magicalkittycat
3mo ago
You know what's better than tit for tat in game theory? Tit for tat with occasional forgiveness.
Now consider in real life with real life human biases where people just take things as attacks on them when they aren't. Everyone does it. So in a real life situation, we would always be defecting in revenge because we see constant defects (even in cases where there isn't!).
Now consider even more that political groups are not hiveminds. They are rather loose coalitions. A principled traditional conservative and a new era "post-liberal conservative" might both check off for Republican, but we don't clearly match up in many ways.
If a "post-liberal conservative" keeps defecting, I wouldn't want to be blamed for them! And I should rationally be able to extend this understanding to other groups and that they too are loose coalitions.
So the defect fetishists are doomed to never have a cooperation work out, they are always willing to sabotage it. While people willing to be forgiving and work towards cooperation will get wins every once in a while.
It's why the US has been one of the greatest countries in the world while the fascists and communists kept losing. Because even our stongest internal attempts at purging and defecting are weak sauce compared to them, so we get a bunch of cooperation wins.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Yeah thank you very much. Many of the users here are pretty passive aggressive or (actively rude if you've lurked here for a long while like I have), which makes sense given that the driving emotions literally seems to be "I feel wronged so it's ok to wrong others" but the same way I argue for principled stances, I also don't really want to stoop to that either.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Would you have been calling for the state taking ownership of the means of production before this had happened? I really doubt many conservatives would have.
Maybe it's motivated reasoning ex post facto trying to justify his behavior or maybe it's just that "conservativism" as a label has already been stolen by people who hate free market capitalism and small government, but it's the exact opposite of traditional conservative ideas.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
You're right, modern MAGA isn't like old school conservatives. Old school conservatives don't embrace socialist ideals.
The rise of Trump, who copied the same protectionism of Biden, on top of Obama, has basically revealed the libertarian-adjacent wing of the GOP to be ineffectual. These people forever have been on the losing side, save for Ross Ulbricht pardon.
Ronald Reagan, pretty much the most beloved conservative president in living history doesn't count? He slowed the growth of government spending during his presidency, fought for free markets, and helped to make America far better off with his pro market small government policies. He stood up for liberty and capitalism and America stood tall while the communists kept collapsing. Even China only succeeds because Deng Xiaopeng realized they have to be a bit more like the freedom loving open market Americans to do well. And despite them having over a billion more citizens (tons of manpower and talent they can draw from) they're still at about 63% of our total GDP.
The government is neither owning intel, nor directing policy there. The government is owning ten percent of intel’s stock and voting with the board of directors.
What do you think stock is? It's literally part ownership.
And Intel's SEC filings even acknowledge the problems with it https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000050863/000005086325000129/intc-20250822.htm
It dilutes shares of existing stockholders, limit their ability to pursue future transactions that benefit the other shareholders, hurt their ability to operate internationally as a (now) government owned corporation.
And in the obvious issues that successful competitors like NVIDIA and AMD will have a tougher time dealing with a government that has direct financial stake into Intel.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
That probably has something to do with the fact that, while you have provided examples that you call "principled", you've largely handwaved the "revenge" assertions you've made.
I did provide examples of non traditionally conservative ideas. It includes things like government nationalizing various companies (something they are apparently considering doing more), and protectionism.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Is your modeling of Trump so poor that you attribute it to deliberately wanting to wreck the US economy, during his own term, because fuck the Democrats?
Trump has never been much of a fiscal conservative, so I don't expect him to hold much fiscal conservative views. He seems to truly believe in the power of the state over private enterprise, and mercantilist thought.
This in regards to people who have actually claimed to be small government hands off capitalists joining in without an argument towards merit. They don't seem to have "changed their mind" (if that was the case, they would try to make an argument for central planning) as much as never having a strong belief in their prior claims to begin with.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Communists and Nazis alike engaged in violent purges.
Again, I get why people justify their revenge narratives.
Just no one has even tried to explain how exactly government buying up and owning private enterprise is a smart idea (something that we've been saying isn't good for decades) and why it's a solid goal towards improving the nation's economy and wealth.
Bernie Sanders at least tries to explain this, because Bernie Sanders is a socialist who thinks capitalism is bad and corporations are just greedy and needs big government regulations to spank them. I've yet to see much attempt to explain it from a new conservative side, and the little I do sounds very similar to the socialist one (same way I keep seeing "greedflation" in some right wing populist spaces).
