The point is to show you that the picture you have of the UK is likely so distorted as to be essentially useless.
That’s interesting. Are you quite sure my map is distorted or maybe I just have a different baseline and different framework to look through? How would one tell the difference?
It could be a different framework or baseline, but I find it more likely that you’ve been given incomplete data. I’m assuming you’ve gotten most of your information from news stories and articles? Unfortunately I can’t think of a way to fully check without physically visiting the country to see if it matches or not. The next best thing would be watching some boring bbc news coverage, but even that would be mildly sensationalist by comparison to normal life. You can’t go by my experience because I’m not a fully trustworthy source, despite my attempts at rationality.
Comparative statistics maybe? Figure out what objective measures you’d expect the UK to do well or poorly on based on your current map then look them up. See if there are any US cities you do know that turn out to have similar measures then use the comparison to update based on the new information. Seems like the best bet anyway.
The next best thing would be watching some boring bbc news coverage, but even that would be mildly sensationalist by comparison to normal life.
The same is true of the US. The difference is that Americans have a lower tolerance for “government doing bad things to other Americans”, whereas your attitude seems to be “it doesn’t count unless it happens to someone I personally know”.
There’s a difference in the magnitude of the sensationalism and the professionalism of the news between the two countries. The UK is rather lucky in that regard.
My attitude is that the magnitude of the individual wrong has to be multiplied by the number of times it actually happened to be properly understood. The actual physical threat of terrorism, for example, is largely irrelevant in my reckoning of the country. Last time I did the math it turned out to kill less than 10 people a year on average in the UK. I had a look down the NHS data for death rates and found multiple diseases I’d never even heard of that killed more people, so I decided that terrorism itself was largely unimportant. The reaction to terrorism is the only part that has relevance. I have a similar attitude about most overblown societal problems. The news may be attempting to convince my lizard brain that the world is spectacularly unsafe but the actual statistics suggest I live in one of the safest countries in the safest period of human history.
Edit: Forgot to specify that it was the TV news that was good. The papers can be pretty variable, from good to terrible.
A variety of bits, Midlands is the major area where I haven’t been.
Unmitigated disaster or just kind of average?
See, that’s what I mean by different baselines. It looks like to you life is fine as long as you or your friends aren’t dragged off in chains and sent to the salt mines. Of course UK is a first-world Western European country with all that it implies. It’s not Zimbabwe. But then by similar criteria places like, say, post-Stalin Russia were also “kind of average”. For the great majority of people life just went on and nothing terrible happened. Unless you were part of specific social groups, things looked fine.
I’m not saying that the UK is on the verge of tranforming into an Ingsoc society, but from the individual freedoms and civil rights point of view, it has considerably degraded and is looking pretty bad. Of course if you don’t care about such things much, well, you don’t care about such things much.
I do care about such things, about as much as I care about the total prosperity of the group. In my utility function they are approximately equal. I am worried about the erosion of civil rights, not because they are being misused much now or because of any inherent beliefs about human rights but because of the potential for abuse later down the line. The way I see it laws that give a particular position unrestricted power without independent checks and counterbalances are problematic in the long term. As time increases to infinity the probability that such power will be abused tends to 100%. That is, eventually a particularly misguided or sociopathic or mentally ill person will eventually end up in that position.
It’s also why I think large scale data mining is more dangerous than CCTV cameras. To abuse CCTV you need to change the laws to make new things illegal, you can’t do it as one person. To abuse data mining all that is required is for the head (or sub head) of intelligence to get the records of every current and prospective politician then threaten to leak certain uncomfortable details at key times. Most people have something online that would interfere with political election. Too much power in one person with too little oversight. The potential for abuse is huge.
Apologies about my manner this past while. I’m still getting used to people attacking my ideas without attacking me. Historically the two have been correlated in other webforums and I’ve not yet convinced my brain to give up the link. You know, I’m curious about what your favoured policy is. You don’t like soft paternalism, what system do you go in for?
because of the potential for abuse later down the line.
I think we are in agreement about that.
It’s also why I think large scale data mining is more dangerous than CCTV cameras.
It’s a false dilemma, there is absolutely no reason why we must have one or the other and so must choose the lesser evil. We can choose none. Of course, in reality it seems we will get both.
I don’t expect there is significant difference in large scale data mining between the US and the UK. The NSA and MI5 are best buddies :-/
To abuse CCTV you need to change the laws to make new things illegal
Nope. You only need to to see compromising (not necessarily illegal) information. If you capture footage of a minister going to visit his mistress, that’s not illegal but that’s useful blackmail material.
Apologies about my manner this past while.
No apologies necessary, that has been a pretty polite debate (by the internet standards, at least :-/) so far.
You don’t like soft paternalism, what system do you go in for?
