Democracy: Rule of the NPCs
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- notrelated.xyz
At 17:49 I said that I was attending "Georgia Southern University" in Atlanta. I meant Georgia State University. Funny mix up (I live near Southern nowadays and that's why I got them confused while adlibbing).
4:11 "Everyone but me is dumb and irrational!"
7:27 The Arisalment of Public Choice and Rational Ignorance
11:43 Democracy BTFO?
12:52 The Miracle of Aggregation and the Wisdom of the Crowds
17:21 The Democracy of Occupy Wallstreet
19:42 Bryan Caplan's the Myth of the Rational Voter
20:17 Rational Irrationality
22:17 Systematically Brainlets?
28:29 The Origin of Political Biases
30:08 You can Donate Bitcoin now
31:14 Emails
33:30 The Urban-Rural divide in American politics
35:48 Mitchell Heisman
36:53 Muh pronouns
38:38 IDENTITY POLITICS EVISCERATES BEN SHAPIRO WITH LOGIC
42:43 Schumpeter on Public Will
45:23 Logic is a Spook
46:47 James Burnham's the Machiavellian's: The Defenders of Freedom
47:19 Dante's De Monarchia
49:30 The Real Meaning of politics and persuasion
56:36 Schumpeter's Theory of Democracy as Government-seeking
59:49 de Tocqueville's Great and Small Parties
1:02:42 The Inanity of Third Parties
1:05:49 Caplan's propositions for democracy
1:08:55 Gee Bill! How come your mom lets you have TWO votes?
1:10:42 Democratic localism
1:13:37 Closing
To me - when I realized how insignificant is my vote, that was very liberating moment. Now I can vote for who ever I want no matter how small and how slim are his chances to become elected. Without the fear of "wasting my vote".
In the majority of situations I would rather waste my vote & keep to my values than compromising for the lesser evil.
@null null depends what is "voting", and what do you mean by "real" ^^
Not voting produced the same results as voting so why bother playing a game that's all smoke and mirrors, a false dichotomy, an illusion of choice. "Chose this turd sandwich for your lunch or diarrhea soup"
With the presupposition that those that are counting the votes are playing by the same rules.
Well, you can just be popular and have a political career. Then you influence people and your number of votes increases
I was literally anti democracy way back in elementary school. I guess I just built different
same, but when I was about 12/13 , guess it comes from parents or how teachers present it to us.
Deep Learning Government goes wroom
based
You have a mind and you used it. Who knows what other thought crimes you've committed, thinking and all.
@@egopathtime3273 I became anti democracy , when my class in primary school voted the dumbest b*tch in the class to be our representative. just because she is the most talkative and agressive one xd.
Democracy isn't _just_ a political method. It's only justified through a worldview in which you believe in handing authority to the untested and therefore unqualified. It's the antithesis of an authoritarian worldview because ultimately the system is based on might-makes-right, and you happen to live in a group of people that collectively decided they will vote instead of use open violence to get what they want. This doesn't eliminate authority; it just removes its moral and rational foundation.
Not only is democracy bad as a concept, it is also non existent in reality. amd therefore ends up as extended hand for oligarchs and plutocracy
100% Democracy is 100% mob rule.
The problem I have with any type of unqualified authority is that they usually remain an unqualified authority, a true fixed-wit.
They have "the system" as an excuse, both justification and to blame, so as not to improve themselves.
To rule or to lead justly one must master a very demanding skillset and the only way to develop it is to train and practice and gain experience.
Democracy, as you put it, decides that "No you don't, because GROUPTHINK is more powerful than reality."
Democracy is yet another form of Collectivism, where your life belongs to the group and if they decide to sacrifice you, that is your lot in life.
“Democratic” in its original meaning refers to unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.
And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
@@djocharablaikan8601 especially in a system where voter fraud is the norm , where politicians can hand out stolen taxpayer money to certain demographics who aren't even citizens to buy their "vote", and an entire science of psychology exists of how to influence entire populations through the medias they own to sway election results in favor of who the masters want. We don't even have democracy, the USA is a democratic republic where presidents are selected, not elected
What would be a rational and moral foundation for authority if not majority consent? Do you want some sort of technocracy where only those with deep understanding of a particular subject have authority on matters concerning that subject?
