participant-3927, 9:29 PM, May 12
By the way, I made small improvements on the Anthemism website last week.
participant-3927, 5:37 PM, May 13
In my article on open borders I have dealt with the issue of preventing the new country going statist as a result of influx of collectivist immigrants. I wrote,
Although the government cannot dictate morality, it has the responsibility, when granting citizenship, to test whether an applicant is patriotic to the country as it stands. To limit the influence of harmful ideas, voting rights should be a privilege, not an automatic given. Applicants for citizenship must pass a test to demonstrate their understanding of the country’s current system and values.
Citizenship should be restricted to descendants of immigrants who are at least N generations removed from the original settlers. This generational requirement serves a crucial purpose: ensuring the country’s core values remain dominant as the immigrant population gains political representation.
Harry Binswanger writes in 2015 (on the HBL forum, 4775):
[There is a] principle: the government can’t get involved in the realm of testing people’s philosophy. The separation of church and state really means the separation of philosophy and state. Do you want the Obama adminstration testing whether the ideology of potential immigrants is the right ideology?
participant-3927, 5:39 PM, May 13
So what should be in a citizenship test? It can’t be any kind of propaganda philosophy, but I suppose it should be testing that the person is familiar with the founding documents and key debates or key issues. He shouldn’t be required to take a particular side in the debate.
participant-3927, 5:41 PM, May 13
To get my Canadian citizenship, I did need to pass a test. I needed to read a booklet about Canadian provinces, and about its political structure. I think that test was too basic.
participant-9259, 11:53 PM, May 13
You can always lie on a test. I think the best way to prevent the rise of a tyranny would be a working justice system that punishes those who have committed crimes
participant-3927, 11:56 PM, May 13
It is necessary, but not sufficient. Democrats are not commiting crimes, when they vote in marxist politicians.
participant-3927, 11:58 PM, May 13
What’s needed is to allow any view to be held by individuals, but have it somehow that the bad views are fringe and have no political import.
participant-3927, 11:59 PM, May 13
You can lie on the test, but the test just checks that the person is aware of the body of history necessary to form his own opinion.
participant-3927, 4:46 PM, May 14
Brett Cooper, an actress with 2M subscribers on YouTube, has included a voice over of Ayn Rand in her show’s trailer.
participant-3927, 6:09 AM, May 15
My analysis of characters of Daniel Deronda and Gwendlen Harleth. This will be included in my article on taking action, and not accepting collectivist views.
Daniel Deronda pursued his own interests with focused determination, choosing to uncover his origins and dedicate himself to the Jewish cause because it gave his life meaning and purpose. Despite the prevalent antisemitism in Victorian England, he followed his curiosity about his Jewish heritage without hesitation. Raised as a gentleman with a mysterious background, he could have maintained his comfortable position in English high society, but instead followed his own path, bringing Jews like Mirah, her brother Mordecai, and the musician Klesmer into his social circle without shame. His story stands in stark contrast to Gwendolen Harleth, who, despite being of higher social class and being in love with Daniel, came to realize that her character made her unworthy of him. She expected others to make sacrifices for her and ultimately sacrificed herself to her husband, while resenting Jews like Klesmer and Mirah, believing they had no place in her social class. While Gwendolen’s altruistic approach led to her entrapment, Daniel’s egoistic pursuit of his own interests allowed him to find his true identity and purpose. In the end, their different approaches reflected their fundamental views of the world: Daniel saw it as benevolent, while Gwendolen perceived it as malevolent.
participant-3927, 4:25 PM, May 15
Zelensky has presented himself as the opponent of the dictatorial, authoritarian Putin. But now he is friendly to Erdogan, another authoritarian monster. What does this show? That the leaders of the free world (of which Ukraine aspires to be) do not act by principle. Morality is a prostitute for sale. And in USA we see the same pattern, with Trump accepting bribes from ideological enemies of the Western civilization. Do you see now that things are not going to get better? It’s time for our generation to act, and put a stop to this. And the only practical way we can do this, is by creating a new country. Why? Because if you act within the system, you will have to act by the same prostituting ways. We can’t compromise by principles. We need to get all these monsters to play agaist each other, and this way obtain a spot of land long enough to build our own military.
participant-4603, 5:41 PM, May 15
Is there ever a case or set of circumstances where it is not morally reprehensible or unprincipled to engage in pragmatism or realpolitik?
participant-7471, 5:50 PM, May 15
At present, Turkey is less authoritarian than Ukraine
participant-3927, 8:46 PM, May 15
Here are my thoughts about Quasimodo.
