Why is Consensus Important for People with Views not Winning?

[AspieMillennial]

I don't understand this point of consensus. Please point it out to me. Before you say getting along, we can live separately from the people we disagree with and have separate subcultures.

[David Horn]

(10-16-2021, 05:52 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: I don't understand this point of consensus. Please point it out to me. Before you say getting along, we can live separately from the people we disagree with and have separate subcultures.

Consensus is not unanimity, but it does indicaate a broad level of support for whatever centers the consensus.  For example, a consensus around the idea of pizza as delicious and great food in general lead to massive numbers of pizza joints everywhere on the planet.  Even for those few of us who hate it, we still have to admit that its a net good in this world.

We do have to agree that consensus is not the same as exceptional, but consensus ideas are rarely bad.  They may be mundane, though.

[AspieMillennial]

(10-19-2021, 01:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-16-2021, 05:52 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: I don't understand this point of consensus. Please point it out to me. Before you say getting along, we can live separately from the people we disagree with and have separate subcultures.

Consensus is not unanimity, but it does indicaate a broad level of support for whatever centers the consensus.  For example, a consensus around the idea of pizza as delicious and great food in general lead to massive numbers of pizza joints everywhere on the planet.  Even for those few of us who hate it, we still have to admit that its a net good in this world.

We do have to agree that consensus is not the same as exceptional, but consensus ideas are rarely bad.  They may be mundane, though.

That's not how consensus works now. How consensus works is everyone has to eat anchovies on their pizza because 51 percent said they want it and don't care about the 49 percent who don't want it.

[pbrower2a]

(10-19-2021, 07:10 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(10-19-2021, 01:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-16-2021, 05:52 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: I don't understand this point of consensus. Please point it out to me. Before you say getting along, we can live separately from the people we disagree with and have separate subcultures.

Consensus is not unanimity, but it does indicate a broad level of support for whatever centers the consensus.  For example, a consensus around the idea of pizza as delicious and great food in general lead to massive numbers of pizza joints everywhere on the planet.  Even for those few of us who hate it, we still have to admit that its a net good in this world.

We do have to agree that consensus is not the same as exceptional, but consensus ideas are rarely bad.  They may be mundane, though.

That's not how consensus works now. How consensus works is everyone has to eat anchovies on their pizza because 51 percent said they want it and don't care about the 49 percent who don't want it.

Consensus requires give and take, and the recognition of the validity of some parts of the opposing views. Of course there must be some validity. After COVID-19 is over, a reversion to more of a free-market economy will be appropriate just to constrain inflation. More of a free-market economy than we now have, but not the race-to-the-bottom economy of the 3T and most of the 4T. COVID-19 has imposed war-like conditions upon our economy, but not severe enough conditions to make rationing desirable.

One has no right to expect people to accept as facts positions that are demonstrably wrong. Thus nous avons in French does not mean "five cats"; 4+5 is 9, and not some other number that is not nine (3 squared and 3x3 are also representations of 9); the Bolshevik Revolution occurred in Russia in 1917 and not some other year; delta is the fourth letter of the Greek alphabet and not in some other order; iron has 26 protons and not some other number of them. Magnetism is real and fire-breathing dragons are not. Resolute belief in a folly does not make that folly any more real.

.........

I see COVID-19 as the most likely manifestation of this 4T to mark this Crisis Era for America unless something spills over from overseas. To be sure, much weird stuff is going on in China whose international effects are being met so far with wishful thinking elsewhere, as in the good old U S of A.

[JasonBlack]

As a millennial whose job has been threatened by other millennials on several occasions due to doxxing, I wholeheartedly agree. Imo, the ideal goal is not "consensus" so much as functionality: agreeing on enough of the basic rules to live in a country with a working legal system, but pretty much leaving people alone after that.

[David Horn]

(02-10-2022, 02:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: As a millennial whose job has been threatened by other millennials on several occasions due to doxxing, I wholeheartedly agree. Imo, the ideal goal is not "consensus" so much as functionality: agreeing on enough of the basic rules to live in a country with a working legal system, but pretty much leaving people alone after that.

That's unlikely to work in practice.  First, the most predatory members of society reign when the rules are slack to nonexistent.  Second, destroying any pretext of social cohesion makes response to the First problem nearly impossible.  Third, once things get bad enough, the only way out is the long wait for death ... and that be insufficient as well.