@@prism223 It put's more onus on the people, for sure. It's a very idealistic system.
44:20
"We live in a society" t. Luke Smith
This whole video completely misses a very basic point: democracy is rule by the media. People are massively influenced by the media, and the large majority won't consider voting for a party that is no-platformed by the media. Unless you consider the people who run the media to be benign, this is a Very Bad Thing.
This isn’t true though. The media doesn’t pick who gets nominated by parties, the media doesn’t bring voters to polls, the media doesn’t organize protests, the media doesn’t give local reporters insider stories to garner favor, etc.
The media is a tool used by groups talked about in the video, it’s not some kind of ominous singular body.
oligarchy, also there are a lot of entities with significant political power and influence that are not "elected" (((democratically)))
On the "everyone but us" point: It's true though. And, it's true outside of political thought. Almost no one is a great powerlifter. Almost no one is a great pianist. Almost no one is an accomplished fighter pilot. And, almost no one is fit to rule a nation.
Most aren't particularly good at governing their own affairs, but it's usually considered more unjust to put them under the benevolent rule of another than to let them suffer under the rule of their greatest enemy(themselves).
@@doomguy9049 I for one would greatly prefer to be under the rule of somebody who knew better than me what was best for me. Most people are not very good at governing themselves but can nonetheless have a decent quality of life if properly governed.
@@hidesbehindpseudonym1920 yeah I agree, I wish more people would come to terms with reality and start talking about these things like adults, but if they could do that they might not need to be ruled by someone who knows better. I think it's a cruelty to make the unfit, unserious and irresponsible take part in the political process, and it's cruel to both them and the wider soyciety we all live in.
@Dnpe Preference and good are two things, not one. You take "preference" as something positive, which is explicitly, under objective terms, not. What is good is good regardless of preference. Shut up with your anarchic bullcrap.
@@screwstatists7324 Go read the Bible a bit, God chooses who rules and allows people to pass through troubles because its His mysterious will. By saying no one can rule you ironically go against God himself. Protestantism is your disease, become Orthodox.
This channel went from "neat linux programs" to "the Distributist" since I last checked in. Lucky, I like this new form!
"Don’t worry so much about money. Worry about if people start deciding to kill economists. That's a quote. For the reason why, you can say I want economists to know I draw more graphs than them, especially Bryan Caplan."
LMAO love this interview
Luke, when are you doing Industrial Society and its Future?
one of the most thorough documents of our era. ted kaczynski was a genius.
Ok boomer
A while since I posted that but pretty sure I replied to the wrong comment - Uncle Ted was based
Are you sure about that?
@@notyourbusiness2571 you're redeemed
God damnit I love these. Just enough memes and big brained enough to make me think but not too big to make me lose interest
Beautiful in theory, in practice a fallacy.
hey cool name
Based and Pinochet pilled
-Mussolini
who wants a free car ride
Paused at 3:25 just to say that I used to be highly democratic, but changed my opinion over time as I gathered world experience. Aside from the dull argument that the majority of people are too uninformed to make rational decisions; I'm more grieved by the fact that democracy merely gives the illusion of control to the people.
In reality, almost no one knows who's directly in charge of what, and so no one in power is ever held accountable for the damage they cause. Even worse, once the illusion of control fades and times get hard, you now have angry mobs of people who attack literally everything because they have no idea who to hold accountable or how. The government is just a system/blackbox with it's tentacles in absolutely everything.
At least in the case of the republic or monarch, there's no illusion of control. The people are more likely to know exactly who's in charge; so there's an obligation to the people if only for fear of revolution.
