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.
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.