Once again, be careful what you wish for.

[pbrower2a]

(02-10-2022, 02:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: As a millennial whose job has been threatened by other millennials on several occasions due to doxxing, I wholeheartedly agree. Imo, the ideal goal is not "consensus" so much as functionality: agreeing on enough of the basic rules to live in a country with a working legal system, but pretty much leaving people alone after that.

We need a consensus on government that (1) nobody is ever going to get everything that he wants through governmental largesse (Earn it somehow!) and that nobody is going to get the shaft all the time, as was so with slaves (or worse,  Jews in the Third Reich). Ideally government gives most people more than they put in, and does not enforce crony capitalism or overt subjection. 

We also need a consensus on what the essential morals are. It should be obvious enough that safety of the person and respect for non-oppressive property rights are essential if life is to have meaning and that there be some semblance of prosperity. Murder, rape, robbery, arson, child molestation, and human trafficking must be out of the question. Sobriety and erudition are to be cherished. This said, one can derive much the same basic rules from Moses, Confucius, and the Buddha. Empathy and integrity are virtues, and cruelty and dishonesty rend a community.

America does not adhere to any single tradition, but different sub-groups have their own valid traditions, at least for themselves and in dealings with others. OK, the rules of the barrio are not that different from those of Chinatown.

We have technologies that people have put to perverse use. What technology, from firearms to automobiles, has not been put to some vile use? Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker did multiple bank robberies that would have been impossible without both automobiles and firearms. Doxxing is one possible abuse of the technology of the Internet. So what can anyone say except "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

[Skabungus]

Consensus applies in defined groups, charged with a decision.

Except when the word is over used, consensus does not have to do with say the popularity of pizza, or tennis shoes for outdoor activities, or general social agreement in a society about ... something.  Instead, words like trend, norm, more, custom, etc. are a better fit.

[right here is where you can go off on a tangent arguing about whether or not consensus as you've used it is correct or not]

Consensus is best applied to a group of decision-makers each having a role in the implementation of the decision's outcome. A board for an electrical coop, a corporation, a city government, members of a tenant's union, members of a condominium board, the church christian education committee, etc. The size of the group can be small (city council of elected precinct representatives) or large (the membership of the Industrial Workers of the World) but what is key is that the decision-makers have a role in implementing the results of the decision.

Most consensus-based decision models clearly note that consensus can be, but doesn't have to be, unanimous agreement.  It happens from time to time, but it isn't required that everyone agree.  Instead, most models incorporate several ways to disagree.... and still support a consensus agreement.  At work, and in a number of organizations I've been involved with that rely on consensus we've used a fast and easy tool to keep debate and decision formulation moving.  It's called the five finger voting system.  1 and 2 are levels of agreement that mean the participant is on board with the direction things are going.  A 3 means more discussion is needed or issues need to be clarified, etc. A 4 means the person is in disagreement but will not disrupt or block the decision, for the good of the group.  A 5 is called a block and can only be used if the decision being made is in direct conflict with the purpose of the group.  Naturally if you vote a 5 you have a lot of explaining to do.  There are variations on this theme but essentially it is a process that keeps debate moving in a results oriented direction.  Votes are taken regularly throughout the process ensuring everyone is on the same page.  It works wonderfully.

Our cultural tendency toward simple (51%) and super (66-75%) majority is about a dysfunctional a model as you can get.  It prescribes that, with every decision, it is acceptable to leave half or a third of the people responsible for implementing a decision out in the cold.  It's a process designed to create a bi-polar conflict at every turn, and, one that almost guarantees implementation of a decision will be slow, weak and ineffective.  It is almost as if a minority of wealthy gentlemen designed to so as to ensure the whole "democracy" thing didn't get away from them.

Consensus models that incorporate EVERYONE involved in implementing a decision are the most effective.  So, If you are trying to solve a food distribution issue, then that means your decision team needs to incorporate everyone from the chief, right down to the guy on the loading dock, and maybe a few of the customers.  You cant have say, all the regional managers get together and fix it with a quick vote, majority wins.  It doesn't work, and we have miles of history behind us showing that it doesn't.

Consensus-based decisions are the way things are going.  Efficient and effective things anyway.

