In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
It might shock you all to learn that King Spew is a mod and didn't actually ban anyone for baiting while lucio just ate a ban for race science
You know wars happened right? and happened in the past? and in every war of conquest / reunion there is a wide range of options available for the winner? and often enough the winner just eliminates most of the losers, like the USA did with natives?
We didn’t really eliminate indigenous people, in fact they have lots of special statuses and treaties that other groups don’t have because we still feel bad about it. Which is surprising given how much animosity there really was from both sides.
They're not.
You spend your life in this forum and I guarantee this conversation about luciom happened already, and yes you were one that asked the same kind of thing back then and acting surprised.
You are not surprised and are 100% trolling / faking ignorance.
lol
I literally hadn't posted here in over a year (got a permaban). So, I admit I'm posting a lot.
That said, I certainly don't "spend my life" here. I do have health issues that sometimes keep me in the house.
We didn’t really eliminate indigenous people, in fact they have lots of special statuses and treaties that other groups don’t have because we still feel bad about it. Which is surprising given how much animosity there really was from both sides.
No. You just nearly eliminated them.
Bad people, both sides huh?
I wonder why one side felt animosity toward the other...
We don't mostly. You may be confusing the actual Irish with the Plastic Paddies in the US.
Should have said had not have to make the analogy more clear. I think it’s pretty clear that the Irish and the British hated each other for centuries, what with the whole man-made famine, religious persecution, and racism thing that the British did.
Also those people fled to the US because the British started a famine in their country, so that’s probably why they have animosity towards them.
Should have said had not have to make the analogy more clear. I think it’s pretty clear that the Irish and the British hated each other for centuries, what with the whole man-made famine, religious persecution, and racism thing that the British did.Also those people fled to the US because the British started a famine in their country, so that’s probably why they have animosity
Eh, we've had time to get over it.
check here
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrow...
for a better source on how Arrow denies you can "optimize" for a group (which means no social welfare function to try to maximize can exist).
Isn’t this just talking about individual preferences for how distributions should happen? I’m not sure why an inability to maximize for individual preferences should lead to the conclusion that social welfare is itself not possible.
And that word maximizes is doing a lot of work there. We would have to take the actual world and evaluate it against all the counterfactuals to derive which world has the maximum social benefit to redistribution. Obviously politics doesn’t do that so we just look at comparable cases and try to isolate as many variables as possible to see which has the better outcome. The results of that will be underdetermined, but that underdetermination will apply to all cases where we are attempting to isolate particular social arrangements, because it is not a physical possibility under our current technology to evaluate all possible counterfactuals.
as for progress I didn't deny material progress can and do happen. I deny "progress" the way progressives strive (or pretend to strive) for is an improvement.
having more material resources with the same population is intuitively always better, that's my basic axiom. I suppose you deny this? it goes fast into sophistry and we can lose a ton of time but in general if someone thinks that food being scarce, or antibiotics not existing, can be "better" I won't waste too much time discussing with him.
In a closed system, maybe. In an open system not always. If I have a bunch of material resources I might become a target for someone outside of my population. Or if I have a lot of resources but don’t have a way of using them then just having the resources themselves will not be useful. Or if my tribe keeps gaining resources but they have some mechanism that prevents me from getting them. Or if the gain in resources always goes to one person.
You name particular examples of where societies can distribute resources in equitable ways as examples of things getting better. But a progressive theory of social progress doesn’t deny that, in fact it’s a mechanism within the system.
In fact, what seems to be going on here is that you are both indexing on the same thing (utility) but then have different empirical opinions on how to achieve the highest amount of utility, and the domain at which utility should be indexed.
You also seem to deny that progressives can be right relative to their society. Like if I see slavery and I advocate against that, in a relative progressive theory I am being socially progressive. Now that doesn’t entail that I have to keep striving towards something, because the idea is that there could be a stopping point to which we are all progressing. So it doesn’t require, just because I believe in relative progress, that I am committed to perpetual progress.
Given Arrow though there is no way to optimize what to do collectively with those resources , how to arrange, how to redistribute them, so you shouldn't even try to plan that.
progressives want to decide for others basically, and that cannot work (to improve wellbeing, to "progress"). in an impossibility sense.
higher per Capita GDP is just a very rough, very simple (but surprisingly good) measure of material prosperity ("having more stuff").
yes i completely deny the arc of history (for the "non material" elements) exists or can exist.
Then let’s not maximize them. Let’s just improve. And improvement can be indexed to some value I have that can be reflected in the data that is collected in comparative analyses between different systems. Also, let me not have to want to maximize the social preferences throughout the system and let me only care about maximizing my own preference, as each individual voter always does. Now does Arrow’s theory seem like a problem.