Even then though, it'll always be an imperfect system. We would be much more free if we forgone a government altogether and embraced anarcho-capitalism. The monopolies and problems with the market today aren't failures of capitalism, they're the consequence of laws being applied unfairly. Someone working for themself at home is getting taxed at a 50% tax rate and forced to buy insurance while a company in the exact same business is being exempt from payroll tax, given subsidies for creating local jobs, is allowed to write off the insurance of all it's employees, can subpoena it's small competitors repeatedly to bury them in legal fees, and get's bailed out by the banks when they make stupid choices; which are in turn bailed out by the government.
what makes an ancap system anything other than a prelude to one corporate entity becoming a monopoly (and without a government, also filling all the roles a government otherwise would)?
Ah yes Anarcho Capitalism, get rid of one ruler for another. Nothing would change.
@@AugustusBohn0 tyranny is inevitable IMO, a more humane tyrant doesn't hold the masses so personally responsible for the political process or decisions of their rulers.
anarcho capitalism is just late stage democracy lmao you've taken us back to square 1. Whats the difference between a parliamentarian crony who is mandating you purchase certain medical products he gets kick backs from in order for you to keep your job and a plutocrat doing the same exact thing? At the end of the day its consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands that will export wealth if it benefits the individual. Democracy, despite its appearance, will always end in radical individualism which eats a nation into nothing, and ancap is just democracy skipping a few stages in the interim.
@@kingivan1151 Imagine a car but with the Pepsi logo instead of the brand badge.
The “miracle of aggregation” isn’t so easily explained by the variance canceling out, since it only cancels out if the mean of the “dumb 95%” happens to coincide with the correct answer.
My friends and I came up with an interesting system of voting. We came up with the concept of anti-voting where you can negate a vote from someone instead of voting for them if you don’t want to vote for anyone.
This makes it so if every major candidate is trash like Bush jr. vs Gore you can at least oppose the candidate you hate the most. I think this would make politics less partisan but it might also field milquetoast candidates if strong partisanship knocks out the front runners. Lol
Still if you were for a party it would be better to vote for them so I think it would promote more diverse parties, give disenfranchised people more power and excise undesirable and corrupt politicians.
@@zealy1369 Or it would open up the playing field to third party candidates and independents. The two party system in America is completely artificial.
so... like a veto?
This system works better in smaller things, like we vote on pizza this way in our family
Do all political parties have to pick different candidates if all existing candidates have a vote count of 0 or lower on the first round?
@@yigitorhan7654 I don’t think you would need to stipulate any rules for who could run based on performance. It would be a good idea to not field such candidates but the system would correct itself.
Democracies whole philosophy is “the majority is always right/correct” but I am sorry the majority is not always right.
im pretty sure they choose to be wrong just to flex their power.. i learned very young not to trust the group decision.. its not good for me but choosing to be wrong just to flex is not good for anyone.. if theres a problem and i come up with the perfect solution someone will say no thats not allowed we're not doing that.. so now we arent doing the perfect solution.. pick a terrible solution.. ok ill work on trying to shove the square peg into the round hole to appease the masters.. know your place... oh hey masters its been hours and this isnt working, can i try the round peg that i originally suggested? *angry grumbling... god im so difficult why cant i just do what im told? bercerse its nert phersercly perssable....
Of course the majority is always right, the majority of people thinks that!
Their collective thousands of years of wisdom surely can't be wrong?
@@secretname2670 I’m talking about a people within a country, a community , a board , a neighborhood, not the whole globe. I hope you exercise your reasoning well.
@@south1328 but there is no true community anywhere. All people are individuals, this is why everyone is so retarded, it's because they only care about themselves and never look at one another!
I figured this out in high-school. I am no genius, but just smart enough to realize how little i understand. Most of my peers didn't, they honestly thought they understood who should be our congressman or whatever. They could easily out-vote the few deeper thinking ppl 10x.
For an interesting critique of democracy, read Curtis Yarvin's "Open Letter to Open-minded Progressives".
Don't.
In hindsight, almost every point he has made has been proven wrong by COVID and the aftermath of it in relation to the rise of conservatism; which he preaches "never wins", yet conservative policies have been consistently upheld in the Supreme Court and the Senate over the past few years.