What is important is understanding that this is the way you solve HUGE problems and we are in a world with HUGE PROBLEMS.  Majority rule wont do it.  Majority rule wins you insurgencies, strikes, and reduced participation in implementation, precisely when you need unity and concerted effort the most.

Consensus based decision making has never been easier than it is today.  Our world is incredibly connected and thus the ability to reach consensus made infinitely easier than say, in the early 1930's when Lean Process Improvement took hold in industry, and early labor unions were trying to organize.  With the click of a tab I can be in a meeting with everyone in my organization, handle a difficult issue, get a consensus based decision, and develop an implementation plan and get things moving, without even putting on pants.

Our system of government (and industry) seeks to focus on attacking complex, fractious issues with simplistic, often draconian, always partisan, solutions.  That. Doesn't. Work.  It never has worked.  There is no "sweeping solution" or "final decision" that works because eating an elephant is not something you can do in one bite.  Besides, our system is designed so that only 51% of the decision makers have to actually want to eat an elephant, with the other 49% left saying "WTF, I didn't sign up to be part of this!"

Instead, consensus based approaches say "pick a problem nearly everyone agrees is a problem, and fix it".  Rinse, wash, repeat.  It's repetitive, it can be kind of tedious, and it works.  It shows clear and convincing results.  One booger at a time, you can pick the whole nose.

I go on this diatribe in this forum because consensus based models have been on the rise in industry and government throughout this crisis era.  Brought on by the broken nature of our politics (bother government and private sector) those that are charged with "doing" have created work arounds.  These work arounds WORK, and work even better in a pandemic environment where people are FORCED to collaborate with people other than their immediate team, or direct supervisor.  In the space of 13 years, nearly every aspect of the government agency I work in has gone to consensus based decision making with only the most formal issues taken to a board to be approved by a vote, as prescribed by law.  That board, since it knows what's good for it, always asks how the proposal was designed, and how the team was assembled.  

As we exit the crisis into the gods know what, we're either going to see low flat hierarchies with consensus based models for decision making become the norm, or we are going to get whiplash going backwards to tall pointy hierarchies, with masses of disaffected people becoming angry, and resistant.  If the former happens, we may see a 1T where the bounty of our tech and information revolutions finally meld into the fabric of our living, making for a society that is easier to run, and easier to live in.  If the latter happens, well then, welcome to the new Gilded Age.

I've always been accused of being an optimist, but there are worse things.  I've also had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" more times than I could count.  These days I remain an optimist, but I frankly have no idea what to expect as we come up on 2024 and beyond.  I take heart in the spread of Lean Process Improvement throughout government and industry, and the rapid blooming of cooperatives ranging from internet and utility providers to more traditional coops all my hippy friends remember.

[beechnut79]

(02-11-2022, 11:39 AM)Skabungus Wrote: Consensus applies in defined groups, charged with a decision.

Except when the word is over used, consensus does not have to do with say the popularity of pizza, or tennis shoes for outdoor activities, or general social agreement in a society about ... something.  Instead, words like trend, norm, more, custom, etc. are a better fit.

[right here is where you can go off on a tangent arguing about whether or not consensus as you've used it is correct or not]

Consensus is best applied to a group of decision-makers each having a role in the implementation of the decision's outcome. A board for an electrical coop, a corporation, a city government, members of a tenant's union, members of a condominium board, the church christian education committee, etc. The size of the group can be small (city council of elected precinct representatives) or large (the membership of the Industrial Workers of the World) but what is key is that the decision-makers have a role in implementing the results of the decision.

Most consensus-based decision models clearly note that consensus can be, but doesn't have to be, unanimous agreement.  It happens from time to time, but it isn't required that everyone agree.  Instead, most models incorporate several ways to disagree.... and still support a consensus agreement.  At work, and in a number of organizations I've been involved with that rely on consensus we've used a fast and easy tool to keep debate and decision formulation moving.  It's called the five finger voting system.  1 and 2 are levels of agreement that mean the participant is on board with the direction things are going.  A 3 means more discussion is needed or issues need to be clarified, etc. A 4 means the person is in disagreement but will not disrupt or block the decision, for the good of the group.  A 5 is called a block and can only be used if the decision being made is in direct conflict with the purpose of the group.  Naturally if you vote a 5 you have a lot of explaining to do.  There are variations on this theme but essentially it is a process that keeps debate moving in a results oriented direction.  Votes are taken regularly throughout the process ensuring everyone is on the same page.  It works wonderfully.