Quasimodo, the hunchbacked bell-ringer of Notre-Dame Cathedral, embodies the struggle between individual moral agency and societal control in medieval Paris, where the Catholic Church dominated morality and daily life. Despite being shunned for his deformities, he maintains a remarkable capacity for joy, love, and intellectual curiosity, finding solace in the bells of Notre-Dame and developing his own interests. His outlook starkly contrasts with his guardian, the archdeacon Claude Frollo: while Frollo, as a high-ranking church official, sees the world through dark colors of religious dogma and control, viewing humanity as inherently corrupt, Quasimodo embraces life’s beauty and possibilities. This contrast becomes the central conflict when Quasimodo falls in love with Esmeralda, a gypsy dancer whom medieval society viewed as a symbol of moral corruption. In loving her, Quasimodo not only defies the Church’s authority but rejects the entire value system of his time, choosing to see beauty where society saw only sin. His story represents the triumph of individual moral choice over manipulation and control, as he ultimately chooses to protect Esmeralda against his guardian’s wishes, demonstrating that true moral agency lies in the courage to follow one’s own compass, even when it means defying those who hold power.
participant-3927, 2:19 AM, May 16
It’s always morally reprehensible for a president to do this, he is supposed to be the symbol of the country. The grunt work is done by politicians away from the media.
participant-2236, 2:33 AM, May 16
AFAIK, President’s job is basically to be a top manager of this mechanism which we call “government of a country”, while working within the law. He is not supposed to be a symbol. Except of his job, he can be anything - not-a-nice-person, physically ugly, gay, trans, adulterous, single, young, old, high-functioning alcoholic, chain-smoker, disco-goer, whatever. As far as his job is done well (in the best way), and as far as he stays within the law. How’s that for a viewpoint?
participant-2236, 2:36 AM, May 16
And ideally, we don’t need “celebrities” in the management. We don’t need paparazzi media to interpret all their utterances and haircuts, and monitor all aspects of their life 24/7. Having celebrity/symbol attitude to elected leaders is one of the biggest issues / leads to “populism” etc. If we’d want to and could somehow elect “good managers” to the top, and not “loud charismatic clowns”, we’d be better off, I think.
participant-9259, 12:26 PM, May 16
It isn’t unprincipled: If the choice for a head of state is between his citizens’ (and his own) life and not compromising with tyrants, choosing the former isn’t immoral: its called having priorities. Being moral doesn’t mean you have to become a martyr and suffer your whole life, quite the opposite
participant-3927, 1:01 PM, May 16
He doesn’t have to post about it on Twitter, whitewashing Erdogan.
participant-3927, 1:04 PM, May 16
I want to sincerely thank President @participant-7130, his team, and the people of Türkiye for their support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. President Erdoğa reaffirmed during our meeting today that he supports Ukraine and recognises Crimea as part of Ukraine.
participant-3927, 1:06 PM, May 16
Also, I doubt that Turkey is pro Ukraine. It’s just for ownership of Crimea, it wants it for itself, or at least, it doesn’t want it to be Russian.
participant-3927, 1:17 PM, May 16
I mean, that what he publicly says has weight : he represents the ideology of the country. He was elected precisely because he reflects that ideology. So if Zelenskyy is campaigning for western values, uses every possible opportunity to declare how bad is the authoritarian Putin, it’s a hypocrisy to treat Erdogan differently.
participant-3927, 1:21 PM, May 16
The principle Zelenskyy follows is probably more prosaic: he is tribal. Wasn’t he promising integration with Russia in his election campaign? What happened? He succumbed to Ukrainian nationalism — he had to represent the Ukrainian tribe. Instead of renaming streets named after antisemites like Bandera, he ate it up, to support the prevalent ideology. And it’s under his watch statues of Pushkin are dismantled.
