non_radical_centrist
No bio...
User ID: 1327
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I recognize. A willingness of the larger state to keep petri dishes going for a while is necessary.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Biden can't pardon Trump for state crimes. He could pardon Trump for the federal crimes.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Goodhart's law. You're only optimizing for the ability to game a prediction market, not the ability to be a wise ruler.
I think it's harder to game a prediction market than to game any other method of selecting wise rulers.
Why not?
I believe that if a competent absolute ruler implemented my proposed system, like Napoleon at his height did so instead of invading Russia, governmental and economic systems like socialism, communism, fascism, and liberterianism could've been tested without the genocide. And that'd have been a much better outcome for humanity as a whole. Today, I'd prefer if we could set up lots of charter cities that implement different ideologies, each mostly free from state influence, to see which methods are most succesful.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
What determines the nation's values considering your hypothetical?
Through some sort of democratic process.
Since such values might need to be established and maybe through time a system with condemned values, might perform better.
If ultimately a super majority of the population decides they really like slavery or genocide, I don't think really any system has a good defense against that. I'm kind of relying on slavery and genocide actually being bad ideas, so a system that rewards good ideas won't have anyone do those things.
And how do you stop areas which have similar ideologies from ganging up on groups they are ideologically opposed to?
It does take buy in from people and leaders. That's why I proposed the hypothetical of a good spirited monarch who wants to do better, and this being the solution I think the good hearted monarch should arrive at. In a scenario more resembling real life, I don't think any real world executive actually has the power to implement such experiments without also getting the masses and other elites to buy in. Ultimately people have to be willing to prove the success of their ideology through creating good conditions on the ground instead of conquering their neighbors, which is a limitation, but I don't think there's a way around that. But I don't think this is a fatal flaw; it's decently rare in developed countries at least for one province to try to impose their ideology on another province by force.
In real life, I'd really just first try to encourage prediction markets more. For every important decision the government makes, such as passing bills or spending 300 million on building an aid pier for Palestine, I'd want there to be a few prediction markets trying to measure whether it's a good idea. My hypothetical was more prompted by thinking about what I'd want to do in a time like 1920, when there were many ideologies and little evidence of what I'd actually do.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Perhaps. But I don't think so.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Well sure, but some systems make more mistakes than others. A prediction market as I view it is ultimately just a systematic way to keep track of who makes errors the most and who makes them the least, so you can put the people who make them the least into power.
Calling something like the USSR or Nazi Germany just a regular human mistake isn't an acceptable conclusion to me. I want a systemized method of how we can go about designing better governance and economic systems, since I don't think anyone's completely happy with any systems anywhere, without risking making a USSR.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Just being smart and virtuous isn't enough to prevent being taken in by honest mistakes, and when you have absolute power an honest mistake can be very devastating.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Any institution where the leaders get too selfish will naturally lose power from its people just leaving, that's part of why freedom of movement is so necessary. And hopefully the prediction markets can more clearly evaluate who's actually done a good job, such that people trying to uphold a flawed institution will have little credibility.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
There is an issue when some of the petri dishes go down a route the rest of the country finds abhorrent, like slavery or crimes against humanity. I think against that, there needs to be some democratic calibration of the nation's values, and some careful questions posed to prediction markets about what initiatives are worth taking. And if a region rebels against the system and starts doing things against the nation's fundamental values, hopefully the rest of the nation hasn't neglected their militaries and can put a stop to it.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I agree, especially in practice that's probably how you'd do it instead of slicing a country up into radically different country types. But I think some division to do experiments would be good still, for when X and Y both have small changes to implement but in opposite directions.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
https://josephheath.substack.com/p/a-critical-theory-of-or-for-america
I think Canada is moving to build more housing, despite Trudeau's lip service to protecting housing prices. There's just a delay between realizing there's a crisis and actually getting housing built.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I admittedly underestimated the amount of continuing Irish terrorism then. I would still predict that the amount of continuing Palestinian terrorism after any Ireland-like peace deal would be far greater and at a level that would make decreasing tensions impossible.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
The two problems I see there is a) figuring out who exactly is virtuous and wise, and b) protecting the state from the virtuous and wise making well intentioned mistakes. As I laid out, something like socialism can seem quite appealing even to a wise and virtuous person, but have disastrous consequences.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
What is really the best way for a government to decide policy?
Imagine you’re the absolute monarch of a country in an alternate world that’s somewhat similar to 18th century Europe. You have just inherited the throne from your father who passed away, and have the authority to implement whatever changes you want. The peasants and the nobles and the military are all feeling happy after a couple decades of good harvests and no plague so there will not be any resistance to what’s seen as your divine mandate to rule, for the short term at least.