Our cultural tendency toward simple (51%) and super (66-75%) majority is about a dysfunctional a model as you can get.  It prescribes that, with every decision, it is acceptable to leave half or a third of the people responsible for implementing a decision out in the cold.  It's a process designed to create a bi-polar conflict at every turn, and, one that almost guarantees implementation of a decision will be slow, weak and ineffective.  It is almost as if a minority of wealthy gentlemen designed to so as to ensure the whole "democracy" thing didn't get away from them.

Consensus models that incorporate EVERYONE involved in implementing a decision are the most effective.  So, If you are trying to solve a food distribution issue, then that means your decision team needs to incorporate everyone from the chief, right down to the guy on the loading dock, and maybe a few of the customers.  You cant have say, all the regional managers get together and fix it with a quick vote, majority wins.  It doesn't work, and we have miles of history behind us showing that it doesn't.

Consensus-based decisions are the way things are going.  Efficient and effective things anyway.

What is important is understanding that this is the way you solve HUGE problems and we are in a world with HUGE PROBLEMS.  Majority rule wont do it.  Majority rule wins you insurgencies, strikes, and reduced participation in implementation, precisely when you need unity and concerted effort the most.

Consensus based decision making has never been easier than it is today.  Our world is incredibly connected and thus the ability to reach consensus made infinitely easier than say, in the early 1930's when Lean Process Improvement took hold in industry, and early labor unions were trying to organize.  With the click of a tab I can be in a meeting with everyone in my organization, handle a difficult issue, get a consensus based decision, and develop an implementation plan and get things moving, without even putting on pants.

Our system of government (and industry) seeks to focus on attacking complex, fractious issues with simplistic, often draconian, always partisan, solutions.  That. Doesn't. Work.  It never has worked.  There is no "sweeping solution" or "final decision" that works because eating an elephant is not something you can do in one bite.  Besides, our system is designed so that only 51% of the decision makers have to actually want to eat an elephant, with the other 49% left saying "WTF, I didn't sign up to be part of this!"

Instead, consensus based approaches say "pick a problem nearly everyone agrees is a problem, and fix it".  Rinse, wash, repeat.  It's repetitive, it can be kind of tedious, and it works.  It shows clear and convincing results.  One booger at a time, you can pick the whole nose.

I go on this diatribe in this forum because consensus based models have been on the rise in industry and government throughout this crisis era.  Brought on by the broken nature of our politics (bother government and private sector) those that are charged with "doing" have created work arounds.  These work arounds WORK, and work even better in a pandemic environment where people are FORCED to collaborate with people other than their immediate team, or direct supervisor.  In the space of 13 years, nearly every aspect of the government agency I work in has gone to consensus based decision making with only the most formal issues taken to a board to be approved by a vote, as prescribed by law.  That board, since it knows what's good for it, always asks how the proposal was designed, and how the team was assembled.  

As we exit the crisis into the gods know what, we're either going to see low flat hierarchies with consensus based models for decision making become the norm, or we are going to get whiplash going backwards to tall pointy hierarchies, with masses of disaffected people becoming angry, and resistant.  If the former happens, we may see a 1T where the bounty of our tech and information revolutions finally meld into the fabric of our living, making for a society that is easier to run, and easier to live in.  If the latter happens, well then, welcome to the new Gilded Age.

I've always been accused of being an optimist, but there are worse things.  I've also had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" more times than I could count.  These days I remain an optimist, but I frankly have no idea what to expect as we come up on 2024 and beyond.  I take heart in the spread of Lean Process Improvement throughout government and industry, and the rapid blooming of cooperatives ranging from internet and utility providers to more traditional coops all my hippy friends remember.

But we have been in a new Gilded Age ever since Reagan busted the unions four decades ago. Lower and middle classes have never really recovered, even during the two Democratic administrations. Clinton was for all intents and purposes was a DINO, and despite his initial promises Obama also turned out to be a major disappointment. And who knows if Biden will really be that much of a real improvement.