participant-3927, 1:24 PM, May 16
And, I vote no to Plato’s philosopher king. A man in the back room, a monk, that declares evil decisions from within close doors. Isn’t it how Iran is now? The president is unimportant, and all decisions are made by philosopher king ? Khamenei
participant-3927, 1:25 PM, May 16
The president is the public face of the country. Reagan said “USSR is axis of evil.” That is what expected from a president. Not being merely a TV personality (here I agree with Sergei)
participant-3927, 1:28 PM, May 16
Antisemitism is not tolerated.
participant-3927, 1:28 PM, May 16
I removed Da Go and deleted his last message
participant-9259, 2:12 PM, May 16
What did he say?
participant-2236, 2:22 PM, May 16
smth about crack(coke?)-head zelenski being controlled by american jewish reptiloids (well, not reptiloids, but along this line)
participant-4603, 2:58 PM, May 16
Exactly right, this whole “I will die for my principles” nonsense is just that – a bunch of nonsense.
And I don’t think there’s a good set of principles to have.
participant-4233, 2:58 PM, May 16
To be honest, the one drawback of the name “Anthemism” is that in Russian it keeps reminding me of “antisemitism” because the h is not there
participant-4233, 2:59 PM, May 16
“Antemism” in Russian 😁
My mind keeps filling in:
“Ante-se-mi-ti-sm”
participant-4603, 3:06 PM, May 16
Several weeks ago, while on the Maltese island of Gozo, I met “Da Go” in person, and I don’t think he’s a Jew hater. He knows who I am, and we got on just fine.
What it boils down to is that he is latently pro-Russian, for a variety of reasons that I could unpack if desired, and he is sceptical of the United States of America as well as the one and only Jewish State, Israel. But I don’t think he hates anyone per se.
participant-3927, 3:12 PM, May 16
It matters what’s published in the channel, and that’s beyond the pale
participant-3927, 3:15 PM, May 16
You missed it, we discussed this issue in this channel
participant-4603, 3:27 PM, May 16
@participant-4233 The movement could be called Stosorok, the Russian transliteration for the number 140.
Using the rules of PEMDAS, we multiply the numbers 7 * 2 * 5 * 2 * 1 = 140, since that would be the correct order before addition, so calling it 17 is out.
It appears the domain name, as well as some social media handles for Stosorok, are available, so that’s a contender.
But I’m not sure its euphony sounds so great — “stow” “saw” “rock” — or if it’s so necessary to celebrate the Russian heritage of Ayn Rand.
participant-4233, 3:27 PM, May 16
We should record a show episode, you me and andy, I think
participant-4233, 3:28 PM, May 16
Talking about the future of virtual nation founding or whatever
We have different persoectives but a lot of commonalities
btw Andy I sent you an email, check it out when you have a chance.
participant-3927, 3:28 PM, May 16
Why 140?
participant-4603, 3:29 PM, May 16
Equality 7-2521
participant-4603, 3:29 PM, May 16
I will try before that great homage to mysticalism and collectivism known as Shabbos.
participant-3927, 3:33 PM, May 16
No, it has it be more explicit, sorry. Re 140. 140 would be a good name for a pub.
participant-3927, 3:36 PM, May 16
If you don’t have principles you will be like Donald Trump. China is evil, let’s cut a deal. Iran is evil, let’s cut a deal. Hamas is bad, Israel must stop the war immediately, and let’s help Gaza. And you can’t call it hypocrisy, cause he is not breaking any principles: he doesn’t hold any.
participant-4603, 3:37 PM, May 16
That is a really good point and you are right; it would need to be spelled out. It is far too esoteric to call it Stosorok.
participant-4603, 3:40 PM, May 16
So, then, principles are just that; that which you are willing to lay down and sacrifice your life for is that the essence of principles, then?
I suppose high at the top of many people’s list is their own life, or existence, as being the top principle, namely the preservation of their life, and then their comfort.
participant-4233, 3:41 PM, May 16
No, principles dont have to be that extreme. You balance some against the others.
For example I have a principle to be rational and convince the other person with reason, or be convinced. But if there is a volcano exploding nearby, I will put aside that principle and escape
participant-4233, 3:45 PM, May 16
Decisions are all about trade-offs.
