@amerika @pluralistic you are missing the point.
we could elect microbiologists and water purification experts, but they couldn’t ensure the bridges won’t fall. an elected government, whoever gets elected, needs to be able to recruit, manage, supervise, and yes sometimes discipline expertise.
“Mostly, we elect lawyers. Lawyers can do many things, but if you ask a lawyer to tell you how to make your drinking water safe, you will likely die a horrible death.” @pluralistic https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/21/policy-based-evidence/ ht @mikeolson
@admitsWrongIfProven @Hyolobrika antitrust is a start and absolutely necessary. but i don’t think on its own it’s sufficient. https://zirk.us/@interfluidity/113534160360556906
the truth is out there. and it’s coming for you.
real americans grift.
@Hyolobrika No one is arguing people shouldn’t be allowed to say anything. People should be allowed to say overt falsehoods. It’s institutions of authority and potentially of reach that might be regulated.
@admitsWrongIfProven an economy that makes, say, 70% of the public feel like they are doing well and getting richer, regardless of what is happening to the other 30%.
@ZaneSelvans there is not. but there are degrees. one reason for civilized people to contribute under capitalism is to create conditions under which it might be reformed towards social democracy. but if that kind if reformist change seems off the table?
@Hyolobrika the government arbitrates truth in jury trials. it does not prejudge it. it sets up procedures that are ex ante viewpoint neutral. ex post, a losing party might call foul (and rights to appeal are part of the procedure). but ultimately this procedure does adjudication truth and falsehood, as a matter of social outcome if not in the eyes of God, over matters of important controversy. of course it sometimes errs.
do you object?
is it ethical to contribute to a good economy under a bad state?
@artcollisions fingers crossed. but he seems much better, three days into the antibiotic.
@artcollisions he was sluggish and coughing, but not really complaining. during the days when his fever was down, he'd have a bit more energy. every day we thought he could go back to school tomorrow. every night we took his temperature and, nope.
@artcollisions he’s 11. we took him in when his fever was quite high (more than 104). we took some solace that it seemed to be declining, but it wasn’t going away and eventually shot up again. (his fever would go down during the day, usually, but every night it was back.)
@artcollisions me too. i feel terrible for not having been more insistent from the start. we believed urgent care, when they said his lungs were clear and to just wait it out. waiting wasn't working.
@curtosis @rajivsethi Yes. I remain concerned about its architecture, its susceptibility to capture. but for now it's a vibrant space for experimentation like we haven't seen in a while.
@artcollisions Once he was actually diagnosed, rather than just waved away as "oh it's a virus", he's rapidly recovering. Thank God. He's on antibiotics for "walking pneumonia".
Action Required.
@curtosis @rajivsethi yes. we need a Polyanian revolution of the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. like the regular marketplace, it is embedded within and exists to serve society, not to stand apart from it. at the very least, it needs "antitrust" (limiting disproportionate influence due to wealth). but like product markets, it needs positive structuring as well as after-the-fact policing of monopoly. 1/
@curtosis @rajivsethi from someone's perspective that will always be "censorship" (my view would have prevailed but for how we've structured this system), just as regulation is perceived, not incorrectly, by some parties as a limitation of freedoms they might otherwise enjoy. 2/
@curtosis @rajivsethi are we capable of crafting a regime for managing the reach ("speech" alone doesn't matter, talk to yourself all you want) of political expression that necessary cannot be content neutral, at least *ex post*, that serves society without leading to the blindspots and dogmatism and injustices that historically have persuaded us to err on the side of laissez-faire with speech (and reach)? /fin
we've advanced beyond "team of rivals" to "team of vipers".
