[Quarrelsome]

I think its quite something that we all waste our time over divisions like left/right, capitalism/socialism, woke/not-woke when in practice; this is the only division that matters. Those who are trying to follow the rules and make the nation better, and those that are only active for their self-interest.

[tacitusarc]

There’s an interesting book “What is Wong with the World”, which points out that despite everyone agreeing that things are broken and people should unite to fix them, there are many competing visions for what “fixed” looks like, and this is been the source of much of the contention.

It was written in the early 1900s.

[Quarrelsome]

While I agree there is contention about "what's wrong", there's a bit of a difference between "I should put government money into my pocket" and "I think local district zoning laws need reform".

[dmix]

I believe OP is saying the most fundamental thing is people working in government acting moral and in the interest of the country, and not using the power position for self enrichment or engaging in petty corruption for social gain. If you have that then it doesn't matter if your system is capitalist or socialist or a bunch of competing variations where no one agrees. The outcome will always be severely hampered by their constant interference in business, plundering of tax money, and repression of dissent.

Most people probably universally agree on the topic of corruption, unlike economics or social policy. But it requires a well designed political system and a strong culture, which is difficult to do retroactively.

[0x1ceb00da]

In poor countries everyone lives in a scarcity mindset, even the ultra rich. It's a lot like the supernatural stimulus that makes humans crave junk food and sugar. Some indian communities are prone to obesity because storing as much fat as possible was the only way to survive in the famines that happened under the british rule. Only people whose bodies could do that survived.

[logicchains]

Exactly. The problems with both governments and corporations come from when individuals working for them are able to act "above the law", and get away with things that if done by a solitary, poor person would land that person in jail. In a truly just society nobody would be above the law.

[seneca]

That's probably a healthy way to see things. Ideally all people that are actively working to create or improve should be on the same "side" against those that are destructive. The second order conflict then becomes what the rules are, and how we guide that side. That is, I think, where most of the factionalism historically plays out. It does feel like we're regressing to fighting that first order conflict more often now though.

In reality, it may be more complicated than that though. Most people don't see themselves as destructive, they just have a very different view of what the right rules are and what ought to be done to progress things. That can appear destructive from the outside.

[yibg]

> Most people don't see themselves as destructive, they just have a very different view of what the right rules are and what ought to be done to progress things. That can appear destructive from the outside.

I think that's partly true. e.g. pro life vs pro choice I can see both sides pushing for what they think is right.

Some people though do bad things, knowing those things are bad. But they do it anyways because it benefits them. So maybe it's not seeing themselves as being "destructive" per se, but at least not caring about the negative consequences to others.

[Quarrelsome]

I think tax cuts are possibly a decent enough proxy for this subject? While there's certainly a case to be made for tax cuts in very specific use-cases (e.g. where they're strangling demand/innovation/living costs/government-corruption/etc); a general belief in tax cuts is a constraint that makes it very hard to believe in society.

If you believe in tax cuts as a principle (i.e. 0% is a goal), then generally its hard to support government spending, which means its hard to support solving problems within your society, because doing so makes it harder to cut taxes. So with that in mind, I personally think people who believe in the Von Mises model of taxation (i.e. "all taxation is theft") are ideologically incompatible with any sort of society that tries to solve its own problems.

[seneca]

I think this is a great example of a second-order disagreement.

How about people who genuinely believe in a minimal state? They often believe in charitable giving and local community organization, in my experience. Maximal civil society vs maximal government. A good example of this type is people who believe in the ideas laid out in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Even the more hard line Von Mises types are close to this. There are disgruntled people who are just asocial in that camp, like any other, but they are over emphasized by opponents just like every political group.

It would be very hard to argue that Nozick wasn't someone concerned with advancing society. The difference for that type is just a strong disagreement about how to do so. Painting them as first-order opponents is a mistake, I think.

[Quarrelsome]

> How about people who genuinely believe in a minimal state?

I agree that its technically a position but while that venn diagram may well include people who believe in charitable giving and local community organization its those who do not believe in those things (which I would argue constitute the majority of that position) who are the problem here. Even so, the idea that everyone gets to choose themselves what the issues are, belies a lack of unity and community that is close to what I'm trying to define. To respect society, one must give up an aspect of control.