Seems like the length of Trump's presidency really threw a wrench into the Democratic party's attempts to push their own policies (the failure to codify Roe v Wade, getting rid of student debt, implementation of stricter gun control, etc.) - but it doesn't matter. Both sides will pander to their corporate capital owners, driving inflation up and up and up until everything comes crashing down, destroying the economy to the point that maybe enough people will die and we'll finally stop sucking the Earth dry of its resources.
Thanks for making this, I went back and forth between either learning/posting about politics and feeling stressed/antisocial or ignoring politics and feeling irresponsible. This video brought me peace in my uselessness :^).
Was going to critique democracy by saying: you can't please everyone, and there in itself is the flaw of democracy. In a democratic country people have the assumption that everyone deserves this and that because it's fair, but what it's fair to some it's also unfair to others and so on. So it just shows the fact that there's no real democracy because you can't please both sides.
Democracy isn't about pleasing everyone
@@123spill90 Oh no? What is it about then?
@@sarundayo it's about pleasing the voting majority, or more cynically, the unaccountable political class
@@stratosphere2323 They get peace. Isn't that something?
@@Crabbadabba no especially when another side forces the other to live by their standards.
pls review TempleOS and *BSDs
you can only install/review TempleOS if you have divine intellect
review openBSD
Nice try FOSS shill
he doesn't have enough expertise
If voting the "correct way" is voting like an economics, people who tend to be richer than the average person, it does make sense why people without university degrees and women don't vote like that, they tend to have less money than their counterparts and they tend to need more support for the state.
Economists are NOT rich people, and they tend to glom on to the teat of the State pretty firmly, so there are some definite biases there. In fact, I would guess that its cognitive dissonance that causes most economists to want less state intervention in the market, since they certainly want more state intervention in the market for economists, because that market is pretty small, without the state printing money and hiring all these eggheads to justify the state's spending processes. This is why the economic consensus is that the state should print money and spend into a downturn, to right the ship, but yet those same economists ignore that the state ALWAYS spends printed money like every year, boom or bust, and economists just pretend that spending didn't happen, because they like being employed by the state.
The fundamental problem with democracy is the subjectivity of freedom. Many groups and individuals experience freedom in varied, even diametrically opposed ways. Herein lies the ultimate dysfunction of society. The discrepancy between the various ideologies of freedom and democracy, along with their real life expressions, is at the heart of much social strife throughout time immemorial.
In my estimation, two fundamental "mentalities of economy" must be addressed as a prerequisite to addressing/understanding the dynamics of democracy:
1. the psychology (and pathology) of work-ethic (Weber, Graeber)
2. the psychology (and pathology) of addiction driven consumerism (Veblen, Lappe, William Leach)
If we can heal this dynamic, I strongly feel most people will make rational political decisions based on (rooted in) mental, emotional, and physiological health of self, other, and ecosystem.
People get tangled up in irrational political debates over the SYMPTOMS of mass pathology while ignoring the root causes. For example, gun rights become a smoking hot topic while the practical solutions for child care (teenage angst, alienation, and anger) go ignored. Or people obsess over abortion while ignoring the problems within the home and church and streets and schools that cause the internal and external chaos that leads to high rates of unwanted pregnancies. Those who BS over the climate cannot give up their cow-munching habits (or they deny climate change to justify their cow-munching habits.) All politics seems to be a masking over of our "irrational" economic behaviors. This is why books like Lappe's 12 Myths of World Hunger or William Leach's Land of Desire or Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class are more critical than most books in the economic cannon. They uproot the weeds and recommend a new soil.
Democracy in the context of mass pathology is absurdity. In the context of sane societies, but a formality.
Any ideas for how that healing could be accomplished? It kind of feels to me that there's some underlying issue that spreads into all these domains of life, like something that causes stubborn ignorance (insecurity) and addictive inclinations (impulsivity). Like some fundamental insecurity which subtly causes multifaceted pathology in society.