Ironically it seems to be one of the things the new right really hates. A new big government socialist minded capital hating populism that has invaded the traditional minded conservative thought and crowded out the original inhabitants.
The traditional conservative like the Reaganites would explain government imposed market distortions, the folly of protectionist policy, etc. The new conservative says "companies are greedy, they raise prices because they got even greedier"
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
And, well, it's not like there's nothing to the claim that SJ is the same sort of thing as the Nazis (by which I mean the literal NSDAP).
I would almost agree if you weren't literally using it as part of an argument for a mass killing of political opponents (one of the most Nazi like behaviors).
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Thus, the tit-for-tat strategy which (as I understand it) outperforms all others in iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Yep, plenty of people have already explained why their revenge narrative is justified through similar arguments.
What no one has actually tried to explain though is why doing bad and stupid policies is a useful tool for revenge still. No one has yet tried to explain why it is good for government to buy up and own private enterprise. To me, it's like seeing someone burn down your house and saying "I want revenge" and then throwing molotovs at your own house.
If we believed that small government hands off policies were best for the economy, for jobs, and for national wealth (as other conservatives were arguing for decades), then doing the opposite of that is throwing molotovs at our own house is it not? We should want our country to have a strong economy with lots of jobs and growing national wealth.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
"Look what you made me do" - man doing what he was going to do anyway.
This definitely seems to be the main explainer, but it seems to be missing something. No reply has yet even tried to explain why government needs to buy up and own private enterprise, something you would expect them to be able to do if they truly believed it was a beneficial and sound policy and were going to do it anyway.
So what's the motivator there then? I think some of it is just circling the wagons, a generic ex post facto justification for decisions that they otherwise would find alarming and dangerous for big government to do.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
It seems to me that people who have adopted what you label "revenge narratives" generally no longer believe that there is such a thing as "our country" or "our citizens". Certainly I do not.
Well if you're no longer loyal to the nation that's up to you. But America is still my home and I want what's best for us and the citizenship.
Forming, equipping, and paying a police force is "stupid, inefficient, counter-productive, and prone to corruption" in a number of ways. It's just that it's less stupid, inefficient, counter-productive, and prone to corruption than not having police, given the situation we find ourselves in. If the situation were different, police might not be worth it. But it isn't, so they are.
Ok so having a police force isn't stupid, inefficient and counterproductive then. If you truly believe that the shifts on conservative policy are the same, then why not explain them on the merit?
Instead of "government has to own businesses because libs", you could explain how government owning businesses and directing corporate policy across the nation now improves the health of the economy after decades of conservatives saying big government and socialist control are bad the same way you can explain how police are good.
I observe that previous governments, Democrat and Republican, have chronically failed to exercise fiscal responsibility. I observe that attempting fiscal responsibility now will cost significant votes and political power, which will naturally flow to the fiscally-irresponsible. Therefore, I conclude that while I would strongly prefer fiscal responsibility, there is no way to get there from here, and so I abandon this as a political goal because it does not appear to be practically achievable. Therefore, I no longer care about fiscal responsibility or the debt, and I apportion my political priorities and values to areas where victory seems more probable.
Not pursuing something you find untenable as a policy goal is understandable. But do you now believe that ever growing debt is a good thing? Do you now believe our growing borrowing is a smart long term fiscal decision?
If you don't think you can convince other Americans to care at all it makes sense to give up, but it wouldn't make sense to change your mind just because of that.
And yet, the evidence has shown that they cannot prevent endemic free speech violations, nor even significantly impede them. When it mattered, they could not protect my speech in any meaningful sense, nor will they be able to do so in the future. Their impact is, to a first approximation, theoretical.
You're right, random civil rights organizations can not do much in the face of a population that keeps voting for and pushing for anti free speech politicians. In this same way they will have meaningful wins here and there against Trump, but ultimately unless we can get the population on board with traditional civil liberty and the first amendment, government suppression of speech will continue to grow.
The model they operate off, where only government speech controls impinge on the first amendment, is a suicide pact that I respectfully decline to involve myself in.