Again, its not about tax in general, its the desire to get to 0% that is indicative of the sort of selfishness that defines the line I'm trying to draw.

> Painting them as first-order opponents is a mistake, I think.

You might be right. I think the bigger problem definitely are those who think stealing public money is ok to do.

[seneca]

> I agree that its technically a position but while that venn diagram may well include people who believe in charitable giving and local community organization its those who do not believe in those things (which I would argue constitute the majority of that position) who are the problem here.

I agree with your broader point. A hair to split is that I tend to see those "you leave me alone, I leave you alone" types as sort of side-line sitters. They're a neutral party who genuinely want to mostly opt out for one reason or another. I don't think that taking a stance of them either being with us or against us is healthy when there are so many genuinely destructive people.

> Even so, the idea that everyone gets to choose themselves what the issues are, belies a lack of unity and community that is close to what I'm trying to define. To respect society, one must give up an aspect of control.

Interesting. I'm curious what you mean here, as this could point a lot of different directions. Are you saying that you don't think individualism is healthy in general?

Do you mean that broad disunity and lack of alignment on societal values is dangerous? If so, I totally agree with that and wonder how it can be squared with modern multi-cultural pluralistic society. I don't, personally, believe in enforcing ideological conformity, but struggle to see how a society that doesn't believe in shared underlying mores can coordinate itself and have shared purpose.

> I think the bigger problem definitely are those who think stealing public money is ok to do.

No disagreement, and I think that's a good starting point. Those plundering the commons for personal gain are pretty clearly first-order opponents.

[Quarrelsome]

> I agree with your broader point. A hair to split is that I tend to see those "you leave me alone, I leave you alone" types as sort of side-line sitters. They're a neutral party who genuinely want to mostly opt out for one reason or another. I don't think that taking a stance of them either being with us or against us is healthy when there are so many genuinely destructive people.

I agree in principle, although there is a slight harmful component to it that I think is best described in defence (now WAR) spending. This is perhaps an element of taxation that most people do not see a direct benefit from, but in the scenario where they do suddenly need it, but don't have it, they lose absolutely everything. Its almost akin to the parental demand that a child eat its vegetables where the child doesn't see the point.

> Interesting. I'm curious what you mean here, as this could point a lot of different directions. Are you saying that you don't think individualism is healthy in general?

No, I think it is healthy but we also have to accept that we live in a society so that individualism must be tempered with a modicum of respect for others. We take much of this for granted, such as not murdering each other. Thankfully we are beyond the point where somebody takes to the air to decry their inability to arbitrary kill other people as some sort of government oppression.

I feel like part of the abstract of a more model citizen is accepting that sometimes society will do things that you don't necessarily agree with. For me there has to be some level of acceptance of this with arguments about ratios being entirely acceptable. I'm content for people to make that argument that tax cuts to 0.1% are okay if they result in the sort of growth where that 0.1% can actually cover the problem solving fund, but you have to accept that to some extent.

For example I live on the ground floor of an apartment block and would be insane for me to lobby our management firm to defund the elevator, which I partly pay for, despite never needing it. I accept that the elevator is part of my society of appartment block, despite it not directly benefitting me in the slightest.

I do agree that preppers/anarchists/von-mises are hardly the most destructive people out there, however their entirely individualistic attitudes do hold a parallel with those who think robbing the commons is ok. Especially since the whole "taxation is theft" idea creates a imbalance where robbing the commons is just redressing that balance. But I agree that we might be too zoomed in here to have the sort of impact we might hope for.

[nradov]

You seem to be assuming that government action is the best way to solve social problems. Is that really true or are there better approaches? I think government has a role to play but often it overreaches, causing negative second-order effects and wasting tax money. For example, in the USA government subsidized student loans were intended to make higher education more accessible to deserving low-income students. But in practice we now see a lot of students going to college who don't really belong there just because they can finance it, and much of the money goes into the pockets of useless administrators who contribute nothing to actual education. So naturally taxpayers are skeptical about turning over even more money to the government.

[Quarrelsome]

> You seem to be assuming that government action is the best way to solve social problems.