In 2020 I left a very cushy full time job where I worked remotely 2 hours a day, but got paid $180,000 a year to do it. Everyone seemed to be mostly happy. I left on good terms, but I left because I felt like I was helping my consulting company steal money from Fidelity Investments, which was maybe silly cause they had a trillion dollars under management and I learned later apparently nearly everyone who does full time jobs does a version that. (Working far less than they report.)
participant-4233, 3:46 PM, May 16
I will copypaste what I wrote in hacker news:
In my last full time job I worked for a tech consulting company that rented us out to teams at financial instutions that managed insane amounts of money. This was in 2021 before AI was common. I worked remotely, and the first month didn’t do anything — just waited for the corporate laptop to arrive etc. Then I worked 2 hours a day.
But I had to put 8 hours in the timesheets, and select what projects I was working on. And I always had a feeling of guilt about that, like I was helping my consulting company charge hours that I wasn’t really working. I just kept finishing the tasks I was assigned in the sprints, and then there was nothing more to do. I didn’t aggressively ask for more work, just took on what others did. This went on for a while, and I felt guilty. Working on my startups in the meantime, like those people who work multiple jobs. I didn’t realize this happens a lot.
On one of my calls with my immediate manager I mentioned I had some downtime — and he was like “oh you have downtime? That’s not good.” And then it became his problem. And I didnt get more work but from then on I felt this tension with him, and probably others downstream of it. Nothing concrete, but just the feeling slightly changed, for a few weeks. So I nicely resigned after 6 months, saying to HR that investors funded my startups but they want me to work on them fulltime. So I left on good terms.
I regret it, though, in retrospect. Because of my ethics I missed out on income that could have helped my family and people around me. That was a great salary for remote work 2 hours a day, and I would have invested over half of it in crypto and probably 3xed it all by now. I only left because my ethics bothered me, but I learned later how often “full time” jobs really aren’t. Like, at all!
participant-4233, 3:47 PM, May 16
And in startups too. Until recently, I wore my heart on my sleeve and my principle was that I will keep my word to people downstream of me even if it others won’t, which means I have to go into extreme debt to do it. I realized that given the current prevailing system, most people werent living by that principle, so just mathematically I couldn’t afford to keep upholding that principle. I had to become part of the problem!
participant-4233, 3:51 PM, May 16
Sadly when it comes to money, the system coerces you to become part of the system.
But when you have a lot of “fuck you” money, you can afford to stick to your principles, walk away and pass up opportunities, and much more. (It also works if you have zero ambition.)
I have had a few people in my life that I was able to join forces with and we always keep our word to each other. It is an island of reliability in a sea of flaky and ridiculous communications which means nothing. I treasure having those connections.
participant-3927, 4:33 PM, May 16
Principles are ethical instructions that a person holds as a
universal guide to action in order to benefit himself. Therefore, acting agaisnt the principle, is to the detriment of himself. The sacrifice is exactly when you act in contradiction to your principles. For example, you love your child, but you betray him to appease someone. That’s a sacrifice. Telling someone to fuck off because you won’t betray your child, is not a sacrifice.
participant-3927, 4:38 PM, May 16
One’s own life is a primary value (it’s not a principle), but a principled man cares
how he lives his life. Not any kind of life is ok. Yes, comfort is a value, but to a point. There are values higher than comfort, so if you face a dilemma, you’re supposed to pick the higher value.
participant-4603, 4:47 PM, May 16
So, then, presumably for example, the Christian God did not contradict his own principles, nor did our kin at Masada, right? Because, within their own respective meta-systems, it was best for them to allow their lives to come to an end versus the alternative in that moment.
But now take someone who doesn’t believe in the value of martyrdom; then, for them to go ahead and be a martyr is a violation of their own principles.