Also I know you deny arc of history, despite thinking there really is a best system for each and every group based on biology, where best system is apparently not indexed to anything but what is measurable, and what is measurable only correlates to what is actually best but doesn’t exhaust it as an explanation. It makes it useful when you can criticize others for self-described mistakes you make yourself.
if you can't maximize it is because you cannot claim a specific arrangement is better than another, for the population (unless it's pareto efficient I guess).
you basically can't aggregate individual preferences into social preferences. you cannot "weight" how much improving things for someone makes up for the decreasing in utility of someone else.
utilities aren't quantities that exist outside of an individual ordered preference for outcomes.
those are all corollaries of Arrow
in other news, the Portugal leftist government joins Denmark in understanding that immigration and naturalization strictness isn't a right-wing position, just the only possible reasonable option for all rational people.
years to wait until naturalization just doubled in Portugal from 5 to 10 (except for lusophone countries , reasonably enough, where they got increased only from 5 to 7)
https://m.economictimes.com/nri/migrate/...
everywhere around the rich world people from the far left to the center to the far right are coming into agreement about building up stronger protections for citizens from the flood of random foreigners attempting to leech off our success.
except in this forum I guess
I don't entirely agree. I think there is value in getting people to state their opinions plainly.
if you can't maximize it is because you cannot claim a specific arrangement is better than another, for the population (unless it's pareto efficient I guess).you basically can't aggregate individual preferences into social preferences. you cannot "weight" how much improving things for someone makes up for the decreasing in utility of someone else.utilities aren't quantities tha
No again you’re talking about preferences.
I think Arrow’s theorem misses the point, or is a response to something not on the table here.
I never claimed a perfect system that is preferred by the most people is possible. We’re only trying to improve, not perfect it.
And since you already grant improvement is possible your objection is self-defeating.
No again you’re talking about preferences.
I think Arrow’s theorem misses the point, or is a response to something not on the table here.
I never claimed a perfect system that is preferred by the most people is possible. We’re only trying to improve, not perfect it.
And since you already grant improvement is possible your objection is self-defeating.
no, I don't discuss how to use existing stuff and re-purpose it for progress. that would be meaningless.
I am talking about how if no one is forced to do anything against their will, having more stuff available is imho better.
but I never said achieving more stuff while forcing others to behave against their will is progress
no, I don't discuss how to use existing stuff and re-purpose it for progress. that would be meaningless.
Huh? How is that meaningless?
I am talking about how if no one is forced to do anything against their will, having more stuff available is imho better.
That’s not what gdp is though. More stuff becoming actually available is not GDP, GDP is just more stuff period.
but I never said achieving more stuff while forcing others to behave against their will is progress
What? Who said anything about forcing others to do stuff? We’re just talking about the concept of progress period.
Because it's impossible to be able to claim that different distributions of resources are better or worse for society. Even if you know exactly what every single person prefers.
Because... Arrow.
I already told you we’re not indexing to an aggregate. Who told you that progressives want to bring about the maximum preference satisfaction? lmao
“Then let’s not maximize them. Let’s just improve. And improvement can be indexed to some value I have that can be reflected in the data that is collected in comparative analyses between different systems. Also, let me not have to want to maximize the social preferences throughout the system and let me only care about maximizing my own preference, as each individual voter always does. Now does Arrow’s theory seem like a problem.”
I will say I am going to be very disappointed if Momdani doesn't win the general election or if he does win and nothing happens. I want the full socialist experiment:
Rent control
Wealth taxes
Govt supermarkets
Defund police
Ban all federal law enforcement
Israel divestment
Increased public school "equity"
$30 minimum wage
Free puberty blockers for kids
--Give me all of it.
he has come out against "Defund the police" and in fact pledged to increase their presence. hes a typical liberal. dont worry about it.
he has come out against "Defund the police" and in fact pledged to increase their presence. hes a typical liberal. dont worry about it.
You are probably right, which is a shame. I think there are just too many far leftists, especially from the moneyed classes, who have a very poor model of human nature, psychology and history; and are way too enamored with collectivism. And I think a rude awakening would probably be beneficial in the long run.
I already told you we’re not indexing to an aggregate. Who told you that progressives want to bring about the maximum preference satisfaction? lmao“Then let’s not maximize them. Let’s just improve. And improvement can be indexed to some value I have that can be reflected in the data that is collected in comparative analyses between different systems. Also, let me not have to wa
But progressives don't admit their preferences are purely arbitrary and they pursue them in 0 sum games against others, with as much violence as they can muster within a given system.
They claim they make society better for others by pursuing them.
And that a clear path exists (arc of history) which makes society better for "everyone" (except "bigots and evil people" in their parlance).
That's what makes progressivism a completly intellectually corrupted affair.
They don't even have the basic dignity of admitting they just want stuff and try to achieve it for their own self interest.
But progressives don't admit their preferences are purely arbitrary and they pursue them in 0 sum games against others, with as much violence as they can muster within a given system.
They claim they make society better for others by pursuing them.
Well no, it wouldn’t be as much violence as could be mustered. It just needs to be a sufficient amount of violence to achieve their ends, and if the avoidance of violence as much as possible is one of their ends then it’s not going to be the case that they will pursue as much violence as possible. That could just be as much violence as needed, not as much as is possible.
They may underestimate how much violence is necessary, but they also may pursue means that minimizes violence like compliant resistance which was a method that was used in the past to great effect.
And preferences might be arbitrary, but there is a matter of fact as to what empirically satisfies the preferences. There is a sense in which it’s arbitrary to be against serial killing versus being in favor of serial killing, but if we keep it at that resolution there’s also a sense in which it’s arbitrary to prefer the opinions of sane individuals over insane individuals, so this would equally effect your gdp standard.
That's what makes progressivism a completly intellectually corrupted affair.
They don't even have the basic dignity of admitting they just want stuff and try to achieve it for their own self interest.
If they “want stuff” and that’s why they do it, then it sort of cuts against your point about it being arbitrary. Because now you are positing a universal motivation for why they do things.
What's strange about a white supremacist fascist being obsessed with bloodlines?