[David Horn]

(02-11-2022, 10:07 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 11:39 AM)Skabungus Wrote: I've always been accused of being an optimist, but there are worse things.  I've also had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" more times than I could count.  These days I remain an optimist, but I frankly have no idea what to expect as we come up on 2024 and beyond.  I take heart in the spread of Lean Process Improvement throughout government and industry, and the rapid blooming of cooperatives ranging from internet and utility providers to more traditional coops all my hippy friends remember.

But we have been in a new Gilded Age ever since Reagan busted the unions four decades ago. Lower and middle classes have never really recovered, even during the two Democratic administrations. Clinton was for all intents and purposes was a DINO, and despite his initial promises Obama also turned out to be a major disappointment. And who knows if Biden will really be that much of a real improvement.

The moneyed elite aren't giving up control willingly, and they've managed to enlist resentful whites to fight their battles.  If this comes to a good resolution, it won' be due to some thoughtful process.  It will be messy.  The plutocrats like the idea of contention, because two groups opposing each other leaves them free to do as they please.

[pbrower2a]

(02-12-2022, 08:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 10:07 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 11:39 AM)Skabungus Wrote: I've always been accused of being an optimist, but there are worse things.  I've also had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" more times than I could count.  These days I remain an optimist, but I frankly have no idea what to expect as we come up on 2024 and beyond.  I take heart in the spread of Lean Process Improvement throughout government and industry, and the rapid blooming of cooperatives ranging from internet and utility providers to more traditional coops all my hippy friends remember.

But we have been in a new Gilded Age ever since Reagan busted the unions four decades ago. Lower and middle classes have never really recovered, even during the two Democratic administrations. Clinton was for all intents and purposes was a DINO, and despite his initial promises Obama also turned out to be a major disappointment. And who knows if Biden will really be that much of a real improvement.

The moneyed elite aren't giving up control willingly, and they've managed to enlist resentful whites to fight their battles.  If this comes to a good resolution, it won' be due to some thoughtful process.  It will be messy.  The plutocrats like the idea of contention, because two groups opposing each other leaves them free to do as they please.

The moneyed elites have been as a rule the worst a$$holes in history (aside from outright criminals), deviating from such when absorbed in some creative or intellectual pursuit or even defense against some enemy that is as unwilling to preserve its own class privilege (for the peasantry and the proletariat, wars of conquest by similar rulers is little more than replacing one elite over another with no meaningful change of relationship, as the a$$hole characteristic of aristocratic elites has no connection to nationality. With few exceptions they stand for little more than class privilege irrespective of time and place. Before the Bolshevik Revolution the question in most of eastern Europe was whether the ruling elite would be German or Russian a$$holes. Add to this, modern industrial societies have tended to develop administrative bureaucracies, whether a Soviet-style nomenklatura or an American-style executive elite. The difference between the two ostensibly-inimical elites is slight. That the Soviet nomenklatura morphed into an elite morphed into an American-style executive elite should little surprise us. Both are a nearly-closed elite that allows little entry from outside except perhaps to snarf up smart people of limited skill so that those never become dangerous revolutionaries. 

The class struggle remains, but the villains have changed. Bureaucratic elites need not own the means of production (which Marx thought essential!), but they can certainly stifle competition and dominate political life. Public policy in America is often little more than ensuring that we have enough welfare to avoid the unsettling spectacle of people starving in the streets, that tax policies largely reward people for already being rich, and that small business be stifled. Ruling elites hate competition, and as one of the starkest expressions of such the aristocratic elites of Germany were quick to adopt antisemitism. German Jews were, as small businessmen, potential competitors to aristocratic financiers and industrialists and thus threats to the cartels that dominated German economic life. Hitler won some of his earliest support upon such elites, and he consistently promised to marginalize the Jews. That marginalization would intensify once Hitler was in power -- all the way to the murder camps.   

The model for the American elite may be something more like sharecropping, if not chattel slavery... but the trend under the neoliberal ideology has been toward enrichment of elites of ownership and management, tax codes that favor elites and doom most small businesses, destruction of liberal arts in education, increasing vulgarity in culture, and the promotion of a debt-driven commerce. Workers become little more than conduits of money between economic elites, such as between such a mass employer as Wal*Mart and one's rapacious landlord. People must work longer and harder in the performance of dubious services so that they can pay off those who create and exploit scarcity as the model of profit maximization.