If I don’t believe in giving charity, but I toss a coin into a beggar’s box, then I am definitely violating my own principles.
participant-3927, 4:47 PM, May 16
Apparently, you are more productive than an average developer. Why? Because you completed a load of tasks in a quarter of the time. So, the 180k salary is too low. When you are reporting 8 hours, you are taking your salary, the salary promised to you by contract. Second, no one sits in front of the screen, in an office, 8 hours a day. There is a lot of walking around and about. Yet, you are expected to work overtime without pay if there’s some kind of deadline, and to participate in company events etc. which go far beyond the 8 hours commitment. (For example, company meets where you fly out and spend a week in some hotel, away from family, your piano, owing 24/7 time to the company that flew you there.) At the office, you must show up in the morning, having wasted time in commute for which you are
not paid, be stuck there all day (of which you are productive only 4 hours at most anyway – lets be honest), then go home, having any kind of work-life balance totally killed for that day. Now, we are fortunate to change this, by shifting to remote work, essentially making everyone a contractor, and responsible for his time. But, the payment structure has not changed. So, in my view, if no one is complaining about your output and you carry about the same load as other people in similar positions, you are staying true to this principle: “I am paid what I am worth.” The way out of this, obviosuly, is to start your own company, and to run it better (pay people what they are worth).
participant-4603, 4:50 PM, May 16
So, okay, right: that’s the principle and value distinction, which makes sense. Then, how does one reconcile their principles when there is a conflict among their respective principles?
So, I don’t give help as a matter of principle, but I see someone drowning in a lake and I know how to swim. In that instance, my principle of non-assistance has to take a back seat, right? Because I should have a principle that calls me to save another man’s life, if it doesn’t put my own in jeopardy. Or maybe I have no obligation to save his life.
participant-3927, 4:51 PM, May 16
Principles can be wrong, and principles can be correct, but a person holding it, may be making an honest mistake following it.
participant-3927, 4:51 PM, May 16
If you hold a principle that you should not help anyone, then you are antilife. It’s a wrong princple.
participant-3927, 4:53 PM, May 16
But there are often conflicts, where you are faced with a dilemma involving several values. Do I tell her that she is fat and make her feel sad, or do I tell her how it is, because I don’t want to be with a fat woman, and staying silent hurts my own values? That’s a dilemma, and you have to choose the bigger value here, as you see it.
participant-2236, 5:04 PM, May 16
if I guess correctly, in most senses Peter Singer is philosophically an opposite to Rand? however, both share eloquent complex lofty language, large following, academic or quasi-academic status, an air of being fully convinced in the correctness of their stance, a slight (or strong) indignation of an opposing opinions, etc.
participant-3927, 5:04 PM, May 16
Affluent peolpe do not have surplus money. It’s not like they sit on bags of money, like Scrooge McDuck. All the money is invested in production, or items of comfort (like a nice house), which also costs money to maintain.
participant-2236, 5:06 PM, May 16
i think he says “imagine you don’t buy a comfort bed for 20K, instead you feed 200 kids, and sleep on a perfectly okay
bed (nay, mattress) which costs $100”. so yes, surplus?
participant-3927, 5:06 PM, May 16
Second, it’s absolutely matters if the person that needs help is near you, or far away.
participant-2236, 5:06 PM, May 16
how so?
participant-3927, 5:07 PM, May 16
You can’t fix the world, you can help someone who honestly strguggles, as a case of emergency. You shouldn’t help someone who is in that position by his own making, he deserves to struggle. (Street junkies, etc.)
participant-3927, 5:08 PM, May 16
Children in 3rd world struggle not as an emergency, but because their countries are a mess. You can’t be responsible for the way people (the parents) chose to run the country.
participant-4233, 5:08 PM, May 16
I agree I was very foolish to leave
Especially since most full timers do this
I could have had $180K a year for 2-3 hours a day, for 4 years, I would have invested half in crypto like Solana and probably turned it into $5-8 million by now
participant-2236, 5:08 PM, May 16
kids in africa are starving. and by definition, kids are innocent, they hadn’t had time to sin yet, by being self-elected junkies. okay, they pay for the sins of their parents, so…. it’s a collective punishment right? tough luck, i guess
participant-3927, 5:09 PM, May 16
It’s not kids fault, but you cannot help them, no matter how much money you have. Elon Musk couldn’t help them. No amount of money can fix a broken country.
participant-3927, 5:09 PM, May 16
There is one sure way to help all those starving kids: immigration. Have them come here, and help them when they are here.
participant-2236, 5:10 PM, May 16
i agree with you on many points, including “africa cant be helped etc”, by the way. but also i can’t help but constantly be a devil’s advocate, and just contradict whatever i see, because contradicting is fun, and agreeing is less interesting.
participant-3927, 5:10 PM, May 16
Ha ha 🙂 Yes, there’s that.
