves supposed to be a check on this impulse. However, as you are aware these are not absolute. A check that foresees a need to restrain government also sees a need to empower the government to restrain people.

I think however when we acknowledge that men are not angels, and that therefore government itself is dangerous merely as a centralization of power, then no, you cannot simply say well government is supposed to be of a different type of power than corporations. Because again, in reality this is often not the case. This is why several of the American founders and many of those who fought in that revolution also became anti federalists or argued against constitutional ratification.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think there has ever been a situation where it is accurate to say the population as a whole controls the government. In practice it doesn't work that way, and is about as useful as saying well the market controls corporations. I think something more like anti federalism could use a renaissance... the government should be weak in more cases. Individuals should be empowered. A government power to hold a corporation accountable could then rest on simply its strict duty to enforce a civil remedy. That is of a different nature than the government deciding on its own who (and more importantly - who not) to prosecute.

But I appreciate your push back, there are indeed no easy answers.

Why not make the civil case path easier then? The extreme nature of your remedy is the idea of a government taking over and owning a corporation. That creates bad incentives. I think if individuals could reasonably expect to be able to knock people like Mark Zuckerberg out of the billionaire class in a civil suit, then yes, he and the types of people he represents would behave better. Having the government run Facebook or Enron or Google or whatever both sounds less desirable than empowering individuals and weakening corporate protections in civil cases, and frankly; worse than the prevailing situation re the "capital class". If you think the current political situation is bad the last thing you should want is more government power.

In these cases, what is prison time going to accomplish that a severe enough monetary remedy would not? Putting someone in a prison cell is a state power (criminal remedy). I think that is a useful distinction generally, and a power that should be employed only when legitimized through some government process which has a very high bar (beyond a reasonable doubt, criminal rules of evidence, protections against self incrimination etc), as it deprives someone of their physical liberty.

It strikes me that if you also appreciate this distinction, then your remedy to corporations that have too much power is to give the government even more power?

Personally, I would like to see more creative solutions that weaken both government and corporations and empower individuals to hold either accountable. I think the current gap between individuals and the other two is too severe, I'm not sure how making the government even more powerful actually helps the individual. Do you want the current American government to be more powerful? Would your answer have been different last year?

Sounds like a very extreme remedy. Not sure you want whatever government is elected every four years to have this power. Doesn't address the concern re regulatory capture, could lead to worse government incentives. Why not focus on allowing regular people to more realistically hold corporations and their owners/officers liable in civil courts? It's already hard enough given the imbalance of funds, access and power... but often legal doctrine makes the bar to clear impossible at the outset.

Corporate death penalty as in terminate the corporation?

Why not the actual death penalty? Or put another way, why not sanctions on the individuals these entities are made up of? It strikes me that qualified immunity for police/government officials and the protections of hiding behind incorporation serve the same purpose - little to no individual accountability when these entities do wrong. Piercing the corporate veil and pursuing a loss of qualified immunity are both difficult - in some cases, often impossible - to accomplish in court, thus incentivizing bad behavior for individuals with those protections.

Maybe a reform of those ideas or protocols would be useful and address the tension you highlight between how we treat "individuals" vs individuals acting in the name of particular entities.

As an aside, both protections have interesting nuances and commonalities. I believe they also highlight another tension (on the flip-side of punishment) between the ability of regular people to hold individuals at these entities accountable in civil suits vs the government maintaining a monopoly on going after individuals. This monopoly can easily lead to corruption (obvious in the qualified immunity case, less obvious but still blatant in the corporate case, where these entities and their officers give politicians and prosecutors millions and millions of dollars).

As George Carlin said, it's a big club. And you ain't in it.

Is this some parody of bad social critique? You know not every trope applies in all cases, right? A greedy CEO not using his own product doesn't readily apply the higher in the value chain you get. You replied to a comment mentioning how it's obviously silly to think Tim Cook uses a Samsung Galaxy. Yet it seems like maybe you missed the point... or do you also think decision makers at Apple are using Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel phones? Or Windows surfaces or Dell laptops instead of MacBooks? Or maybe there is some designer bespoke OS or Ferrari level brand equivalent you are privy to that I'm missing? Or is your theory that he is so wealthy his use of personal butlers and subordinates ensures he never does any computing himself? He never sends a text or gets a personal phone call, or if he does some man-servant picks it up so he doesn't have to deal with the iOS interface that has been clearly designed for "poor people"?