I would suggest that the context of government is superior than the context of the individual or localised groups in solving issues in a fair and just manner, as long as its institutions are well balanced. That's because it has a national perspective as opposed to a localised one. In practice there is a balance at play that is necessary, I think there is arguably a tyranny in only one of these two choices. The principal issue with giving up on the federal level is that minorities will be disadvantaged.

[jorgen123]

I think you are downvoted because your first sentence is misinterpreted, or the rest of your argument is not being read?

You are giving an example of a position and later on discussing the people who have this position as their first and main principle. Seems like a valid example to me, but perhaps people can explain why not.

[seneca]

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I disagree with this portion of the point he's making, but I don't see why people would treat it as not being valuable to the conversation at hand. I think it actually highlights the point of disagreement really well.

[Quarrelsome]

can you help me find a more poignant first-order disagreement to use? Perhaps my social democratic context is picking the wrong abstract in order to isolate a better platform of co-operation. In Europe we generally think that universal healthcare is somewhat of a given which sets up the context. In the UK at least (where I am from) belief in the NHS (national health service) is pretty much a political no-brainer.

[seneca]

I think you hit on it quite well with you statement about stealing public money in your parallel comment, which I generalized to simply "plundering the commons for personal gain". I have no idea why people would downvote the argument, but I think discussing that is generally frowned upon on HN.

[keybored]

This is naive to the point of not being addressable.

[Quarrelsome]

I think you'll find thats only because you're incompatibly cringe. Once you sort that out, you'll find it scans ok.

[keybored]

I find it hard to downgrade my wisdom that much, even with hard liquor.

[fragmede]

Maybe try upgrading it instead?

[Quarrelsome]

Cmon yo, if you got wisdom then drop it. So far all we got is judgement. Those ain't the same thing.

[panic]

This sounds nice until you think more closely about the framing implicit in “follow the rules and make the nation better”. Who makes the rules and defines what is good for a nation?

[Quarrelsome]

sorry, "rule following" is possibly a sub-optimal language choice. I more mean the sort of selfishness that leads to corruption. Those who see their turn in government less about directing the nation and more as their turn to line their pockets and abuse their power.

[AnimalMuppet]

True, and yet...

I think there is broad consensus that too much poverty is a problem, and (perhaps somewhat less broad) that therefore too much wealth inequality is a problem. I think there's fairly broad consensus that college costs are a problem, that healthcare costs and access are a problem. I think there's a fair consensus that fixing these things would make the nation better.

Then you get to "how do we fix them?" and all consensus disappears.

As for the rules, it seems pretty clear to me that "the rules" are the Constitution and the existing law, plus the rules on how to pass or repeal laws.

But this framing also misses one category: Those who think that they should break the rules to make the nation better. I think that they are misguided at best and lying (either to others or to themselves) at worst.

Why misguided? Because preserving the rule of law is a really big deal. Even if they have the best of intentions, once they knock the law down flat and pave a road over it, they won't be the only one to drive on it. Tyrants try to build that road; if it's already there, the tyrant's job becomes much easier and much harder to stop.

So I oppose such tactics. It doesn't matter whether they are well-meaning or not. Even if the person doing them will never be a tyrant, the next person who wants to be a tyrant will find the door wide open.

[sellmesoap]

I see another problem with rules, that being the little rules that were put in place to solve some social issue at a time and are now out of place but waiting to be used as a stick on someone who's a burden on the establishment. It's hard to look forward when you're always looking over your shoulder. We need a github for law makers, the law needs PRs with documentation for the reason the law needs changing, and links to the research that brought a conclusion. And tests to make sure the law isn't unfairly impacting an unintended audience. Or just having a negative impact in general.

[keybored]

Majority opinion can look like consensus. And yet things like wealth inequality make for an uneven distribution of opinion where the minority end up having the most votes in effect.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>we all waste our time over divisions like left/right, capitalism/socialism, woke/not-woke when in practice

This is by design( divide and rule...). And it works as intended.