I hesitate to declare allegiance to a particular system, but my favoured direction is allowing people to do stupid things and then reap the consequences. I think autonomy trumps optimality.
I agree with every point you just made, good catch on the false dilemma. Apart from the last one, I hold small reductions in autonomy which give medium sized or greater increases in optimality to be allowable. I suspect this difference may stem from a divergence in upbringing and culture.
Out of curiosity, how does allowing people to do stupid things work exactly? Zero tax on alcohol? Cigarettes advertised openly and sold at market rate? What does the implementation look like and what consequences do you expect?
Haha, oh you rapscallion. But seriously, freedom can be used to argue for almost every angle of any possible debate. Freedom from taxes, freedom from bandits (by way of increased taxes) ect. I can’t really model it except as a cross between an applause light and a mental category masquerading as something implicit. In a very real sense I never knew what freedom looked like in the first place. It is a chimera.
One should not miss an opportunity to properly use a pithy phrase :-P
Your question is way too broad, though—I’m sure you’re capable of imagining a world with zero taxes on alcohol, for example. What do you mean? To foreclose unproductive avenues, I’m neither an anarchist nor a big-L libertarian—I do not seek to do away with the state.
Um. Allowing people to go climb mountains just because they are there? Allowing people to marry who they damn well please? Allowing people to play or avoid lotteries?
Huh, I was expecting no speed limits on certain roads or shops that sold dangerous drugs legally or even just the reversal of what I was saying about cigarettes earlier. Without a tax on cigarettes you necessarily end up with packs of cigarettes for 80p. Then again you did say you were hesitant to declare allegiance so I’ll not push you about it. It is kind of puzzling to have an idea torn down but not be told what the tearer would rather replace it with though, normally they go hand in hand. I am not used to that.
It is kind of puzzling to have an idea torn down but not be told what the tearer would rather replace it
Future is uncertain and I am not wedded to ideological absolutes. I have a good idea of the direction I want to go, but not so much about the place where I would stop.
For example, I want a smaller, weaker government compared to what we currently have, but I don’t know how small and weak until we try some experiments and see how they turn out (not that I’m holding my breath). Testing by reality is paramount and I see little use in imagining grand social structures—that killed enough people already.
You have chosen examples where the status quo is a restriction. Lumifer has chosen examples where the status quo is no restriction. That is, you have both chosen examples that point in your respectively favoured directions.
I’m not sure I have on all the examples. Cigarette price hikes are status quo, as are (kinda) soft drinks but the rest don’t seem to be. The no speed limits for example is illegal in most countries apart from Germany with the Autobahn. Interfering with food prices and availability to massively favour healthiness is not done in any country that I’m aware of. It certainly couldn’t be called status quo or else crisps would cost £3.50 while healthy microwavable meals would be £1.
That’s interesting. Are you quite sure my map is distorted or maybe I just have a different baseline and different framework to look through? How would one tell the difference?
It could be a different framework or baseline, but I find it more likely that you’ve been given incomplete data. I’m assuming you’ve gotten most of your information from news stories and articles? Unfortunately I can’t think of a way to fully check without physically visiting the country to see if it matches or not. The next best thing would be watching some boring bbc news coverage, but even that would be mildly sensationalist by comparison to normal life. You can’t go by my experience because I’m not a fully trustworthy source, despite my attempts at rationality.
Comparative statistics maybe? Figure out what objective measures you’d expect the UK to do well or poorly on based on your current map then look them up. See if there are any US cities you do know that turn out to have similar measures then use the comparison to update based on the new information. Seems like the best bet anyway.
The same is true of the US. The difference is that Americans have a lower tolerance for “government doing bad things to other Americans”, whereas your attitude seems to be “it doesn’t count unless it happens to someone I personally know”.
There’s a difference in the magnitude of the sensationalism and the professionalism of the news between the two countries. The UK is rather lucky in that regard.
My attitude is that the magnitude of the individual wrong has to be multiplied by the number of times it actually happened to be properly understood. The actual physical threat of terrorism, for example, is largely irrelevant in my reckoning of the country. Last time I did the math it turned out to kill less than 10 people a year on average in the UK. I had a look down the NHS data for death rates and found multiple diseases I’d never even heard of that killed more people, so I decided that terrorism itself was largely unimportant. The reaction to terrorism is the only part that has relevance. I have a similar attitude about most overblown societal problems. The news may be attempting to convince my lizard brain that the world is spectacularly unsafe but the actual statistics suggest I live in one of the safest countries in the safest period of human history.
Edit: Forgot to specify that it was the TV news that was good. The papers can be pretty variable, from good to terrible.
Is there, really?
Apologies, I meant the TV news. The papers can be pretty terrible
Um, I’ve been to the UK multiple times and some of my relatives lived there for a while :-/
Which bits did you visit? How did things seem while you were there? Unmitigated disaster or just kind of average?