Then the ending comment that again can't seem to distinguish a generalized slogan re a broad social grievance with a specific claim or discussion. And the sense of personal victimization. Because something is annoying you, well clearly you are being taken advantage of. You didn't even contribute anything pertinent to the discussion except to complain about a wholly unrelated UX experience, only to limply tie it together by doing nothing more than conclude that obviously both CEOs are richer than you are.

Such a silly comment. Is your theory that everyone with any decision making authority at Apple doesn't actually use the product? Even when it comes to "glaring annoyances or shortcomings"?

So odd of you to frame this as some sort of personal outrage. Like I'm so annoyed by this "glaring issue" on my device clearly the people working on this don't even use it or "it would be fixed in a day". Lol. Maybe people who actually have to get things done at a trillion dollar company don't have the same constraints as you, or relatedly, the luxury to obsess over your so-called glaring issues.

Fwiw I believe the comment you are replying to was being sarcastic. Thus, you don't need educating. You're making their point.

A line from George Carlin comes to mind...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-54c0IdxZWc

Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself.

So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"?

I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.

Guess they didn't see that coming says guy quoting them seeing it coming - u.

^ here you can downvote this one too

just don't be so smug. So many smug takes, not enough critical thinking. All of the founding was littered with irony anyway. He is to have said that to someone who couldn't vote, right? What does that imply?

They were men after all, not gods - as they warned later generations to remember. One wonders what your theory, what your solution is. What is your form of government? After all, in a different time perhaps something like a pardon is a useful instrument against the sort of mob rule they feared. Maybe it isn't. The Congress of the founding is far different from that of today.

But if you follow the broad strokes of what they predicted and what has happened, it's hard to argue they didn't see this coming. In fact they did. If they failed in preventing it that is one thing, but they clearly foretold of that possibility. And they ultimately decided it's up to the future, not to them.

Many of them signed off on compromises they already predicted would lead to conflict within generations, as it did (the civil war). As for the rest of it, I'm annoyed by your analysis and its lack of self awareness. Getting mad at you over "my country" makes no sense unless you are an alt for someone in power.

Regardless, I suggest you should read more about the debates during the founding if you care for a more nuanced perspective. Wherever you call your home, it cannot be totally immune to the same sorts of questions they grappled with, which afaik humanity has been wrestling with across cultures and across generations for all time. Have a good day

Incorrect. Why do you think they held that view in the first place? Ironic you can't seem to grasp the meaning of the quote you so smugly parroted.

voting patterns? The founders didn't want most people to vote.

Semantic games. At the end of the day if x is prioritized more than y and you want x and y to be equal you do want a relative boost in the priority of y. So fine. As I said I'm not sure they are equivalent or how this specific objection can't be applied to any other tax in a way that feels implausible. Should I get a voucher if I pack my kids lunch? Why are we "prioritizing" commerical food preparation?

Make it a progressive tax then? The point was many people can afford to help others to make society better for all. But you only want to pay taxes for what you're personally interested in? If you think stay at home needs to be prioritized in some way, as another comment mentioned, that's a separate argument. You are also relying on scenarios that don't even sound plausible. If someone can barely afford stay at home and this tax makes it that painful for them, then make it more progressive. Then again I'm not sure they are equivalent. At the end of the day a majority deciding something like this is in the common interest and you having a problem because you won't personally take advantage of it sounds like greed to me. No one should be going broke because of this tax. If you think capitalist mommy is making too much while you foot the bill then wouldn't the remedy be to tax her more? Are you worried about people who can't afford the tax or do you just resent some people for getting societal benefits while also making more than you?

So if I pack my kids lunch but other kids get a "free" lunch I'm worse off? Yes there is no "free lunch" I'm paying a tax for something I don't need. The comment you are replying to already anticipates this. How is it not the same argument? Your budget comment also puzzles me. What if my existing family budget is put under stress by the "free lunch tax" so now I'm even further away from being able to pack my own lunch? How is it different? Because it's a "new" tax? You can make the same argument for any tax then. At the end of the day are your children better or worse off if their future fellow citizens are growing up under roofs that can't afford childcare or healthcare or food? For someone that seems to know enough about costs and incentives and tradeoffs you seem to have quite a constrained view. Also, I'm curious about your waivers claim re costs because I would think given the scenario you laid out that would make the program more expensive. Your taxed for things other people use more than you. That's what society is. The point of the comment you are replying to is that people obsess over this as if they are being personally violated when really it is often just greed in the face of the common good.