participant-2236, 5:12 PM, May 16
to continue the contradicting. elon musk might not have “helped them”, but afaik, B.Gates did? he did orchestrate and finance some grand humanitarian projects….? just a sec, looking up….
participant-3927, 5:13 PM, May 16
I think killing the mosquitos was a good idea, and the toilets. You can parallel this to Howard Roark’s agreement to make cheap housing for the poor, by making the design effective, efficient.
participant-2236, 5:13 PM, May 16
well, i guess “polio” etc
participant-4233, 5:13 PM, May 16
I will tell you also why I left. Because I knew that what I had built with Qbix and Intercoin could have brought me a lot more. People were telling me that they are imminently investing in the company. I had public listings lined up. But then:
-
One of our investors pounced and sucked out all the liquidity as soon as the thing listed and raised $40K. That killed the momentum back in 2021. Had he waited even 1 week Intercoin would have probably gone up 10x and had a $500M market cap.
-
90% of the people who told me they would deploy money, turned out it was just talk. Half of them couldnt do it due to circumstances beyond their control. But the other half simply enjoyed leading me on, sometimes for like a year or so.
So I was acting on bad information when I left the company. I learned later that most of the time, in the wider market, what people promise you means nothing. Most deals fall through because people didnt actually follow through. I was much more naive and trusting back then.
participant-4603, 5:13 PM, May 16
Those responsible for the children starving in those situations are their parents, and in some instances, their communities that do not educate or encourage the use of contraceptives. So, arguably, it is they who are the ones engaging in collective punishment, not someone sitting in an office building on Wall Street, drinking his espresso and banging away at his keyboard.
No serious person wants to see anyone suffer, let alone innocent children in developing countries. The issue is the structural circumstances that led to those unfortunate cases.
Do I think, for example, that there would be starving children in an enclave in South Sudan that was effectively governed by the principles of Ayn Rand? To even ask the question is to answer it.
participant-2236, 5:15 PM, May 16
If simplified, this is a strange-ish argument. I see person X suffering. I identify Y as causing the suffer. I choose not to help, because, well, Y should help (by stopping causing suffering, or more - reverting to being good instead of bad).
participant-4233, 5:16 PM, May 16
If I knew then what I know now, I would have never left the company. I might have even interviewed at Google, Netflix and jumped ship to a company that paid even more. Milk the corporations for as much as possible before AI comes on the scene and they lay everyone off.
Instead, I believed I was about to build my own company, and our Intercoin community even had the token listed publicly already. I didn’t realize just how readily people shoot themselves in their own foot, and others too. I wish the world wasnt like that, but most of it is. In romantic relationships too. That is probably the reason so many people dont trust each other anymore.
participant-3927, 5:16 PM, May 16
But let’s take it in perspective, that this is
play. Bill Gates is doing this, or should be doing this, as play in retirement. As a hobby. It’s not work.
participant-4603, 5:17 PM, May 16
It’s even stranger to blame Z, who’s not even a party to the story!
participant-2236, 5:18 PM, May 16
hm. what is “work”? do you mean “work is something which if you don’t do you’ll die”? but then tons of people (1% of the world? many millions?) have enough funds to never “work”, and only “play”?
participant-3927, 5:18 PM, May 16
I mean, it’s not productive work, that’s the main focus of one’s life. For Bill Gates, it was Windows, Word, Microsoft. He is retired. He’s having fun with his money.
participant-4233, 5:18 PM, May 16
In short I was making two mistakes:
-
I was applying ethics and morals in situations where I should have just gamed the system. Hate the game not the player. At the end of the day a lot of the loyalty is just words. Corporations lay people off all the time without a second thought, this isnt 1950.
