there have been numerous efforts to push massive governmental changes from the bottom up most of the involved people end up murdered and things returning to status quo very quickly (eg French Rev) or turn out very badly and eventually revert to status quo (Communishm)
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
if you want to push for something like that, probably best to boil it down to something that can be encapsulated by a three to five word slogan (really)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
all of *these* very large movements ultimately had quite broad intellectual support in advance, which should tell you something about intellectuals. but if you want to sway them it is important to become someone who intellectuals want to listen to first
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
a good way to do this perhaps is just to start hanging out on blogs and in comment sections and leaving incandescently brilliant comments. or at least thoughtful ones. freddie deboer and scott alexander got their start doing this sort of thing, freddie especially
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
ii. it might be worth thinking about what sort of change or small set of changes are most important to you, and think about how to accomplish them using the most modest means possible. large changes inevitably disadvantage a large number of powers who will be natural opponents
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
iii. for something like the US global empire, it might be worth spending some time thinking carefully about why it exists, what props it up, and what would happen to all of these social needs in its absence. the advantage of this is twofold
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
first, understanding why there are lots of powers propping up endless war etc by the US might give you a set of ideas about what other mechanisms might satisfy the desires of those powers and so give you a way of not making them your enemy
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
second, it lets you anticipate some potential failure modes for your agenda to avoid things like (eg) starving tens of millions of people when you collectivize land and kill a bunch of people who know how to farm the land. (but for international military power)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
That's why, although I obviously haven't produced very many details about it, I was specific in reminding people that the government and the people are adversaries in my model. My "civil network" and "global protectorate" are an attempted framework for adversaries to cooperate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RatifyGuy1776 @eigenrobot
Being unable to solve the problem of the government being bad, ensure that the people are not loyal to it, and enshrine this conflict in the founding documents.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
i think this too is a very tricky problem. i mean there are a lot of elements to it, countless, but some off the top of my head are
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @RatifyGuy1776
i. ok so how do you prevent a global protectorate from becoming exploitative itself ii. if we massively decentralize what stops people from centralizing and squashing less organized groups iii. how are you going to get buy in from the CCP
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot
i. That was part of why I suggested letting the masses have easy access to the surveillance network. Yes, I'm asking the known cheater to play fair this time. Realistically, there's little else to be done.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.