As an aside, it would be curious if deepening political polarization creates a trend of blocking IPs from specific states or regions for whatever reason... perhaps in such a scenario there would be interesting relations or comparisons between the digital and physical divides...

You're missing the point entirely. The adversary in 1999 was not remotely near peer. So say arrogance there costs you only one plane, which nonetheless becomes infamous as a cautionary tale about superpower hubris. The same against China will be far more fatal. Also, fwiw conflict with China is routinely simulated by American war planners, and to put it plainly there is no longer any plausible scenario where America "wins handily" in the Taiwan strait. Your suggestion that this is even possible is therefore vaguely amusing. Maybe also look to the past decades of American war fighting. When was the last time we felt like we outright "won" a war? When against a peer or near peer? Mission accomplished?

Sounds like an interesting book, though far too many pages for a subject I have only a passing interest in. I would note given the authors affiliations I'm not sure I would ever consider it something that could "set the record straight". If there's a controversy about the program the authors backgrounds don't exactly suggest one will be getting a balanced view. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I appreciate the suggestion anyway.

Yes, and they did that because of the same arrogance alluded to in my quote.

They said the same thing about the F-117 in 1999. It was shot down by a Soviet era AA. It was said once, "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed". The same applies here. Comparing bombing Iran to a conflict with China is delusional, put plainly the capabilities of the aircraft have never actually been tested against a competent peer - when it actually matters.

Do you have any reason to attribute this to the fact they were F-35s? For comparison, how many jets were lost during "shock and awe"? Israel operates with impunity in Iran all the time, often on the ground. I'm not sure the fact they used F-35s is actually relevant here but if you have a source on that it would be interesting to read. Given the state of Iran it is hard to imagine the same could not be achieved with a last generation aircraft... it would not be surprising if by the time a peer power conflict starts manned aircraft like the F-35 will already be obsolete...

are you under the impression that the sole focus of an independent review as described in the root comment would be to investigate the personal veracity of "Participant 1"'s narration? do you alter course in your product because of single, particular user anecdote? i'm not sure what you think you are arguing against here...

yes, quality of life is a very difficult thing to measure objectively, because of the subjective component, as you state. are you under the impression the "reviews by independent experts" mentioned in the comment above the one you cited would only be meaningful if the person narrating their subjective experience was found to be outright lying? you are clearly familiar with some of the nuances, thus i'm not sure why you would not also be interested in independent reviews of the subject. his personal story is worth a lot, but it's not everything. i would think the more people reviewing it seriously, the more benefit to people like your father (and countless others)

a good point, and one that highlights the fact that people are unironically relying on "objective"/"subjective" distinctions in this thread - when this division is not necessarily a straightforward one in neurology or philosophy/language. putting a neurological implant in someone's brain doesn't strike me as an act that immediately clarifies this issue, to put it mildly. but this technology is still in its infancy. thus, the more people to "review" it, the better... doesn't mean the benefits they are giving people or the work has to stop... it just doesn't mean some skepticism isn't warranted either...

if that's the case why do you care to read about his subjective experience, at all? isn't that the point of the comment inquiring about an independent review?

if it is truly "objective" then his subjective experience is irrelevant, so your logic makes no sense. it is not necessarily incorrect to investigate or be skeptical about another's self reported "subjective" claims (never mind their "objective" ones), for the reasons the comment you were dismissive of mentioned. plus given the nature of the company one would hardly be surprised if certain facts are cherry-picked over others. if it's truly as cut and dry as you believe, then surely any independent expert will soon end up empty handed. being dismissive of such an endeavor before it has even begun feels like kool-aid sippin...

Should the government be able to blackmail credit card companies? Do you really think the credit card companies care where you spend your money? All they want you to do is spend more. They are trying to get out ahead of your own fellow citizens (and their government) who agree with more "censorship" and, at least in this regard, more state control. Unless you have a solution for this strain of American politics focusing on credit card companies is, in this situation, missing the point.