Maybe it has something to do with postmodernism. I believe it is more fundamental to our consciousness than any "objective" reality and consistently breaks down our modernist/idealistic worldviews. The destruction of religion, faith, idealism, even rationality causes a power oriented (oppressed/oppressor), insecure (everything, even morality, is built on nothing but feelings and assumptions), and a fundamentally nihilistic worldview. I think something needs to supercede it, as postmodernism superceded modernism.
@@JacobGrim Iian Mcgilchrist I feel solves the puzzle of "some fundamental insecurity which subtly causes multifaceted pathology in society." I lay out very practical tangible-results remedies (business and education models) in my own economic vision. his lectures are on youtube, my book is forthcoming.
@@abcrane thank you!
@@JacobGrim welcome
Just discovered this excellent channel.
Off topic, but I just got an ad from IMDO Israel Missile Defense Orginization showing off the Iron Dome.
What’s the point of such an ad? What are they trying to sell me? How does showing me a bunch of interceptor missiles increase support for Israel?
idk but theres definetly a couple of dudes out there who get a raging hard on seeing cool military hardware so i guess they are the target audience?
@@cosmosyn2514 but what is there to sell?
Unless some random country’s leader happens to be watching, who could possibly purchase interceptor missiles?
@@xenoblad bruh
@@xenoblad I've had ads for Lockheed Martin before. Ridiculous. Like I'm gonna buy an F-35
You could say that for the US and western europe their "ideology" or religion is democratic fundamentalism
*Yes, and?*
@@cosmosyn2514 and what?
@@megatherium100 Your point?
@@cosmosyn2514 I think the point is clear enough, if you have a problem with my statement say it directly, I don't need to reiterate what has already been said.
@@megatherium100 You... think I have a problem?
You are too fast on the memes my man. It won't be long before I'm too boomer to recognize them before I see them in my feed from you. But yeah, democracy is incredibly overrated. Just listened to Dan Carlins fall of the Republic. Wew lad.
Luke, would you consider announcing what book you're going to do next? It might be fun to have a kind of book club like thing where people can read it or at least research it beforehand.
great work Luke, keep it up! Could you add links to the books you reference and so on in the description. Thank you for sharing, it helps me :)
I came here because I thought NPC means NP-complet problems 😖
God gave us Judges, and then begrudgingly gave us Kings.
Democracy never came out of His mouth
Nothing ever came out of "his" mouth.
i thought judges came from kings who needed more people to make decisions.. too many issues for him to deal with alone..
@@redrustyhill2someone's about to come into your
In Hindi too(an Indo-European language), when referring to someone older or in a more polite manner, plural of you (aap) is used instead of (tum) you-singular.
The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter
you have a very high mental tolerance to bear 5 minutes with a complete idiot
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle I'm definitely below - I mean - I'm replying to comments on youtube so I must have at least some kind of retardation
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle above
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle with your presumptuous attitude definitely not you only takes 30 seconds with you in order to know that you are detrimental if allowed to vote also you probably have AIDS and smell like cat piss
@@bobboobybobybob3216lol every other voter thinks they're above average too
Democracy is just a form of keeping a system alive.
When it comes to systems, all systems are for the people in its core. People will rise up against the rulers if stuff becomes worse enough.
Democracy protects the elites here.
i think it's rare, if possible at all, that morality can even be rationalized
It definitely can.
Define morality, then where it originates, then how you get that faculty. You might have to do that once or twice depending on if you're a theist or not.
Try to act as you would like to be acted upon is a good start.
@@taojones4941 what if you abuse yourself?
@@JosephAvenettiThe preservation of your group is a presupposition. Why should your group exist?
It may be possible if you accept certain "self-evident" facts related to conscious experience
The Iron Law of Oligarchy Rules on a National and International level with Controlled Opposition and Useful Idiot's on all side's. Audi Vide Tace.
Fucking based
Luke, since you are a linguist, could you make a podcast about newspeak, and it's effect on peoples minds?
Sounds more like a psychological issue than a question about enclitics, cases, and conjugation.