[JasonBlack]

(02-11-2022, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: That's unlikely to work in practice.  First, the most predatory members of society reign when the rules are slack to nonexistent.

I'm not asking for a lack of rules, I'm asking for more streamlined rules, with a focus on giving existing laws teeth rather than adding additional layers of red tape Things like, for example, reporting requirements and additional kinds of audits rather than trying to micromanage people's behavior for moralistic reasons or pry into more private matters. Admittedly, the idea of "fuck the rules" style anarchy is appealing to me on some level, but in practice, yes, it's basically just a power vacuum, which creates a culture too unstable to allow for the kind of long term planning necessary to make markets work.

Quote:Second, destroying any pretext of social cohesion makes response to the First problem nearly impossible.  Third, once things get bad enough, the only way out is the long wait for death ... and that be insufficient as well.

Since when does social cohesion have to come from top-down mandates? I'd argue that, if anything, our sense of community was stronger when our institutions were a little more lean. People form bonds by sharing common experiences, actually doing things together, not having bureaucratic structures enforce more rules.

[David Horn]

(02-12-2022, 04:10 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Since when does social cohesion have to come from top-down mandates? I'd argue that, if anything, our sense of community was stronger when our institutions were a little more lean. People form bonds by sharing common experiences, actually doing things together, not having bureaucratic structures enforce more rules.

History tells us that Americans are not typically amenable to the same cohesive structures found in most other advance societies.  The rare occasion when we coalesce requires a trauma of some kind that forces the issue: the ACW, WWII and the Great Depression, TBD this time.

It isn't top-down so much as universal ... or nearly so.

[Eric the Green]

(02-12-2022, 04:10 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: That's unlikely to work in practice.  First, the most predatory members of society reign when the rules are slack to nonexistent.

I'm not asking for a lack of rules, I'm asking for more streamlined rules, with a focus on giving existing laws teeth rather than adding additional layers of red tape Things like, for example, reporting requirements and additional kinds of audits rather than trying to micromanage people's behavior for moralistic reasons or pry into more private matters. Admittedly, the idea of "fuck the rules" style anarchy is appealing to me on some level, but in practice, yes, it's basically just a power vacuum, which creates a culture too unstable to allow for the kind of long term planning necessary to make markets work.

Quote:Second, destroying any pretext of social cohesion makes response to the First problem nearly impossible.  Third, once things get bad enough, the only way out is the long wait for death ... and that be insufficient as well.

Since when does social cohesion have to come from top-down mandates? I'd argue that, if anything, our sense of community was stronger when our institutions were a little more lean. People form bonds by sharing common experiences, actually doing things together, not having bureaucratic structures enforce more rules.

That would be a new style of consensus. It would be nice, and I once believed it could happen. I am disillusioned with such an idea now. Humans have confirmed in recent decades that they can't function without top-down mandates, especially in the economics sphere more than the moralistic sphere (but doubtful there as well). As David alluded to, the economics rules were relaxed about 40 years ago, and since then Reaganomics has only resulted in an unequal society with less opportunity and much more damage to the environment, no social progress, diminished education and an ignorant populace easily deceived by a rich celebrity bully. No, we certainly have no consensus that can be formed now from leaner institutions.

I don't know when community was stronger because institutions were a little more lean. The robber baron era was not a community, and neither were slave plantations, nor the colonies under a king, nor a new republic in which only rich white men could participate.

[JasonBlack]

(02-13-2022, 10:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That would be a new style of consensus. It would be nice, and I once believed it could happen. I am disillusioned with such an idea now. Humans have confirmed in recent decades that they can't function without top-down mandates, especially in the economics sphere more than the moralistic sphere (but doubtful there as well). As David alluded to, the economics rules were relaxed about 40 years ago, and since then Reaganomics has only resulted in an unequal society with less opportunity and much more damage to the environment, no social progress, diminished education and an ignorant populace easily deceived by a rich celebrity bully. No, we certainly have no consensus that can be formed now from leaner institutions.

I don't know when community was stronger because institutions were a little more lean. The robber baron era was not a community, and neither were slave plantations, nor the colonies under a king, nor a new republic in which only rich white men could participate.