That's how the founding fathers set up our system, were they suicidal? No, they were forward looking revolutionary heroes. Their primary concern is government, and even today governments across the world are the most serious form of censorship. If you don't believe that, you can go look at other countries and you'll find it's government suppression of speech in Russia, in China, in North Korea, in pretty much every single dictatorship. Even in the freer nations, crackdowns on speech like the recent UK bill are government done.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Ok, you still haven't addressed a single actual point as to why doing bad counterproductive and harmful policy to the US makes sense as a form of vengeance, just keep justifying that you want revenge.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Bernie Sanders isn't a liberal.
You're right, he's a socialist.
Neither am I. That is not a novel observation. I am telling that I am not a liberal.
Correct, you're not a liberal. You're a person agreeing with a socialist about whether or not government should assume control of private enterprise.
I am not an American.
Oh ok then. Perfectly understandable you wouldn't care as much if the US implements good or bad policy if you aren't an American.
A free-market capitalist economic zone is mutually exclusive with the vision of America as a Christian nation.
America has pretty much always been capitalist. Many of our amazing presidents have been both capitalist free traders and Christian. Maybe you haven't heard of him since you're not an American, but we've had plenty of greats like Ronald Reagan (one of the most widely respected and liked conservatives in our history) who fit that bill perfectly.
I have to wonder are you a socialist? You seem to agree with the socialists on policy ideas around government involvement in private enterprise, and think capitalism goes against Christianity.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
You're right. Revenge is bad and unprincipled. I stand ready to applaud your valiant and arduous efforts to convince the Democrats to not seek retaliation or revenge after what gets done to them over the next 3.5-12 years, and to lash them with scathing criticisms for every hypocritical turn.
Just point us to where you're doing that. I'm eager to start applauding.
Thank you Seer for predicting what I will and won't be doing. But sure, I'll do with them what I am doing right now. Posting about it online.
The Dems should not abandon any policy decisions they claim to support as good policy in order to pursue a quest of emotional vengeance. We should focus on the good of our nation and the future, not tribalism.
If you want to argue for disarmament and cooperation, you have to already have a plausible commitment from your own side.
What's "my side"? Also this doesn't address the point whatsoever! If someone truly believed that small government involvement in business was good for the nation and our economy, then what gain is there in doing big government involvement? If you see the left stabbing the country with bad policy decisions, why pick up a knife and join in?
Can you draft up a letter to Gavin Newsome, explaining that he's being a hypocritical, unprincipled fool?
Wait why would I have to draft up a letter to Newsom? I'm not drafting a letter to republican politicians here. I'm posting on the internet.
Because in the real world of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas between actual factions that have their own beliefs and minds and aren't just going to be Jedi Mind Tricked into suicide, tit-for-tat is a generally optimal policy. Revenge is a fully sufficient justification when you don't want people to hurt you again, and you don't have a trustworthy arbiter to seek justice on your behalf.
But again, entirely missing the point here! The idea that free trade, government involvement, etc are just questions of morality. That the only reason conservatives shouldn't press the "government owns companies" button is just because of tradition instead of an actual belief that government involvement in private enterprise is bad. If conservatives believe that government ownership is harmful to the nation, then embracing it is like throwing molotovs at your own house and calling it vengeance.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Principles are easy until you've lost a few elections. Once you realize no one else has them, it becomes difficult to maintain an interest in such a filthy game without playing it.
That doesn't address anything!
Let's say there's a small government conservative who truly believes that growth, national wealth and general national prosperity are benefited through free trade and a hands off government. They want what is best for the country, so they support a small government.
They observe that other people in the world are hypocrites. Being a person who truly believes that free trade and hands off government is beneficial to the nation (and assuming they still care about the nation), they would not change on policy with this observation and would still support free trade and hands off government.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Political conflicts arise because of clashes between incommensurate value systems, misalignment of tribal interests, the competing demands of heterogeneous subjectivities, emotional biases both conscious and unconscious... if political conflicts could be settled through rational argumentation then people would have done so already.
Well yeah that's the point. Changing stances on policy at the drop of a dime doesn't reflect people wanting things they actually believe are good for the country and our future, but tribalist emotional based thinking around personal moral disputes rather than national health.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Of course, I would say they are wrong and I am right- I notice that democrats are very hostile to my tribe. Presumably, you disagree, but I think the government should protect my tribe from people who hate us. I don’t think you disagree with me(although you might on the premise). I also want protection from democrats more than I want any particular good policy.
