[ChicagoBoy11]

Ha, yeah, that's it. And, the quote in question, from David Segal, apparently:

"Everyone wants to be the king of the hill. That's international. But the number of aspiring kings always dwarfs the number of available hills. So in this country, we build more hills. We're geniuses, in fact, at building more hills."

[dempedempe]

Which is great until those hills directly or indirectly affect people's health. Healthcare should not be a hill. Prisons should not be a hill. Politics should not be a hill.

[ativzzz]

Pick your poison - would you rather have too many hills or not enough hills? Turns out limiting hill making is complex, and requires an even bigger hill that calls the shots

[Podgajski]

I would, in fact, rather, we had a flat landscape.

[ativzzz]

A flat landscape implies no opportunity for anyone to do anything. If you really want, go live in the wilderness on your own. That is the only true flat landscape

[Podgajski]

Flat landscape means no one rules over anyone else. I means you can give people authority but you can take away that authority without repercussions.

If you want to live in a world subjected by a king or some fool on a hill, go ahead. I don’t pretend like you’re anything other than a peasant.

[ativzzz]

> no one rules over anyone else

This is impossible, because in this scenario, someone will get weapons and will forcefully take over and rule everyone else. This is just how human nature works

[waterheater]

Your system only works if everyone is uniform. Unless you strongly disincentivize or eliminate the desire to see over the heads of the crowd standing on the plain, a taller person will be able to see further than a shorter person. The shorter person, who happens to desire to see at least as far as the taller person, may then try to scoop some dirt into a pile to get their head above the crowd. Hills and valleys of all types will then be made by the taller person to preserve an unobstructed line of sight.

The only way a person can absolutely reject authority is to live alone in wild territory (since managed territory is ruled by governing authorities). This scheme works until another person decides they want to live in the wilderness and happen to choose the exact same spot of woods as you, which is statistically probable since some geographic locations are more desirous than others. At that point, you will either find a way to coexist with this person or attempt to push them out. If you try to push them out, you're saying you're the ruler of the territory, so that option contradicts the objective of rejecting authority, for how can you say you reject authority and then become authority without being a hypocrite?

So, the only viable option is to coexist. Over time, more people who reject authority arrive, and you must coexist with them or pack your bags for somewhere else, which you really don't want to do. Presumably, you'll work the land in some way to provide for your own sustenance. One day, your neighbor accuses you of killing their livestock overnight. You obviously didn't, and you tell them that, but they just don't believe you because they know they saw you on their land the previous night. At this point, you're frustrated because you're innocent but can't demonstrate it, and the other people who reject authority like yourself are unable to decide who to listen to because neither one of you has more authority than the other. Someone comes up with the idea of writing down a common set of life principles and rules for dispute arbitration, so both legal and judicial systems are born. Down the line, someone decides to ignore the arbitration outcome, and the community decides that arbitration outcomes must be respected, so enforcement systems are created. At that point, everyone living in that spot of wild territory have created a government under the rule of law.

The point of all this is, at some level, we are all ruled by something, be it a single human or a government. Are you primarily taking issue with monarchy? If so, absolute monarchy exists in only a handful of places in the world, with most monarchies being constitutional monarchies which delegate much political authority to democratically-elected individuals. And yes, some people like trusting that the rulers will do a good job. If that makes them peasants, so be it, but consider that even the people in the wilderness community must hope that their government under the rule of law will be successful. If they aren't rooting for its success and actively work against it, the rule of law will eventually collapse.

[Podgajski]

I want to add as well, that you will all deride Elon Musk, but in secret you want to be Elon musk, you want to be that same person on top of the hill. So, even though you’re not him, you’re no better than him.

[VincentEvans]

The fact that you are so sure of what you are saying here is a reflection of your own character. You are projecting.

I am not the person you are replying to, but I assure you that “I” never wanted to be a on top of anything. I don’t want celebrity or wealth. I want to be left alone most of all, and having just enough to achieve it.

Just telling you this so that your horizons of what people want open up a tad and you don’t assume that everyone around you is a different looking copy of you.

[ativzzz]

> I want to add as well, that you will all deride Elon Musk, but in secret you want to be Elon musk, you want to be that same person on top of the hill. So, even though you’re not him, you’re no better than him.

Yes, this is what America is built on. American culture is winner take all, and we generally want to be the winner.

We don't deride his success, we deride the fact that he acts like a child on social media

[sparselogic]

I tend to read Harrison Bergeron as cautionary tale, not inspiration…

https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...

[dempedempe]

Europe's doing a pretty good job at limiting hill making, while still having plenty of hills for healthy competition.

[robertlagrant]

They affect health by creating enormous numbers of new fields for research and medicine, which after patent expiry is generified and manufactured cheaply for eternity.

[dempedempe]

You can have medical research without charging $1000 for an ambulance ride, $10k - $20k for having a child, $100,000 for staying in the hospital a few days. Those are the things I'm talking about.

[robertlagrant]

You can, but these are complex systems, where some areas will have a profit incentive and be efficient, and others just mired in regulation, either directly or in a way that prevents competition arising. I don't think anyone deliberately built that hill. It's made up of lots of awesome hills and lots of hideous quagmires.