Imagine if everyone went on a sort of “strike” all at once: don’t work with or for anyone you think is sleazy or unfair. Don’t do any job you think is pointless or immoral. Just actually listen to your personal judgment. Would everyone starve?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Yes, this experiment was run many times as communism. People's intuitions about what's "bad" and "unfair" are an exceptionally poor way of organising society; personal morality just doesn't scale.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK
Communism was not self-organized. It was led by revolutionary leaders who told the peasants what to do.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Which is because it's hard to get anything done without leadership, people realize this & leadership emerges. Most actual progress IMO comes from good ideas that scale well, like rule of law, the scientific method, markets, peaceful and orderly transition of power etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK @s_r_constantin
Most anti-progress doesn't come from too many bad people, but from bad ideas like communism, superstition, acceptance of feelings as more worthy than facts, promotion of incestuous procreation, promotion of the extended family over the state & other corruption, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK
This is the main obvious alternative to my intuition. (Apart from the extended-family thing? Never heard of that.)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @RokoMijicUK
Like, this is conservatism, what you’re saying, and it isn’t unreasonable!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @RokoMijicUK
But the “hippie” or “Quaker” or “Randian” intuition is like “look. We have no real shortage of positive-sum contributors in the world. They tolerate assholes because they’re *confused* and think “maybe it’s just me, maybe that guy isn’t an asshole and I’m just missing something.”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Non-assholes have selfish motivations that they're not fully aware of. Women choose to date rich/powerful men irrespective of how they got it. People associate with those who managed to win because it benefits them in particular.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK
Here's the thing. It's *locally* rational to pay protection money to a thug who might protect you from other thugs. (Which is more or less what sexual attraction to powerful-but-amoral men is.) It's not rational if a large enough group can commit to not doing it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is basically the same thing as "infantry can beat cavalry if they stay in formation but not if anybody turns and flees." Yes, it's a coordination problem! That's the whole point I'm trying to make!
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @RokoMijicUK
Recognizing that collectively you have more power than your enemies, and sticking to your positions even if it's scary, is an actual thing that can ever work, and history is full of examples.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
yeah but you need a coordination mechanism. Otherwise game-theoretically it's the free rider problem i.e. many person prisoner's dilemma and the Nash Equilibrium is everyone defects. Militaries need discipline and in historical battles most casualties were after one side broke.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
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.