arendjr

Don’t be so gloomy! You’re an individual number too! 😜

Shun the nonbeliever!

If I’m not mistaken, their inflation and interest rates are already crazy high, nearing 20%. Yes, they can print even more money, but it won’t give them more resources from abroad, and they’re already nearing the point where they might spiral into hyperinflation.

Saying that people are corruptible doesn’t imply they are corrupt. Thankfully we live finite lives and plenty of us can make it to the end before we corrupt ourselves.

Given the right luck they could only mirror the elite, not change their structure.

This is quite literally pretending the Age of Enlightenment never existed. We can change structures and have throughout history.

5% at the end of the decade is quite a pessimistic take 😉

Looking at the graph 1% was crossed mid/late 2021, while 2% was crossed mid 2024, so almost 3 years later. Now 3% is crossed a little more than a year later. Next year we would be likely to have crossed 4% and 5% should be no later than 2027, even if it doesn’t speed up much further.

Yeah, I think we're largely aligned indeed, and I appreciate your detailed response!

We can start by taxing land, sure, but why the hangup with that in particular? We could argue instead for collective ownership of all housing, all means of production, and all land, and this way the exploitation would stop altogether.

I think I could also agree on collective ownership of housing, although I'm not yet certain it's necessary. After all, from what I read about land-value taxation (which admittedly is still not a lot yet), it incentivises development of properties, so the land taxation alone might improve the housing situation too.

But a collective ownership of the means of production is something I'm more sceptical about. Because we want people to own the fruits of their labour, so if they make something, it's theirs, which is the reward for making something in the first place. But then if I make something to improve food production, I become forced to share it with everyone? That de-incentivises people to work on such endeavour. I still agree that sharing improved means of food production is a good thing, but I don't think an overly strict interpretation of shared ownership is the answer. The current practice of a time-limited patent might actually suffice.

I just don’t think real democracy is possible in a two-class system where a minority class (capitalists) have the economic power

Yes, I agree. Though in the proposal that I linked, there is indeed a two-class system but one where the minority class are explicitly prevented from having any personal ownership. This then incentivises them towards preventing capitalist excesses, since capitalists that become too powerful may actually become a threat to their own power. But it's still merely a thought experiment too, so I don't know if it would work out as intended.

Yes, that's a very valid concern indeed. You're right that under Georgism it may still be possible for an elite to corrupt politics in such a way that the Geogist values itself cannot be upheld. But it's still a step in the right direction, and I think that's more a political problem than an economic one. We also don't really know for certain that if a society successfully implements Georgism that they will even let their elite gain such power. After all, it becomes much easier for the common folk to escape the capitalist treadmill. That may be wishful thinking if we would change to Georgism overnight and leave people with a consumerist mindset to their own devices, but maybe paired with an ideological shift in thinking, it could work.

But I would even be open to the idea that maybe it's democracy itself that needs to be revisited.

Yes, I do indeed see how the capitalist notion of salaried workers that benefit their superior remains intact with Georgism. I can even understand why you might call it “leeching” given that working for a salary is often not much of a choice, since we otherwise have no income and therefore have no way to support ourselves.

But from my still-limited understanding of Georgism, it does also seem to aim for using land-value taxation to be able to provide everyone with a universal basic income. This would mean that salaried working becomes more of a wilful choice and at least some of the excesses of capitalism are successfully avoided. I don’t think I would even necessarily call it “leeching” in such a scenario.

I’m not sure I agree with the “no one claimed” part, because I think the proof is specifically targeting the claim that it is more likely than not that we are living in a simulation due to the “ease of scaling” if simulated realities are a thing. Which I think is one of the core premises of simulation theory.

In any case, I don’t think the reasoning only applied to “full scale” simulations. After all, let’s follow the thought experiment indeed and presume that quantum mechanics is indeed the result of some kind of “lazy evaluation” optimisation within a simulation. Unless you want to argue solipsism in addition to simulation theory, the simulation is still generating perceptions for every single conscious actor within the simulation, and the simulation therefore still needs to implement some kind of “theory of everything” to ensure all perceptions across actors are being generated consistently.

And ultimately, we still end up with the requirement that there is some kind of “higher order” universe whose existence is fundamentally unknowable and beyond our understanding. Presuming that such a universe exists and manages our universe seems to me to be a masked belief in creationism and therefore God, while trying very hard to avoid such words.

The irony is that the thought experiment started with “pesky weird behaviours” that we can’t explain. Making the assumption that our “parent universe” is somehow easier to explain is really just wishful thinking that’s as rational as wishing a God to be responsible for it all.

I’ll be straight here: I’m a deist, I do think that given sufficient thought on these matters, we must ultimately admit there is a deity, a higher power that we cannot understand. We may as well call it God, because even though it’s not a religious idea of God, it is fundamentally beyond our capacity to understand. I just think simulation theory is a bit of a roundabout way to get there as there are easier ways to reach the same conclusion :)

Cheers! ❤️

Balanced people tend not to burn time and emotional energy on politics for free, basically. Yes, I know that's a self-own.

As someone who’s literally currently writing a book/philosophy called Philosophy of Balance this one struck a chord 😅

But you are right, I’m burning a lot of time and energy on exactly this and I feel it makes people wary and skeptical of what’s wrong with me… When really, I don’t think anything is wrong with me now. Hasn’t always been like that though, so if I can help others ease their struggle by writing about my own, I think that’s worth it.

The original quote is a horrible take, trying to make people with suicidal thoughts feel guilty about themselves, as if they don’t feel shit enough yet.

The thing is, suicide is only an out if the pain is beyond a single person’s capacity to bear. Yes, the act may inflict pain upon others, but generally not to the same amount, or most suicides would set off a chain reaction. So chill out and don’t try to blame those are already feeling down.

Of course none of this is an endorsement of suicide. If you’re having these thoughts, please find help. Here in the Netherlands you can call 113, and other countries might have their own support lines. Hell, shoot me a DM if you feel the need.

I did have a friend of mine commit suicide many years ago. It’s not an experience you wish upon anyone, and I’m talking about both the experience of the suicidal as well as the survivors. But I do believe a large part of the pain can be prevented by sharing your thoughts, so that you can get out of the negative spiral you may reinforcing on yourself. So talk to someone. Anyone.