-
I thought I could afford to be ethical because I had something better prepared. I was trusting what people told me, and figured everyone would cooperate for the win, so I and underestimated how often people can be in their own way.
participant-2236, 5:19 PM, May 16
and yet that’s what P.Singer does. his argument is - you’re a human being Z, who sees a drowning child… you didn’t push the child into the lake, you were just passing by. you chose to ignore the situation. you’re not blamed for Z falling into the lake, you’re blamed for not pulling them out, when you
perfectly could. this is the epitome of “immoral, bad, bad, bad person you!!!” - says Peter Singer. sounds plausible.
participant-3927, 5:20 PM, May 16
When a child is drowning, the issue is about 5 minutes of your time, in an emergency of dire irreversible consequence if you don’t act.
participant-4233, 5:20 PM, May 16
I dont like the current system, culture of everyone ghosting each other etc. Banks who lend only to people who dont need it and deny people who do. “Overployed” employees pretending to work 8 hours and working 3 different jobs. Romantic relationships where a person just ghosts the other. There is so much dishonesty in it. I will build a new system, using my software. Those who like me want to opt out of this culture will be able to.
participant-3927, 5:21 PM, May 16
When you have a country with starving children, it’s not an emergency. The fix is there, but it’s not by throwing money at it. If you want to help, use your money to make loud speeches about how that country is bad, and what it should do to be better.
participant-4233, 5:22 PM, May 16
But my system will have accountability and reputation built in as a core feature. People in the network who break promises or ghost willl bear a cost for doing so. There has to be. That’s the only way you can increase trust. And with high trust you have high efficiency in the network. Everyone can leverage each other’s resources and join forces part time for various results, and stop discounting every promise by 90%.
participant-4233, 5:23 PM, May 16
What do you think guys
@participant-3927 @participant-4603 I have been thinking about how such a system would work, that keeps participants honest and productive, and pushes deals towards realizing profit and impact.
participant-3927, 5:24 PM, May 16
@participant-4233 you’ve lumped so much together, some of which is reasonable, and some of which I disagree. Banks and corporations should act to increase their profits. That’s the main principle, and the purpose of the corporation. If they lend money, they should do it to maximize profits.
participant-4233, 5:25 PM, May 16
Thats their purpose and the way they operate. They can continue to do so. I want to have an alternative available also.
participant-4603, 5:25 PM, May 16
The analogy doesn’t hold water - pun intended - after the fact, because it’s not just one child drowning in a lake; there are millions. So to what end do you rescue each and every one of those precious children?
I suppose you would do the best you can without endangering yourself, right? Assuming you feel called to do so, but that’s up to the individual to decide. Unless we’re talking about Good Samaritan laws, which do exist in some instances - such as you see someone drowning in a lake - versus coercive laws that require you, at the barrel of a gun, to save starving children thousands of kilometres away.
And so there is a clear difference, back to Ayn Rand and how an objectivist Republic would likely not face the scenario of starving children. While I do contend that is correct, I could equally make a case that any number of other flavours of governance that were good and pro-business probably would neutralise famine and starvation issues. So it isn’t everyone’s favourite Russian woman who has the exclusive panacea per se, but it is a good one.
participant-3927, 5:27 PM, May 16
It’s also true that companies are overrun with collectivist ideology, which only lately became DEI, but it was there all along under the name “culture fit.” The dumb company meetings, where devs have to sit and listen to marketing motivational talk aimed at the sales guys, is an example. Another example is the recycling environmentalist propaganda. With DEI, all this became supersized. It’s because of this bland appeasing culture, it feels weird when you’re being laid off. But it shouldn’t feel this way. It’s not in companies’ interest to cut staff, they lose a lot of money on churn (retraining new employees). They even pay recruiters huge fees to bring in more employees! So, if you’re laid off, it’s for a good reason.
participant-4233, 5:27 PM, May 16
Maximizing profits can be done at the expense of others. That system can be worse off in the long tun than an alternative system.
For example a bank makes money out of thin air based on whether a person can repay it in 5 years. While that is good for the bank’s shareholders, it may not be great for the wider community the bank serves. Also it is based on speculation by a back office underwriter and risk manager about what will happen in 5 years. Instead, the community can issue its own currency as well, airdrop it to people in small amounts and each person can choose how to spend it. That signal shows actual demand for what prople need, not speculation about distributing surplus profits 5 years from now.
participant-4233, 5:28 PM, May 16
With bank loans and intereest invariably happens is that there isnt enough money in circulation for all the people/businesses to pay back the banks with interest. So they either default or the government just prints more money. Or buys the debt increasing its sovereign debt. Which is what we have now.
participant-4233, 5:29 PM, May 16
We have had all three happen.
Some banks went bankrupt a couple years ago
Some debt was absorbed by and went to the government which is now insolvent