The people on the TV keep saying things like "this is a threat to our democracy "
I'm not a big brained guy but I always do the opposite of what the people on the TV say
The problem with the economist's argument for globalization is primarily in the fact that people exist as individual units of necessity. I generate an inherent demand of my needs and wants. Even if you strip out the unnecessary, I still need to eat. I too have a limit of consumptive capacity; I can only eat so many cheeseburgers before I literally die. I can only drive one car at a time. So the physical and social locus of the effects of a multiplier are necessarily relevant. In normal-people speak, economic growth needs to be distributed rationally to mean anything. Jeff Bezos may be able to make the most efficient marketplace in the world, but the fact that the vast majority of the world's wealth would go to him in perfect globalism is inherently inefficient, and massively so, to the point where the efficiencies gained are unnoticeable to the distributive problem. Lefties recognize this, hence their concern about inequality & wealth redistribution, but their favored method of distribution 1. allows for and even encourages the initial means of the generation of this vast inequality, and 2. the means of distribution is inherently unequal, as government bureaucracies by necessity are located in a single physical and social locus, hence capturing money and power in that one social and physical space, and all the corruption which necessarily stems from that over time generates massive inequality.
The only way to fight inequality and hence instability and inefficiency is to fight globalism and keep federalism in chains. Even state-level economies are too large, especially nowadays for stability to obtain (think So. Cal vs No. Cal, NYC vs Upstate). Essentially as an individual, you should aim to spend at least 20% of your money on local things, 20% on county things, 20% on state things, 20% on things in your country, and the other 20% can go to global things, which SHOULD be made arbitrarily expensive through tariffs to punish those who are unprincipled with their spending.
By keeping money where you are you keep vitality where you are, and your life will be made better over time. Though the multiplier is smaller due to the investment pool being smaller, the secondary and tertiary effects will all be in your favor over time and the effects, if others in your locale follow this same philosophy of spending, would be immeasurably compounding.
One of the things noted by Timur Kuran, Duke Prof of Political Economy & Islamic Studies, is that Europe and the Middle East had 500 years of divergence economically. ME used to be rich at the initial conquest of Islam, and EU was a dirty backwater mired in religious civil wars. Over the 500-year period, however, Islamic nations became destitute (until the discovery of oil), and Christian nations became rich. The reason for this, Kuran claims, is that Islamic law has an emphasis on what I'll call primary equality (inheritance was equally distributed among offspring and spouse(s), and strict tax laws against the wealthy which created a demand for tax havens and intentional loopholes in the form of waqfs), whereas Christian nations had a diverse set of laws on inheritance, wealth, and charitable giving, but generally settled on primogeniture (100% of inheritance went to the firstborn son), and the local Church community had a monopoly on charitable giving of nobles which adapted with the times (if the priest or preacher thought a noble was being stingy, he could publically question the divine right of his king). So primary inequality in the form of wealth allocation leads to the general prosperity of those in the community (one man with skin in the game owning the farmland in a single small kingdom in EU needs to generate better crops and sustain fewer crop failures than that of a disorganized peasantry, or that of neighboring kingdoms which might be in competition with them) vs primary equality creating secondary and tertiary inequality (waqf families become fat bureaucrats who are essentially bankers for rich Muslims, and no one can become a real entrepreneur without suffering serious tax burdens and the lack of allowance for personally owned abstract assets prevented almost all possibility for follow-on successes).
This explains the whole phenomenon.
Do you have any ideas of why the Muslims declined? Ive seen indicators that imply their use of african slave women due to legalized polygamy was one
Also europeans literally killing off vast numbers of criminals and warlike people over the past 2000 years has literally changed the genetic makeup of europe
what is NPCs
non player character s ?
keep up the good work Luke, great podcast
The existence of democracy implies that there is a way to circumvent the powerful's desire for power. Might makes right, not because its better, but because its the only power structure that is transparent as to how powerful those with power really are.
