Oh, I just realized you're the same commenter that was arguing that people just want to criticize and not offer any proposals for solutions.

Getting that response to an actual proposal from you is the thickest of ironies.

I initially thought globalnode's comment was a bit cynical and mean spirited. But you... kind of proved his point? Instead of proposing and judging solutions as you initially mentioned, you basically enacted the "ug ug socialism is bad" he predicted.

▲

meowface 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't completely read your reply. That's not what I'm responding to.

I am critiquing the proposal of socialism as the answer. My initial complaint was answered. My new complaint is with that proposed solution.

Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems. Mamdani is a great example. Mamdani is mostly solving problems by governing as a wise technocratic pro-social neoliberal. His one main exception - rent control - will very likely backfire and continue to prove my point.

Your reply would require an essay from me much longer than what you wrote to explain why it's mostly wrong and why collective ownership of the AI labs and AI data centers (or almost anything) would be bad compared to private ownership with government oversight and taxation.

For now, I would recommend the latest in the Alexander vs. Pritchard series to help articulate broadly why liberalism is preferable to socialism: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/re-re-re-pritchard-on-liber...

I have read the arguments from each and find Pritchard to have made the best case for socialism I've come across and yet find Alexander far more persuasive and correct, here.

I would also recommend reading OpenAI's social democratic policy proposals: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440...

	▲	vrganj 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I feel like while this is a slightly better answer, it still fundamentally is a cop-out. > Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems This is a purely ideological assertion, or "vibes and dogma" to use your terms. We were talking about systems thinking, and yet you answer a structural analysis with unbacked claims. The link dump also feels a bit distractive - we were talking of making concrete proposals and judging them on their merits, now you instead link to some other people talking about vaguely relate topics. Your response did neither of the things you were talking about earlier. I feel like you haven't managed to live up to the standard you have set. The fact that you ask for specific proposals only to then not even read them is the cherry on top. As a final ironic twist, you link to OpenAI in response to a critique of power centralization and share their policy proposals as response to a critique about regulatory capture. Why not link a Standard Oil press release about why monopolies are great, actually?