the world I live in people crush each other’s skulls for power and wealth on a very very regular basis and such practices don’t seem to be going away.
Yes, but I’m thinking that if they knew of some clever plan to get the same amount of power and wealth but without the skull-crushing, a lot of people would take it.
The mainstay of government power—including in the West—is still the explicit threat of violence.
Unfortunately, that part’s never going away: might makes right. But as people and systems made of people continue to exert optimization power on the world, it tends to become increasingly counterfactual violence: if you can predict the outcome of a conflict, you and your adversary can just implement that outcome without bothering to pay the cost of actually fighting.
These men are very clear about the difference between your suffering and their suffering.
Yes, it’s probably more profitable for you to model them as extensions of “the government” rather than agents in themselves.
if they knew of some clever plan to get the same amount of power and wealth but without the skull-crushing, a lot of people would take it
Some would, yes. But there is a slight problem—such people want more power than what’s freely available (“there can be only one”). This means there’s competition for power and at this point willingness to crush skulls becomes a rather important advantage.
it tends to become increasingly counterfactual violence
Careful with terminology. That’s not counterfactual violence—that’s potential violence. It is nicely encompassed by the traditional phrase “Your money or your life”. If I’m holding a gun to your head, of course it’s convenient for me if you are going to obey me unconditionally without me having to pull the trigger.
more profitable for you to model them as extensions of “the government”
“Profitable” is probably the wrong word :-) But wasn’t your point that if they’re enlightened enough, they would refuse to carry out the government’s orders?
But wasn’t your point that if they’re enlightened enough, they would refuse to carry out the government’s orders?
No, I’m thinking that if someone understood history, human psychology, and the game-theoretic Bayes-structure of the universe well enough, they might be able to understand how and why currently-existing governments evolved, and then use that knowledge to engineer new institutions that do a better job of being powerful, stable, and protecting human values?
But this is just me thinking out loud. If this comment isn’t useful or interesting, you should downvote it!
then use that knowledge to engineer new institutions that do a better job of being powerful, stable, and protecting human values
Yeah, Asimov called that psychohistory :-) Marxists were doing precisely that: they thought they understood how and why the social order evolved and they used that knowledge to engineer new institutions. How did it work out?
However “engineering” is not enough. So you come up with new institutions—you still need power to implement them. How are you going to acquire this power?
But this is just me thinking out loud.
That’s a good thing. Discussion is good, punishing wrong-thinkers is bad.
Yes, but I’m thinking that if they knew of some clever plan to get the same amount of power and wealth but without the skull-crushing, a lot of people would take it.
Unfortunately, that part’s never going away: might makes right. But as people and systems made of people continue to exert optimization power on the world, it tends to become increasingly counterfactual violence: if you can predict the outcome of a conflict, you and your adversary can just implement that outcome without bothering to pay the cost of actually fighting.
Yes, it’s probably more profitable for you to model them as extensions of “the government” rather than agents in themselves.
Some would, yes. But there is a slight problem—such people want more power than what’s freely available (“there can be only one”). This means there’s competition for power and at this point willingness to crush skulls becomes a rather important advantage.
Careful with terminology. That’s not counterfactual violence—that’s potential violence. It is nicely encompassed by the traditional phrase “Your money or your life”. If I’m holding a gun to your head, of course it’s convenient for me if you are going to obey me unconditionally without me having to pull the trigger.
“Profitable” is probably the wrong word :-) But wasn’t your point that if they’re enlightened enough, they would refuse to carry out the government’s orders?
No, I’m thinking that if someone understood history, human psychology, and the game-theoretic Bayes-structure of the universe well enough, they might be able to understand how and why currently-existing governments evolved, and then use that knowledge to engineer new institutions that do a better job of being powerful, stable, and protecting human values?
But this is just me thinking out loud. If this comment isn’t useful or interesting, you should downvote it!
Downvoting has been disabled for some time.
Huh, so it is! I’ve been away for a while!
Yeah, Asimov called that psychohistory :-) Marxists were doing precisely that: they thought they understood how and why the social order evolved and they used that knowledge to engineer new institutions. How did it work out?
However “engineering” is not enough. So you come up with new institutions—you still need power to implement them. How are you going to acquire this power?
That’s a good thing. Discussion is good, punishing wrong-thinkers is bad.
Might is perhaps a necessary condition for right, but I would not be inclined to call it a sufficient one.
… says the guy whose ancestors successfully survived and reproduced.
Oh, you meant “might made right”.
Yes, that’s a better way of putting it, thanks.
I think you missed the point komponisto was making.
See Scott’s “The Goddess of Everything Else” for a poetical exposition on the subject.