| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago |
| > I was hoping that there would be a "solution" of sorts to tackle / handle this issue of when EVERYBODY seems to use this strategy, but perhaps there isn't one...? It’s called government regulation. There’s whole fields of research on how to solve an arbitrarily complicated Prisoner’s Dilemma. A lot of people are allergic to the idea because they don’t want to have limits on their behavior, only on others or on no one at all. So we get everyone picking the bad square in the Dilemma |
|
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >A lot of people are allergic to the idea because they don’t want to have limits on their behavior, only on others or on no one at all. So are we doomed? if we don't vote in people who can properly regulate this, it seems the dilemma continues. But how does one convince an entire society to stop being so selfish and myopic? |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If you want everyone to be able to do what they want without limit, and enough people are choosing a route to destruction, then yes we are doomed. I have no idea how to convince anyone anymore. Even people who claim to care about things beyond themself immediately round up the wagons the second they have a limitation imposed. Already in this thread there’s someone mocking government regulation with a strawman argument. I’d just find some people you can make a community with and hole up. The Curtis Yavins, Thiels, and Musks of the world appear to have willed their post democracy state into existence without how much anti democratic sentiment they pull. Gonna have to figure out what their “post constitutional” world is going to look like before anyone has any idea what a good oath forward will be | | |
| ▲ | collingreen 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The path -> oath typo at the end of your post is apropos in a world sliding fast into full on techno feudalism. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pjc50 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The problem is now coming from the top: Trump is the ultimate victory of shamelessness. It evolved like antibiotic resistant MRSA. Which is why demanding a government solution is meaningless. |
|
| ▲ | potato3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're peddling government as a silver bullet. It's not. You're no less ignorant (a much milder word than I want to use) than the people who think various flavors of near-anarchy can magically work fine. Some people are allergic to your knee jerk silver bullet solution because often times it comes with downsides that are on comparable orders to the original problem, same as every other silver bullet being peddled by every other ideologue. Shit is complicated and care needs to be taken. |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't believe I called it a silver bullet. I believe I called it a solution to a specific situation the person I was replying to. You are no less ignorant(also a much milder word than I want to use for yourself) than anyone else who hears "government" and then goes on a tirade about how "gubment bad". Shit is complicated. That's why leaving it to the random chance of whatever happens in the market happens tends to lead to sub optimal outcomes unless the only metric you care about is efficiency. I find it comical that you end your post with "care needs to be taken" in response to me calling for government regulation, when government regulation is literally an organization making sure that care is taken. You can argue on any specific policy points easily, but notice I didn't suggest a concrete action yet, and you still were ready to argue against it because the government was mentioned |
|
|
| ▲ | b_e_n_t_o_n 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Government regulation of shameful behaviour? That's worked out wonderfully in the past. |
| |
| ▲ | ajuc 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, it did. Despite all its shortcomings the invention of law has had a pretty obvious positive impact on our civilization. Instinctive dismissal of government regulation like it could never solve any problem is a bias. Pretty common in tech circles, but still. | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | European governments have regulations for anti social behaviors that curb some excesses and they haven’t collapsed. So I would agree, they have worked in the past | | |
| ▲ | roenxi 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Haven't most European governments in the last century or so collapsed? Eastern Europe regulated anti-social behaviorsandin a pretty extreme way and the superstructure collapsed directly, but Western Europe as it exists now is what emerged out of the ashes of the last collapse in the 1930s. I don't think there are many broad lessons to learn beyond aiming for peace and liberty, but "European governments didn't collapse" is hardly a powerful argument. The area is notorious for collapse, it is still in living memory when large chunks of Europe fell apart, sometimes quite comfortably so. It could easily happen again. | |
| ▲ | samdoesnothing 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Governments once banned interracial relationships and marriage, homosexuality, women working outside the home, divorce, birth control, dancing, drinking etc, on account of contributing to anti-social behaviour. It's true that they haven't collapsed, but I don't think that's because those things were once banned. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If your point is that what was acceptable in the past is now distasteful, then respectfully I do not care. The fact that the government cannot create a regulation that works for everyone, everywhere, all at once across time and space is not a winning argument for me since that limitation applies to all actors. We go through cycles where we either change what society generally considers "ok" or we discover that something we thought was ok was actually a great evil after some forerunners on moral thought convince enough people of the righteousness of their belief. That doesn't make regulating bad behavior not ok. | | |
| ▲ | samdoesnothing 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you meant the opposite - that what was distasteful in the past is no longer distasteful today. I think we realised as society that regulating most behaviour, no matter how distasteful we find it, is not a great idea for various reasons - 1. it's subjective, 2. people get tired of prudish cultures and act out in various ways, 3. you end up on the wrong side of history. As a society we're becoming a lot more liberal about letting people do their own thing, as long as they aren't actually hurting others. Playing music out loud is not hurting others, neither is wearing a bikini at the beach, etc. Of course there are always the hall monitors that want to control other peoples behaviour and they often use the excuse that they're regulating bad behaviour for the sake of society. Thankfully it seems like we are beginning to reject those people and push them out of power. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > I think you meant the opposite - that what was distasteful in the past is no longer distasteful today. It could be either > I think we realised as society that regulating most behaviour… I did not mention anything close to regulating “most” behavior, and I want to call out to you, since you are respectfully laying out your point, that this seems to be a common knee jerk reaction to a large number of people bemoaning any particular issue if I bring up government regulation. That knee jerk reaction specifically being the assumption that being for any government regulations means you are for regulating most or all things. > Thankfully it seems like we are beginning to reject those people and push them out of power. It’s only thankful if you prefer the situation. If you are someone who does not want to experience pot smoke and loud music blaring in your ear when someone chooses to do so because they have the freedom to, then maybe you prefer the hall monitor. I’m not even advocating for one option or the other. This thread started with me pointing out to someone who was upset at people engaging in anti social behavior en masse, that the solution was government regulation. If you don’t like government regulations in general, or you just think that on net they are a detriment, then the solution is to make peace with the fact that other people are going to use their freedom in a way that you don’t like | | |
| ▲ | samdoesnothing 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, when I said "most" behaviour I meant it categorically, not quantifiably. As in, most behaviours should not be regulated, not that there are people who want to regulate most or all things. I don't think the solution to the type of anti-social behaviour described in the article is regulating it. Like I'm not sure how we can make "being Paris Hilton" illegal, unless we do something akin to bringing back Puritanism or something like that. I very much appreciate both the separation of church and state, and also the freedom to live my life how I want even if there are some people who disapprove of it. > If you don’t like government regulations in general, or you just think that on net they are a detriment, then the solution is to make peace with the fact that other people are going to use their freedom in a way that you don’t like Yeah I think the lesson is that people need to make peace with the fact that other people have different values and should be free to live their lives the way they want. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | b_e_n_t_o_n 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Give us some examples. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Hacker news told me to stop posting so fast (i.e. i pissed people off enough to flag) but belatedly, the UK has A.S.B.O.s, Germany has many laws and regulations against speech and being part of extremist groups. Both countries seem to be doing fine compared to the global competition | | |
| ▲ | llllm 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That means you have been shadow banned, you’ll need a new account. | | |
| ▲ | lovich a day ago | parent [-] | | No, it means I got flagged for a few hours. If I was shadow banned you couldn’t have seen my comment |
|
| |
| ▲ | ajuc 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why bother with these commie Europeans, let's start with US, shall we? Ever tried to walk naked in the middle of your city? What is the reason it's not allowed? | |
| ▲ | collingreen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, u |
|
|
|