For the past couple centuries your country has been Mercantilist, with policies like heavy tariffs and state granted monopolies, both to raise revenue for the state and to protect domestic industry against your international rivals. There are also policies like price caps on bread to help the people and make sure they don’t starve. The state spends most of its revenue on its military for national defense, but also spends a substantial fraction on the construction of roads, plumbing, and grand monuments. Lots of people have complaints about poor service and high prices from the monopolies, and get upset at occasional bread shortages. A lot of people would like to participate in the skilled trades like smithing or woodworking but because there’s such limited economic activity and because guilds have a monopoly on such positions most people are subsistence farmers. Overall people are mostly content with the system because they don’t know anything else and with the recent decades being fairly fortunate there’s never been a major failure of the system. All the other significant countries in the world that you know of follow the same model, and you don’t have any good or reliable records of how any historical systems might’ve worked.
You’re an ethical ruler who wants the best for your people, and are considering how to go about some changes to make things better. A couple of scholars have come to beseech you to make major changes to the system, based on their theoretical ideas that they’ve come to from reasoning on first principles. Since there are no records of alternative systems to do empirical research on, all their ideas are purely theoretical. One proposes what we’d call laissez-faire economics and libertarianism, to dismantle the state monopolies and tariffs and price caps and guild system, and to keep only a minimal sales tax necessary to fund a military for national defense and maybe a few other issues of national interest such as road building and education. They say that the people exercising their self-interest will result in more of what’s needed most, and distribute goods and services to those who need them the most. It will also result in competition that ensures the cream rises to the top. It all sounds very convincing and with no academic background yourself, it sounds very plausible it would make life much better.
The other scholar proposes something very similar to what we’d call socialism, saying that the nobles and wealthy merchants are exploiting the working classes. This scholar tells you about the labour theory of value, that all added value beyond what’s found in the natural world comes from people labouring to turn natural resources into goods people want, or labouring to provide services. That nobles and wealthy merchants only have such large amounts of wealth by exploiting labour and skimming that value by charging more when selling the goods and services than they pay their labour. The academic tells you that all workers should own their means of production, such that everyone working in a guild workshop should mutually own the workshop and divide all profits between themselves, and the same for all peasants working a piece of farmland, and the same for all other economic activity. They say that not only will this be more just, giving workers the fruits of their own labour instead of it being drained away by a parasitic upper class, it will also greatly increase economic productivity because people will be focused on producing what’s really needed and production can be centrally organized based on what’s rationally needed instead of what’s merely profitable for the parasitic class. They say that without competing firms each wasting resources on secret research or trying to out-advertise each other, resources can be cooperatively spent on stuff that is actually useful to society. This academic also sounds like their theory will very plausibly make life better for everyone.
How do you decide which policy to undertake? Today, outside the hypothetical and knowing what I know now from empirical results of stuff like the USSR’s failure, I would strongly support the libertarian side if I was the monarch. Even if you’re a socialist and believe the empirical record shows the opposite for whatever reason, I think this thought experiment still applies, since you have the same problem of trying to figure out how to make the government arrive at the correct decision. How do you decide on such a big decision with such limited evidence of what’s actually better? If you just stick with Chesterton’s Fence and don’t make any big change, you’re stuck with Mercantilism, which is arguably worse than either the alternatives. If you embrace democracy and let the people decide, either in a direct democracy referendum or with representatives in a Congress or Parliament, they will quite plausibly make the wrong decision, and the people will make life worse for themselves. If your outsource your decision to “the experts” and try to be meritocratic, it’s also quite plausible “the experts” will be just straight wrong, since experts have their own biases and limited evidence to work from. I’m a fan of prediction markets and futarchy, but those can come to the wrong decision too- if they say one option has a 90% of being better, then you could always land on the 10% chance, or the people predicting could just be miscalibrated, or you could have asked it the wrong question like “What option will raise GDP more” instead of “What option will raise GDP per capita more”.
I think you’d have to be willing to run active experiments in governance and economic structure to determine the best outcomes. Like you assign 1/3 of the country to be libertarian, 1/3 to be socialist, and 1/3 to stay mercantilist, and you wait some period of time to see which turns out the best. But that has its own issues, namely that you’re quite possibly ruining many people’s livelihoods for the sake of an experiment. It’d be very tempting to just go ahead and give everyone your best guess of what’s the best outcome. But I think that would be wrong, because it would have such extreme consequences if you guess wrong. Even just running the national experiment for a short period wouldn’t be enough, because it may take some years for something like socialism to show its cracks. People under socialism may continue to work hard for some years because they’ve always been used to working hard, it may be some years before technology and consumer preference shifts in a way a central planner can’t predict, they may be able to cover gaps with debt financing for years only to enter a crisis when they enter a downturn and can’t get anymore loans. There could be a similar situation where libertarianism appears to go strong for several years before collapsing into corruption. Or perhaps one or both systems would need to take some time to ramp up, and for the first few years appear to have worse outcomes than Mercantilism.