And what part of protecting yourself from Democrats involves things like state ownership of private enterprise?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Yes, we fundamentally disagree with you on morals and the purpose of government. If we didn't, then we'd be liberals like you.
And yet Bernie Sanders supports the government buying equity in private enterprises while many traditional small government conservatives are opposing it. So I guess it's true you're not like the liberals and are more similar to the socialists instead.
Your mistake is that you assume there is a platform of universally agreed upon policies that are agreed to be universally beneficial. There are not.
No, I literally said the opposite. Different people may have different views on what policies are good, but presumably they all still work towards what they think is good policy. If you believe that government owning businesses is good, then you would work towards it. If you believe government should stay out, then you would work towards that.
I get the feeling you didn't actually read a thing I said given that it literally has the words.
Now people might disagree on what is best for growth, what is best for the people, and what is best for the country but we should expect them to pursue their ideas in the same way if they care about America, towards ideas they think are good.
If you can't be bothered to read the thing you're writing a response to, then there's little reason to engage further with you.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
I mean I don’t think I’ve seen anyone in a position of power have concrete plans that they stuck to even at risk of losing.
Well you're not losing to begin with if the policies you think are good are the ones being implemented. Is Bernie Sanders losing when Trump got stakes into Intel? No, he was supportive, he wants government to own more businesses.
Sanders might be losing on other topics, but he wins here and he knows it.
TBH, looking at how people in power actually behave, principles are not how you understand government.
I'll agree you with there. Politics does not do a great job selecting for people who value the health of the nation over their own personal fantasies and desires. They might have some values, but if it's between "benefit myself" and "benefit the country", well we see that the first often wins out. It's a known issue of pretty much any system that those who seek power are disproportionately those who wish to use it for their own personal gain.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
this leads off with abstractions ('the country', 'the left'), but no acknowledgement of a relationship. Even the traitor allegation is framing it as treat to the abstraction (hate the country). Even that treats the action as an initiation, as opposed to a response, as if treason is a state of being unprompted at odds with a natural/healthy state of behavior.
And how does this make a meaningful difference? Bad policy as a response to bad policy is just more bad policy. Imagine for instance if the response to leftist rent control was a rent floor rather than not enacting price controls to begin with.
This is wrong in the same way that 'the organization decided to do something' is wrong. Organizations do not make decisions. People in organizations make decisions.
Organizations, in being controlled and owned by people do in fact make decisions. Organizations are just a group. If the group members (or owner of the group if it's legally theirs) makes a decision, then the group itself can be said to have made a decision.
Of course if the people in it change over time, we expect the group itself to change but it's still just that, reflective of the humans within it.
When people make a series of decisions over time in regards to, and affecting, other people, this connection is a relationship. Sometimes the established relationship is amicable, and sometimes the relationship is hostile.
People responding negatively to a hostile relationship are not traitors. Nor does their response to hostile relationship come off as them never believing the words they were saying.
Ok I agree that when leftists implement bad counterproductive and unhealthy policies like high corporate taxes or price controls or whatever other economically/freedom damaging policies, it's understandable to react negatively. But I don't see why that would lead to the response of joining in on the self harm.
If leftists are stabbing the nation, why grab a knife and join in on the murder? Your comment doesn't answer this, it just assumes that saying "bad relationship" explains why I should want to harm our nation and our future.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
The rest of the post makes arguments I consider weak but this bit is laughable. Groups do not, in fact, stay principled easily. That's the entire problem.
Obviously a group over time as people change out can not be guaranteed to stay the same group, and that's not a claim I make. In 100 years a FIRE org owned by Random Joe JR could be a fighter against free speech.
But currently within a reasonable timeline of being owned by the same people, their consistent behavior marks a consistent belief of the people who compose it.
"Accusing"
The dude is supporting policies embraced by Bernie Sanders (who calls himself a socialist) and says that capitalism is incompatible with Christianity.
So he's
Anti capitalist
Supporting socialist ideas
How is it wrong to assume socialism?
Cool, you can have your socialism in other countries if you want it. The idea that capitalism and Christianity can't coexist is still nonsense, especially since your European countries are often far more godless than America. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/09/05/u-s-adults-are-more-religious-than-western-europeans/
So that's evidence to the contrary, it is your socialism that can not coexist with Christianity.
More options
Context Copy link