[FollowingTheDao]

[flagged]

[jandrese]

It's not the concentration of wealth, it is the concentration of power. Communism doesn't solve that problem. The less centralized your power is the more efficient your economy works. Pushing decisions down to the edge means the people deciding how to allocate resources are the closest to the information about what is needed where. The problem with highly centralized economies is that as an economy grows beyond a trivial size it's impossible for the centralized system to manage the flow of information from the edges. It doesn't scale. Also, honest competition is good for optimizing your resource allocation, if someone is ultimately in charge of both sides they will be inclined to try to choose just one and "avoid waste", which ultimately is just avoiding optimization. This is also why companies become less competitive as they grow and are always under threat from startups and a big reason why antitrust is about more than just "protecting consumers". That's also why big companies are always lobbying government for protection of their business models.

[TFYS]

> It's not the concentration of wealth, it is the concentration of power.

Those are the same thing.

> The problem with highly centralized economies is that as an economy grows beyond a trivial size it's impossible for the centralized system to manage the flow of information from the edges. It doesn't scale.

That was true a few decades ago. Now with everyone having a smartphone in their pockets at all times and the amount of computing power we have it should be doable. Still not easy for sure, but not impossible.

> Also, honest competition is good for optimizing your resource allocation

Think about how much non-productive work has to be done just to enable competition. Instead of one organization per industry we need multiple, all with their own overhead costs. Every company has to do their branding, HR, marketing, etc. The whole advertising industry pretty much exists only because companies try to get an edge with propaganda instead of improving their product. Wasted work.

Competition also forces companies to do unethical things. Say one company starts cutting down rainforests to get an edge over the competition. Now they're cheaper than other businesses, and every business that wants to survive has to start cutting down rainforest. One country gets rid of worker rights -> businesses move there and other countries must follow suit. Same with taxes.

[miohtama]

> Capitalism has done more to overcome hunger and poverty than any other system in world history. The most devastating man-made famines over the past 100 years all occurred under socialism – in the 1930s alone, according to a range of estimates, between five and nine million people died in the Soviet Union from famines caused by the socialist collectivisation of agriculture.

> The end of communism in China and the Soviet Union was a major factor in the 42 percent reduction of hunger between 1990 and 2017.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/is-capitalism-to-blame-for-hu...

[mrguyorama]

adamsmith.org/blog

Is that really what passes for a "You can't blame capitalism" source on this damn site?

[ToucanLoucan]

It's impossible to say with any certainty that was down to an economic system change and not the myriad of other issues plaguing the Soviet states.

And maybe on balance hunger went down, but in particular for a whole lot of those Soviet states, the transitions from the failing "communist" state and the market-based alternatives was incredibly harsh and involved a whole lot of starving as the prices of food and other critical goods soared out of reach of Soviet citizens, not even going into the psychological effects.

Also also, insofar as "communism" "failed" (the USSR was incredibly authoritarian and corrupt, many communists and socialists take big issues with them or China for that matter being called communist but I digress), it "failed" alongside a host of economic sanctions brought upon it by it's Capitalist neighbors, utterly terrified at it's very existence. I mean Christ calling someone communist is still an insult in the United States, and an attack on a politician here too, decades after the Red Scare supposedly ended.

[nradov]

What sanctions? The USA and Canada literally sold huge quantities of grain to the USSR even during the height of the Cold War. Without those food sales even more Soviet citizens would have gone hungry.

[storus]

> The end of communism in China and the Soviet Union was a major factor in the 42 percent reduction of hunger between 1990 and 2017.

This sounds like a complete BS. There were no starving people in the Soviet Union and its satellites after a brief post-war period. They had no luxuries all year round like exotic fruits, but the basics were covered. They had also vastly more educated population than the US. Just their governance and understanding of economics didn't consider the innate selfishness of humans and the need to dominate and outdo others so supply-demand laws didn't work well. China fixed that part later by allowing private corporate ownership and throwing its population into a Darwinian environment while keeping minimal social standards for the unlucky ones. North Korea, Cambodia and Laos would be the only "communist" countries where famines were still present.

[Quarrelsome]

hard disagree, many OG and influentual socialists came from rich backgrounds. There's also lots of poor people out there who are simply waiting their opportunity to be corrupt. Anecdotally I've experienced many people from working class backgrounds who are extremely proud of their tax evasion. The key dividing line is those who follow the rules and believe in the system and those that don't and are just looking out for their own interests.