Both of those sound pretty top down to me, and one would be hard pressed to claim that they worked given the metrics we are discussing. I'd say things improved a lot when we no longer had a king ruling us and when we let brown people actually make their own decisions. The last part I disagree with. We had a very strong sense of community during/after the revolution and after WII that didn't require any top-down mandate. Sure, we can pick away at "but only land owning white people can vote", but let's not forget that it was another 30 years (The United Kingdom in 1807) became the first country ever in the history of the world to ban slavery. 

The only one I see your point on is the robber baron era, but no one is advocating we return to anarchy. With that said, just as anarchy is inevitable, so too is human's tendency to seek out power. Capitalism (something that comes in many forms with many degrees of possible regulation mind you) is the only system in the world in which individuals have the opportunity to gain power in ways that benefit the rest of society with jobs, innovation and better pricing. 

At the end of the day though, most of this post isn't even about money. What we need to return to is privacy, sans the influence of government or corporate surveillance. This is an issue I can shake hands with left wingers and the EU on: we need data protection and privacy laws enshrined in a constitutional amendment, period. I can be happy without making a million dollars a year. I cannot be happy in a state of extreme censorship and surveillance. 


Really though, compare even the worst periods in our 400 year history with the likes of African military dictatorships, Maoist China, Ottoman Turkey, Nazi Germany or absolutist Russia. Do you think they had any real "sense of community" under those conditions? Sure, things could use some improvement at the moment, but if you take a step back to compare the US to historical data related to the kinds of policies you're alluding to, the dilapidated infrastructure of the US.  We're 10x better off than any totalitarian government system left or right, religious or secular. Speaking for myself, had I lived under any of those regimes, I would be a much more violent person than the man you are talking to today. The value I place on human life is pretty high, but the value I place on taking control over my own life and not being dragged down with the misery of the masses....that's worth killing for.

[pbrower2a]

(02-12-2022, 04:10 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: That's unlikely to work in practice.  First, the most predatory members of society reign when the rules are slack to nonexistent.

I'm not asking for a lack of rules, I'm asking for more streamlined rules, with a focus on giving existing laws teeth rather than adding additional layers of red tape Things like, for example, reporting requirements and additional kinds of audits rather than trying to micromanage people's behavior for moralistic reasons or pry into more private matters. Admittedly, the idea of "fuck the rules" style anarchy is appealing to me on some level, but in practice, yes, it's basically just a power vacuum, which creates a culture too unstable to allow for the kind of long term planning necessary to make markets work.

Any attempt to micromanage personal behavior risks personal freedom. If such freedom is callow license, then such may be appropriate (thus efforts to block access to child pornography). If it is instead an effort to improve human behavior at the expense of essential freedom then we have some conflicts. It is not acceptable to use the excuse "but it will make us more prosperous". If people were perfectly moral by some standards, then they would submit to serfdom and acquiesce in an aristocratic order in which elite power, indulgence, and gain are the sole virtues that society recognizes.  Should the economic elites attempt to enforce such through fraud or political chicanery, then we will need a popular revolution that stops such -- and it will not have pretty results.  

The instability of our culture reflects conflicts of interests between labor and management, and one effect of COVID-19 (which may be THE defining event of this Crisis Era unless somebody sets forth on a course of conquest where such is unwelcome) may be a shift in the relative power of labor and management. 

Quote:

Quote:Second, destroying any pretext of social cohesion makes response to the First problem nearly impossible.  Third, once things get bad enough, the only way out is the long wait for death ... and that be insufficient as well.

Since when does social cohesion have to come from top-down mandates? I'd argue that, if anything, our sense of community was stronger when our institutions were a little more lean. People form bonds by sharing common experiences, actually doing things together, not having bureaucratic structures enforce more rules.