I think, both to be morally just and in order to view people’s true preferences, you need to always ensure freedom of movement. Beyond that, you should divide the country into portions, as fairly as you can, and run different theoretical political/economic models in the different portions. If one model appears to be doing better, perhaps expand its borders, but don’t shut down weaker models entirely, since they might just need time to ramp up, and any truly bad consequences are mitigated by people being always allowed to move away if they need to. Which models to actually use should be decided using prediction markets- ensuring that anyone making those decisions has some skin in the game, and that if they consistently make good or bad predictions about outcomes, that record is tracked. The invention of models can be left to academics, or anyone else, theorizing, and if it gets enough backers then those backers can bet it up on the prediction market as worth trying. What exact question should be used to measure success I'm not sure of, but probably something could be come up with that captures the concept of "Is this theoretical system worth trying out".
Prediction market FAQ for anyone unfamiliar with the concept: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prediction-market-faq
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Most peoples are able to achieve 100% peace. Maybe not 100% agreement, but 100% willingness not to join partisan terrorist groups when they lose the vote. I don't think Palestinians would, I think at least 0.1% would commit terrorist attacks in a way most peoples wouldn't. And unlike other peoples such as the Irish, just being given their own state and some concessions wouldn't be enough to mollify them, I think they'd keep doing it until they controlled all of Israel/Palestine.
I think that 100% peace would never happen either. I also think Palestine will never defeat Israel militarily either, that if they did it'd be just as big of a humanitarian crisis, and keeping this miserable status quo for the next centuries isn't the best was can do. That's why I think the best outcome would be a refugee process where Palestinians officially don't get the right of return, and are relocated to other countries. Hell, I think it'd be cheaper for a lot of places if there was some international cooperation to build the Palestinians a nice artificial island they can live on far way from Israel.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I've been more convinced by Richard Hanania.
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/israel-must-crush-palestinian-hopes
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/why-palestine-cant-deliver-peace
The tl;dr of those two pieces is that first, Palestinians really, really hate Israelis, even more than Nazis hated Jews, and the conflict will not be able to be diplomatically resolved. And second, even if through a mass PR campaign and enormous concessions Israel managed to get 99.9% Palestinians to accept true peace in the form of either a one or two state solution, just .1% of Palestinians sticking with Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be thousands of active terrorists, which is unacceptable to Israel.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I just finished The Forever War. I thought it was interesting but ultimately worse than Starship Troopers. It was far too cynical in my opinion.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I think any long form writing like that is fine to post in the Culture War thread, and that's probably where you'll get the most serious responses if you want some critical analysis of your reasoning skills. I think this community is tight enough we don't need to be rigid about "ONLY culture war in the culture war thread!!"
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Do any other languages have a swear like the n-word, where there's one taboo word that's far more taboo than any other? Even other slurs like cunt, jap, or faggot, while more taboo than fuck or shit, aren't on the level of nigger
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I think most published series have a lot cut by editors to keep pacing tight. Serials obviously don't do that. Worth the Candle and Worm, another famously long web serial that iirc is also about 1.7 million, definitely suffer in my opinion from significant sections that probably could be largely cut and have any plot progress moved into brief sections within other arcs.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Very likely that's a portion of it.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
And also have a system where if the legislature ignores the bill entirely or can't come to a consensus on it then the court publicly admonishes them for being incompetent
I don't think that'd actually do anything, both sides would just blame the opposing side for being partisan in refusing to update the law to their own preference.
A system I've seen casually proposed that's somewhat related that I like the sound of that for every law on the books, some legislater needs to take responsibility for it and say "That's my law", and at any time that legislater has the power to repeal the law if no one else is willing to step up and claim responsibility for it. That way if there's an outdated law, it gets repealed automatically when the legislater leaves office if no one's willing to take it up. And every legislater needs to think carefully about the laws they take responsibility for, because if it causes some big problem, the blame will be on them personally.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
I forgot about the method I like for that. For that, I prefer a system like reddit gold. Let people spend money(or some other form of limited rating) on their favourite works. I really miss the days of reddit silver, gold, platinum, it was great for spotting under rated works on /r/anime and /r/manga that only got a few upvotes but managed to impress someone so much it they'd spend money on the thread.
non_radical_centrist
1yr ago
Legislators are free to update legislation anytime they feel like it, they don't need special permission from the judiciary. And I think I have heard of cases where the Supreme Court recommends Congress update relevant laws in the end. The trouble is that leglistatures can be very disagreeable and unable to pass a law, so how to actually govern gets left to the courts while the legislature is deadlocked.
Sometimes you need to slow roll people into your shocking conclusion not to turn them away immeadiately. Often books need to really stretch out the distance to their conclusion to get people to actually read them. But in general I agree. I find it especially annoying when books and long articles don't actually even clearly state their conclusions anywhere, let alone in the preface!
More options
Context Copy link