This further explains corruption within socialist systems where everyone is effectively "equal" but some people are still looking out for themselves over everyone else.

[don_esteban]

The problem is when the rules are made to sustain and exacerbate the social divide, not to make the life better for everybody.

No need to go far, just look at the result of lobbying in the USA.

Btw, while there are many famines caused by despots (Stalin's, Mao's, Red Khmer's), there is also Bengal's famine of 1943.

One must also point out that China in the last 40 years have done perhaps more regarding the poverty mitigation than anybody else in the human history (capitalism, especially the wild one, has actually quite patchy record...)

[whatshisface]

The Chinese people did all of the work, their government simply allowed them, returning some of their own money in the form of state investment. Who pays for "state" investment?

[don_esteban]

The Chinese government did a lot of smart policies, empowering their people to unleash their entrepreneurial drive, helping them with targeted investment where that was deemed to get good long term/strategic payoff. This was not passive 'let them do what they want', it was (and still is) an actively guided process - there is enough information about that in the net.

It also failed in many ways, but overall influence is highly positive, the results speak for themselves.

Failing to see that is a sign of ideological blindness.

[Quarrelsome]

> The problem is when the rules are made to sustain and exacerbate the social divide, not to make the life better for everybody.

perhaps "rules" was a poor choice of word. What I meant was more a belief in society in general, a belief in the nation, in fairness. I guess in one-word: selfishness. I believe the _real_ political divide is between those who are selfish and those who are not.

[don_esteban]

much better, thank you

still, ideological zealots really unselfishly believe in their case, whether that is fundamental christianity/islam/communism/capitalism (ok, maybe capitalism not, almost by definition, capitalism is about greed) and are willing to inflict unbelievable horrors in the name of their ideology

one should also not forget that there exist deep cultural differences and what is considered 'fair' and 'belief in society' is quite different e.g. between the western judo-christianism and eastern societies

[Aunche]

Lobbying isn't used to exacerbate the social divide. It's used to achieve incremental policy wins and prevent incremental policy losses for the clients of the lobbyists. This is what the general public needs to do as well if they want the government to better represent their interests, but they have little interest in that. People willingly choose to exacerbate the social divide, and the overwhelmingly negative sentiment to lobbying is evidence of this.

Colonialism is a form of centralized planning, which catastrophically fails for the same reasons that it does in communist regimes.

China is evidence of capitalism's incredibly successful record of poverty mitigation. They've retained some communist style central planning, but the "bad" part of capitalism is unlimited accumulation of wealth, as mentioned upthread, which China allows just like any capitalist country.

[don_esteban]

Lobbying to create laws that benefit rich people/big corporations and make the life of ordinary people tougher directly exacerbate the socio-economic divide.

Telling the poor/weak to use the tools designed for rich/powerful is just obscuring the reality.

The reality being that the system is designed by rich, for rich, to maintain and improve their position.

"People willingly choose to exacerbate the social divide" What do you mean by that? People willing choose to be poor and powerless?

"Colonialism is a form of centralized planning" - no, colonialism (and neocolonialism) is a form of institutionalized looting, historically highly successful (see the graph of the GDP (as a percentage of the whole world GDP) of Great Britain vs India for a nice example)

No, the worst part of capitalism is unlimited accumulation of power, by the way of wealth buying/subverting the state. I suspect one of the reasons China was able to maintain its upward trajectory was their ability to separate the political power from the wealth (see the case of Jack Ma what happens if the wealth starts to impinge on political power in China). From the point of view of West, they did some highly questionable decisions that costed them trillions (squashing the blockchain miners, bursting property bubble, going hard after excessive gaming and internet time by kids) and would not be conceivable in the west, but overall might be net positive for the society at all.

[Aunche]

> Telling the poor/weak to use the tools designed for rich/powerful is just obscuring the reality.

Lobbying is not a tool designed for the rich/powerful. It is literally just communicating with to politicians your interests. Corporations spend a lot on lobbying, but that's because they have to pay "corporate rates". Grass-roots organizations only need to pay for the basic expenses of their lobbyists. The NAACP successfully lobbied for multiple Civil Rights Acts with a much smaller budget than nonprofit organizations today.