13:00, that seems more like alchemy than anything real. There's not such thing as something being 90% dead but 10% almost alive, you're either dead or you're not dead, yes i know is a over simplification, but this imho only works with the most basic, concrete things like "having water treatment plants is a good thing", even if most people have it wrong what water treatments plants do, it doesn't matter, but anything more complex than that, like the economic and fiscal policy of an entire continent size nation with hundreds of millions of people or what our foreing and diplomatic policy and positions should we take with rising powers like China and Russia, leaving this to the"wisdom of the crowds" and hoping that a bunch of crazy and stupid opinions sparkle with just a couple of sensible positions is going to magically transform into a coherent policy is completely and utterly absurd. You literally need to believe that magic is real.
Caplan was my favorite professor in undergrad :)
Are you going to delve into the paleolibertarian/Hoppean realm more?
It would be Based. (Seriously, no meme Larping).
"Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct"
F.H. Bradley
something nice for the Al Gore Rhythm
Most things in life are average, so same with this. Looking for the perfection of democracy is un unsustainable.
You vote with your dollar.
Just saying Economics is foundational imo to discussing politics :)
Economics is vital to everything. Economics has nothing to do with dollars.
The dismal science
Great lecture man I love these type of videos.
The proper interpretation of 'The Wisdom of Crowds' book is that the author made a pragmatic decision to not rag too hard on democracy as he didn't want to lose more progressive converts on his already unconventional, anti-establishment ideas. The logic of earlier chapters, some which is restated in this video, completely refutes the contemporary model of democracy. He concludes the book with "The decisions that democracies make may not demonstrate the wisdom of the crowd. The decision to make them democratically does." so as to not spend more than a chapter on the topic, and to not have readers misinterpret the book as a political treatise.
The problem with the concept of the wisdom of crowds when it comes to politics in the form of mass democracy is that political actors have massive incentives to shape the opinions and worldviews of voters. So even if free thinking ignorant crowds can approximate a good outcome, that’s not what you get with mass democracy - you get heavily controlled and mis-informed people acting almost like herded sheep.
Just because people vote their self interest does not mean that vote is bad for democracy. ASSuming the voter is not a serial killer, most people's self interest is a reasonable course of action, since the policy that produces the most economic growth is probably the best overall policy, since growth creates jobs, and incentivizes people to improve the world.
we live in a society
the physiognomy on this guy
Are you trans?
egghead
how about a government that fulfils the basic duties a government should, but where no one rules anyone?
The miracle of aggregation has some errors when it runs into zero, no one is going to be guessing negative numbers, so it can skew high because of that, especially when granularity is low, and the number is lower
So do you like the idea of a decentralised direct democracy like in Switzerland?
Thoughts on moldbug and neoreaction?
In democracy you're not taking the median or mean, you're taking the mode,better forms of democracy that are not so easy to skew are easy to find. The examples used by these "wisdom of the crowds" people give examples that talk about the median and mean, not the mode. there not addressing how democracy is done. With most voting systems.
Here is an Essay Topic.
Where are all the Political Scientist's working?
Or more specifically: "Who is funding the political scientists?"
@@alexwr the tribes of
Top tier content bro.
Is this hosted on somewhere other than TH-cam ie podcast app?
that 15 Dollar Bitcoin must be at 50 or so now
that mic clipping made me think I was watching a GrayFruit video
Regarding the law of great numbers: average, not median.
"no one is going to the amazon looking for the truth"
clearly you've never heard of Terrance McKenna
which is really funny because when you strip out all the stuff about entheogens, Terence and Luke have pretty similar criticisms of science
Provocative title,but interesting discussion.Thanks!
this is very interesting
thank you Luke, very cool
Nice NPC memes. If I make my inner monologue in Luke's voice will I become more woke? Hmm
the idea that court is based on what would a rational person think and do? ok.. well ive never met any.. ive never been able to reason with a single person ive ever met.. theyre unreasonable.. illogical.. its like theyre on auto pilot attack mode..
If they made me dictator of earth I would fix everything by at least the end of my lifespan
If you think about it, it's not even rule by majority, but that of the largest minority.
as opposed to genius PCs like Tsar Nicholas lololol.
