Elon Musk can be brutal with himself and then he has to convince other people to join him and those who want to experience brutality or know how to be brutal with themselves, to meet his standard will do so. And that's about it. I don't think "forcing" this on the world is a bad thing, as it's more closer to the natural order of things in hunter gatherer societies than what we have right now.
In Harrison Burgeon the problem is not that people are equal. It's that they are forced by the State to be equal. People naturally have their abilities and gifts. That's not the issue. The issue is when they can coerce other people not because of those, but because of money. And make them behave on certain terms that the people never agreed to. The people simply want money so they can maintain a certain class in society.
Yes it will lead to a certain order but I don't see how that order is bad for society as a whole, compared to the current order. Other than well we won't go to space as fast or we won't get X product fast. We'll get there regardless. It's fine that we have shinning super stars, that we put in charge of other people, and we can do things quicker, better, faster, cheaper because of them. But those people actually end up making everyone around them and as a group society as a whole more miserable, to get the product or service based outcome. But I don't think those things would never get done without Elon Musk or Bill Gates or whoever. They would still get done in a different way and slower. And if we're not so brutal with exploiting everything, maybe there is enough time for that. Compare that to exploiting everything at an extremely quick rate and having to come up with solutions to those problems at quicker and quicker rates which just drives everyone and everything bonkers.
It's like I want driving cars and strong AI right now. Well maybe you'll get those things right now and three generations down the line the earth won't be able to support natural life and everything will have to done artificially, and so life and everyone's behavior will be even more closely regulated, because it will all need to be produced and therefore will be owned and sold for profit. I think these are the sorts of trade-offs we're looking at with the way we're running things.
Why is everybody talking as if the communist experiment wasn't already tried?
If you forcibly remove "freedom" to keep the fruit of your labor, you'll get general misery and poverty. It's false that "things will be done but slowly", the reality is that things will not get done at all, meaning lack of everything and the distribution of misery. For real examples look into any communist country.
Nordic countries have an ace up their sleeve that the United States does not: ethnic homogeneity.
To acknowledge the elephant in the room, political discussion of government support policies always comes with a racial dog whistle. The subtext is that the government wants to take your money and give it to those people. It sometimes bubbles to the surface, such as with Reagan's welfare queen in a Cadillac comments, but it is almost never mentioned explicitly.
Before the United States can implement serious welfare reform, including U.B.I., we must solve this nation's racial integration problem.
Though I think UBI can be implemented before or in tandem with fixing our racial issues, here's a quote to expound on this. The Southern Strategy utilized this tactic significantly. From an interview with Lee Atwater[0]:
> All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 . . . and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...
> You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-----, n-----, n-----." By 1968 you can't say "n-----" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-----, n-----."
The most interesting thing about many naive Americans' view of the Nordic 'paradise' is the lack of understanding as to how it is able to exist: a small population of homogenous people of similar ethnicity, shared culture, and history that has high GDP per capita and low levels of corruption.
These same people tend to be on the side of unrestricted immigration and mixing of cultures and ethnicity.
What they don't understand is that the average person will not want socialism if it means taking from one group and giving disproportionately to another. This is why America will never successfully have Nordic like social systems, and why some of the Nordic countries themselves (Sweden) are already beginning to show signs that the system will not work if is abused by some groups in ways it wasn't before.
I agree 100% with you w/ regards to the Nordic countries vs the US.
In that same vein, I really believe that there is a huge cognitive dissonance with many in the US, e.g. the majority of Bernie supporters, when it comes to the desire for a Nordic like social system and at the same time continued massive immigration of non-western cultures and ethnicities.
>Before the United States can implement serious welfare reform, including U.B.I., we must solve this nation's racial integration problem.
Of course, that is almost certainly not going to happen anytime soon. Tribalism in humans is not something that can easily be removed.
Just like our industry has that saying, "pick two of three when buying software: done cheaply, done quickly, and done well", we are going to need to accept that nations, at least in the near-term, can pick one of two: "socialism/UBI or massive integration of cultures".
It is common sense that a country cannot afford both. Even tiny Norway, with its vast Oil reserves, will soon have to make the choice.
Events like Brexit, Trump's rise, etc. are different manifestations of this choice being made.
Shut the fuck up! The hivemind is speaking. Non-neoliberal perspectives are terrible and advocacy for them will be punished by context-free links and downvotes.
Oh please. "DAE COMMUNISM EEEVVIIILL?! (oh I brought links to PROVE it; here's Robin Williams and a wiki about a book)" is thoughtful discussion, eh? It's the same kind of mindless upvotery as your appeal to HN's ostensibly high standard.
I am also very sympathetic to this view. That the work would get done anyway if capitalism weren't aggressively "stimulating" us with an insidious short-term mindset. We will certainly get there regardless. It would be ideal to do it without all the externalities. But locking Elon Musk up in your utopia won't make him a constant beacon of happiness. I imagine he isn't alone in that regard. You're making a utilitarian trade that seems strikingly suboptimal. When you go off the spectrum of motivation, as Elon Musk has, you tend to get a little cranky. There needs to be a place for cranky people to work. We just can't let them dominate other people with their madness. There are plenty of willing converts. Lets actually get rid of slavery. Then there can be a flood of ex-Tesla workers if need be. I suspect Elon Musk would topple your utopia from the inside out before launching his space empire. Getting in his way is not the solution.
Elon Musk can be brutal with himself and then he has to convince other people to join him and those who want to experience brutality or know how to be brutal with themselves, to meet his standard will do so. And that's about it. I don't think "forcing" this on the world is a bad thing, as it's more closer to the natural order of things in hunter gatherer societies than what we have right now.
In Harrison Burgeon the problem is not that people are equal. It's that they are forced by the State to be equal. People naturally have their abilities and gifts. That's not the issue. The issue is when they can coerce other people not because of those, but because of money. And make them behave on certain terms that the people never agreed to. The people simply want money so they can maintain a certain class in society.
Yes it will lead to a certain order but I don't see how that order is bad for society as a whole, compared to the current order. Other than well we won't go to space as fast or we won't get X product fast. We'll get there regardless. It's fine that we have shinning super stars, that we put in charge of other people, and we can do things quicker, better, faster, cheaper because of them. But those people actually end up making everyone around them and as a group society as a whole more miserable, to get the product or service based outcome. But I don't think those things would never get done without Elon Musk or Bill Gates or whoever. They would still get done in a different way and slower. And if we're not so brutal with exploiting everything, maybe there is enough time for that. Compare that to exploiting everything at an extremely quick rate and having to come up with solutions to those problems at quicker and quicker rates which just drives everyone and everything bonkers.
It's like I want driving cars and strong AI right now. Well maybe you'll get those things right now and three generations down the line the earth won't be able to support natural life and everything will have to done artificially, and so life and everyone's behavior will be even more closely regulated, because it will all need to be produced and therefore will be owned and sold for profit. I think these are the sorts of trade-offs we're looking at with the way we're running things.