> What do you mean by that? People willing choose to be poor and powerless?

Yes. People's reactions to corporations getting better at lobbying was to act like it's something only evil people do, so that they could feel better about themselves. As a result, grassroots lobbying has declined and knowledge of how to do so has been lost [1]. This is a gift to billionaires that they never could have dreamed of.

> institutionalized looting

Sure, but that is a central plan.

> No, the worst part of capitalism is unlimited accumulation of power

The CCP has unlimited power, which was why they could arbitrarily silence Jack Ma, without even formally accusing him of anything.

> by the way of wealth buying/subverting the state

This is a way bigger problem in China than the US. China does not collect enough tax revenue to fund its local governments, so many departments are essentially funded by corruption.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/nonprofits-lobbying-less-survey-1...

[cptskippy]

The problem with broad generalizations like that is you will make enemies of allies and allies of enemies, only you won't realize it and fail to understand why people aren't 100% behind your agenda. This is itself a form of corruption.

[snowwrestler]

In a socialist system you still need a government, which is a group of people who are empowered to enforce the rules of socialism. As a result, they end up having access to most of the collective wealth as well.

If they are very good socialists they will redistribute it all. If they are not-very-good socialists they will redistribute some of it and reserve some to support a nice lifestyle for themselves and their families. They won’t personally “own” mansions, airplanes, factories, etc. like capitalists do, but they still control them legally so the practical effect is very similar.

[FollowingTheDao]

No, you don’t need a centralized government in all social systems.

Centralized government is the big distinction here. Libertarian socialism of a decentralized government.

[don_esteban]

"As a result, they end up having access to most of the collective wealth as well." Umm, it does not work like that, look at the Scandinavian-type socialism.

The collective wealth is in the functioning education & health system, social support net, working public transport and such. Not a type of wealth that the government can usurp for themselves, to the detriment/exclusion of the remainder of the society.

Too much ideological argumentation here...

[uncircle]

Yes, because all rules have been created for your own good, so you must follow without ever questioning them. The world is more nuanced than your silly black-and-white duality, unless it's a Twitter argument and it's all about dividing the world in convenient us-vs-them boxes.

[monktastic1]

Your account seems relatively new, so you might be unfamiliar with the rule to be charitable here. If you'd like to be snarky and lower the bar for discourse, Reddit is a much better place to do that (though ideally it would be kept out of public spaces altogether).

[Quarrelsome]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. Either you believe in the society you live in, or you don't. The story specifically speaks of people high up within that society that do not believe in it and are using their position to undermine that society in order to benefit themselves.. That, for me, is the #1 problematic archetype of person.

Its not just about the rules and if you follow them or not, its about the belief in turn-taking, in other people having the same rights as you, a belief that in society; everyone is important, everyone is mostly equal and that the society should be fair. Perhaps my phrasing could be improved? For the most part I am simply trying to define the difference between people being selfish and not.

[darkwater]

> Either you believe in the society you live in, or you don't.

This makes GP even more correct. One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.

[Quarrelsome]

GP?

> One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.

Sure but I mean in terms of the abstract. The idea that those most successful may have to pay more in taxation, the idea that justice should be blind and that everyone deserves a trial. I guess the tipping point is when your belief in the part of society that are wrong are so extreme that you think its ok to undermine society (e.g. steal public money, push infront of queues, etc) in order to combat that "wrong".

[darkwater]

> GP?

Grand parent, the person you were responding to

> Sure but I mean in terms of the abstract. The idea that those most successful may have to pay more in taxation, the idea that justice should be blind and that everyone deserves a trial. I guess the tipping point is when your belief in the part of society that are wrong are so extreme that you think its ok to undermine society (e.g. steal public money, push infront of queues, etc) in order to combat that "wrong".

There are much more nuances and rules in (today's?) society. Just a quick examples of things that can be considered good but are actually controversial if you stir it a bit: there are concepts considered "rights" almost everywhere, yet you have to pay money to actually enjoy them, and if you don't have money, you lose the "right" (i.e. home). You can be in favor of the right but not of the implementation.