"everyone is brainwashed but me" -- this video
Had no idea you went to GSU, so did I (although much later)
good shit
Listening from Georgia State campus is a different kind of experience
@34:47 "quazi-Quaker" ...nice phrase.
Democracy is sensitive to demography .
The critiques of Democracy are usually the mechanics, but take it from the users standpoint, it’s not a closed system and lobbying and inevitably PR (propaganda) are used to move Democracy along with people
wrangling the education system. It does not have tight enough checks for bad actors. And in terms of proliferation, when things get bad, it will “disperse” responsibility, instead of incentivizing top-down accountability. People will blame the president, but it will normally be cabinet members, senate and house blocks, bank and corporation and now technocratic “nudgers”, so on and so forth… again it doesn’t incentivize accountability. It also in its current American variant doesn’t account for segmentation and regionalization as you might find in the concept of Cantons… a higher populated region can make an absolutely retarded decision for a lesser populated area and cause soft retaliation cycles over time. Women can fight for legislation that harms men and family stability, racial blocks can try to put special treatments in that over the long term that remove the incentive for good-faith civil and universal engagement, drastically different religions can try to block certain practices of others, all of this causes culturally normative decay and “societal” division.
The axiom of democracy requires a “demos”, a people with similar-enough cultures and varying opinions but not “too varying.” See how that is working now…
Peter Schiff had great interviews with the occupiers.
Britain doesn't have PR; it has the same FPTP system that the US does, and causes much of the same problems.
I grew in Brazil and i have always been a monarchist due to my family. But it is true that democracy is almost a religion to the average person.
What about corruption? You seem to assume that voting for policies or politicians is all there is to Democracy. Democracy too me seems to be a great way to manipulate people.
2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner
What are your thoughts on voting ages? If there's a minimum age, shouldn't there be a maximum age where voting rights are restricted because we cannot trust your judgment at certain ages? I'm talking of course about boomers who, as we know, basically vote for gibs and nothing else.
Video starts at 4:13
Name of the painting?
here you go: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_J%C3%A9rome_Joos_van_Cleve_015.JPG
(for next time: screenshot the old guy in the middle and then go to google images and upload your screenshot to reverse image search)
@@tellmey1 Thanks for the answer and the idea! :D
Lol the title and entire video is the entire concept of that new movie FREE GUY! Bunch of NPCs
12:00
I don't agree with the perspective that civic classes are /bad/ as classes have a high expectation and checks to deliver the information correctly which can have a hugely positive outcome in Democracy.
56:05 Woah, now. You had best not be about to try n hit me with the postmodernist argument. We've been amiable to this point but that is the line.
Thanks, man. I ain't about all that shit.
Imagine wanting to disenfranchise yourself lol, neets craving serfdom
It’s quite the opposite. The idea is to prove your worth before you get a vote, but then your vote is more valuable. I’d take that tradeoff any day.
Can someone spoonfeed me on the way of using MTPfs? Or any other solution that lets me use ranger to browse my phone internal/external memory
Listening as i play EU4 great vid
Co to je politiická agitace?
I know a Luke Smith.
He's a lefty
*falling for the NPC meme this hard*
@internet nazi xd Luke reads the comments on his comments on his comments
'meme'
>meme
t. NPC
We do live in a society🗿
I think this is a podcast where they talk about unrelated topics.
I think VSauce's latest video, "The Future of Reasoning", is a good watch if only as to form your own opinion on it - he has massive outreach and idk, gave me bad vibes.
What didn’t you like about it? Is it because in the end he suggests returning back to Athenian democracy, which would require emphasis on a new form of education?
Anarchy... Utopia.
limited qualified voting; should come with some pretty heavy requirements, like getting a driving licence or similar
Why do you people worship DL's so much?
@@rusi6219 I guess its just the state of things these days; a common indication of competence, but in the US for instance if you want to vote I believe you are still on the draft roll. If that was a qualifier for being able to vote, or even discharge papers from active service to indicate you have had skin in the game, maybe even bring back limitations around land ownership requirements