The elites can at times be in the position of imposing such mandates. A leadership that shares the ideology and ruthlessness of a Pinochet will impose its will from the top down, and anyone who gets in the way can end up dead. Unless you count Brazil as an advanced industrial society, the USA is the only one that has had chattel slavery within the last 170 years, and that can be an attractive model for people with exploitative mentalities. Can you imagine a social order more likely to induce narcissistic personalities than the antebellum South? '

We are not out of the woods on the danger of a plutocratic tyranny. The economic elites recognize that Trump was too risky and excessively offensive. They have found themselves with the Democrats in control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress -- and they want such to fail. For them the public interest centers on their own vile desires for having everything possible, with the rest of America being livestock at the most charitable and vermin at worst. It is difficult to see what moral virtues come naturally to elites of ownership, basically heirs who feel entitled to maximize profits by enforcing scarcity, and hardly anything could better prepare a youth for a life of unabashed narcissism than matriculation in education that leads to membership (for all practical purposes inherited) in the managerial elite. These two elites become mirror-image Marxists, the sorts who believe that a Marxist critique of capitalist society is the optimum. 

The American political system was not made for an aristocratic elite. It depends upon the dispersion of economic power. Small shopkeepers were the basis of American democracy, and if we find such unrepeatable due to technological change and industrial progress, then we need to rein in those who would monopolize the economy and turn us into serfs -- or acquiesce in our own subjection.

[JasonBlack]

(02-14-2022, 05:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-12-2022, 04:10 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: That's unlikely to work in practice.  First, the most predatory members of society reign when the rules are slack to nonexistent.

I'm not asking for a lack of rules, I'm asking for more streamlined rules, with a focus on giving existing laws teeth rather than adding additional layers of red tape Things like, for example, reporting requirements and additional kinds of audits rather than trying to micromanage people's behavior for moralistic reasons or pry into more private matters. Admittedly, the idea of "fuck the rules" style anarchy is appealing to me on some level, but in practice, yes, it's basically just a power vacuum, which creates a culture too unstable to allow for the kind of long term planning necessary to make markets work.

Any attempt to micromanage personal behavior risks personal freedom. If such freedom is callow license, then such may be appropriate (thus efforts to block access to child pornography). If it is instead an effort to improve human behavior at the expense of essential freedom then we have some conflicts. It is not acceptable to use the excuse "but it will make us more prosperous". If people were perfectly moral by some standards, then they would submit to serfdom and acquiesce in an aristocratic order in which elite power, indulgence, and gain are the sole virtues that society recognizes.  Should the economic elites attempt to enforce such through fraud or political chicanery, then we will need a popular revolution that stops such -- and it will not have pretty results.  

The instability of our culture reflects conflicts of interests between labor and management, and one effect of COVID-19 (which may be THE defining event of this Crisis Era unless somebody sets forth on a course of conquest where such is unwelcome) may be a shift in the relative power of labor and management. 

Quote:

Quote:Second, destroying any pretext of social cohesion makes response to the First problem nearly impossible.  Third, once things get bad enough, the only way out is the long wait for death ... and that be insufficient as well.

Since when does social cohesion have to come from top-down mandates? I'd argue that, if anything, our sense of community was stronger when our institutions were a little more lean. People form bonds by sharing common experiences, actually doing things together, not having bureaucratic structures enforce more rules.

The elites can at times be in the position of imposing such mandates. A leadership that shares the ideology and ruthlessness of a Pinochet will impose its will from the top down, and anyone who gets in the way can end up dead. Unless you count Brazil as an advanced industrial society, the USA is the only one that has had chattel slavery within the last 170 years, and that can be an attractive model for people with exploitative mentalities. Can you imagine a social order more likely to induce narcissistic personalities than the antebellum South? '

We are not out of the woods on the danger of a plutocratic tyranny. The economic elites recognize that Trump was too risky and excessively offensive. They have found themselves with the Democrats in control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress -- and they want such to fail. For them the public interest centers on their own vile desires for having everything possible, with the rest of America being livestock at the most charitable and vermin at worst. It is difficult to see what moral virtues come naturally to elites of ownership, basically heirs who feel entitled to maximize profits by enforcing scarcity, and hardly anything could better prepare a youth for a life of unabashed narcissism than matriculation in education that leads to membership (for all practical purposes inherited) in the managerial elite. These two elites become mirror-image Marxists, the sorts who believe that a Marxist critique of capitalist society is the optimum. 

The American political system was not made for an aristocratic elite. It depends upon the dispersion of economic power. Small shopkeepers were the basis of American democracy, and if we find such unrepeatable due to technological change and industrial progress, then we need to rein in those who would monopolize the economy and turn us into serfs -- or acquiesce in our own subjection.

Someone gets it.