←back to thread

594 points geox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
aaroninsf ◴[] No.44449308[source]
The current administration is not merely racists, autocratic, and hell bent on insuring all wealth is held by the oligarch class,

it is also engaged in the most venal, short-sighted, and destructive assault on the basic functions of governance and civil society I can imagine.

I don't care what one's view is on the appropriate scale and role of federal governance, some operations are best and only accomplished at that level,

and this short of bullshit is not just a disservice to, it is an attack on the citizenry.

replies(5): >>44449362 #>>44449388 #>>44449731 #>>44450050 #>>44450174 #
janice1999 ◴[] No.44449362[source]
Destroying federal governance seems on point for people who read Yarvin and want to rule feudal micro-states as techno-kings.
replies(3): >>44449412 #>>44449569 #>>44466863 #
amarcheschi ◴[] No.44449412[source]
I guess they see themselves as high officers in those states. I fail to understand how someone could read about living in a dictatorship and go "yeah, I would like to live like that"
replies(5): >>44449589 #>>44449695 #>>44449739 #>>44449851 #>>44449945 #
anigbrowl ◴[] No.44449695[source]
Evidence suggests ~30% of people are content to be worse off in order to inflict a larger loss upon others. This paper makes for rather grim reading but imho provides a very useful heuristic for understanding the political enfironment in an era of mass communication.

Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451

replies(3): >>44450368 #>>44450897 #>>44452868 #
1. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.44452868[source]
> Evidence suggests ~30% of people are content to be worse off in order to inflict a larger loss upon others. This paper makes for rather grim reading but imho provides a very useful heuristic for understanding the political enfironment in an era of mass communication.

Pinning this on human psychology is ignoring how the game is set up. If you structure something in such a way that the person who gets the most points wins and gets a prize, a move that causes you to lose one point but causes your only opponent to lose two points will put you ahead. That's arithmetic, not psychology.

The issue, then, is when we allow things to be structured that way -- as zero sum games. Instead what we should be doing is stamping out anything that fosters artificial scarcity.

Moreover, as the paper points out, that's what happens in dyadic systems. Which is to say, two party systems. If you have the option to cost yourself a point but cost one of your opponents two points, that's an advantageous move in a two-party system, but not in a five-party system even with a zero-sum game, because then you've cost yourself a point against three of the four other parties. So if you want to get rid of that, have your state adopt score voting (specifically score voting, not IRV or any of that mess) instead of the existing voting system which mathematically constrains us to a two-party system.