A variety of bits, Midlands is the major area where I haven’t been.
See, that’s what I mean by different baselines. It looks like to you life is fine as long as you or your friends aren’t dragged off in chains and sent to the salt mines. Of course UK is a first-world Western European country with all that it implies. It’s not Zimbabwe. But then by similar criteria places like, say, post-Stalin Russia were also “kind of average”. For the great majority of people life just went on and nothing terrible happened. Unless you were part of specific social groups, things looked fine.
I’m not saying that the UK is on the verge of tranforming into an Ingsoc society, but from the individual freedoms and civil rights point of view, it has considerably degraded and is looking pretty bad. Of course if you don’t care about such things much, well, you don’t care about such things much.
I do care about such things, about as much as I care about the total prosperity of the group. In my utility function they are approximately equal. I am worried about the erosion of civil rights, not because they are being misused much now or because of any inherent beliefs about human rights but because of the potential for abuse later down the line. The way I see it laws that give a particular position unrestricted power without independent checks and counterbalances are problematic in the long term. As time increases to infinity the probability that such power will be abused tends to 100%. That is, eventually a particularly misguided or sociopathic or mentally ill person will eventually end up in that position.
It’s also why I think large scale data mining is more dangerous than CCTV cameras. To abuse CCTV you need to change the laws to make new things illegal, you can’t do it as one person. To abuse data mining all that is required is for the head (or sub head) of intelligence to get the records of every current and prospective politician then threaten to leak certain uncomfortable details at key times. Most people have something online that would interfere with political election. Too much power in one person with too little oversight. The potential for abuse is huge.
Apologies about my manner this past while. I’m still getting used to people attacking my ideas without attacking me. Historically the two have been correlated in other webforums and I’ve not yet convinced my brain to give up the link. You know, I’m curious about what your favoured policy is. You don’t like soft paternalism, what system do you go in for?
I think we are in agreement about that.
It’s a false dilemma, there is absolutely no reason why we must have one or the other and so must choose the lesser evil. We can choose none. Of course, in reality it seems we will get both.
I don’t expect there is significant difference in large scale data mining between the US and the UK. The NSA and MI5 are best buddies :-/
Nope. You only need to to see compromising (not necessarily illegal) information. If you capture footage of a minister going to visit his mistress, that’s not illegal but that’s useful blackmail material.
No apologies necessary, that has been a pretty polite debate (by the internet standards, at least :-/) so far.
I hesitate to declare allegiance to a particular system, but my favoured direction is allowing people to do stupid things and then reap the consequences. I think autonomy trumps optimality.
I agree with every point you just made, good catch on the false dilemma. Apart from the last one, I hold small reductions in autonomy which give medium sized or greater increases in optimality to be allowable. I suspect this difference may stem from a divergence in upbringing and culture.
Out of curiosity, how does allowing people to do stupid things work exactly? Zero tax on alcohol? Cigarettes advertised openly and sold at market rate? What does the implementation look like and what consequences do you expect?
That is likely :-)
In the usual way. Have you forgotten what freedom looks like?
Haha, oh you rapscallion. But seriously, freedom can be used to argue for almost every angle of any possible debate. Freedom from taxes, freedom from bandits (by way of increased taxes) ect. I can’t really model it except as a cross between an applause light and a mental category masquerading as something implicit. In a very real sense I never knew what freedom looked like in the first place. It is a chimera.
One should not miss an opportunity to properly use a pithy phrase :-P
Your question is way too broad, though—I’m sure you’re capable of imagining a world with zero taxes on alcohol, for example. What do you mean? To foreclose unproductive avenues, I’m neither an anarchist nor a big-L libertarian—I do not seek to do away with the state.
I’ll be narrow then: what are some specific examples of policies that allow people to be stupid (or smart) and reap the consequences?
Um. Allowing people to go climb mountains just because they are there? Allowing people to marry who they damn well please? Allowing people to play or avoid lotteries?
Huh, I was expecting no speed limits on certain roads or shops that sold dangerous drugs legally or even just the reversal of what I was saying about cigarettes earlier. Without a tax on cigarettes you necessarily end up with packs of cigarettes for 80p. Then again you did say you were hesitant to declare allegiance so I’ll not push you about it. It is kind of puzzling to have an idea torn down but not be told what the tearer would rather replace it with though, normally they go hand in hand. I am not used to that.
Future is uncertain and I am not wedded to ideological absolutes. I have a good idea of the direction I want to go, but not so much about the place where I would stop.
For example, I want a smaller, weaker government compared to what we currently have, but I don’t know how small and weak until we try some experiments and see how they turn out (not that I’m holding my breath). Testing by reality is paramount and I see little use in imagining grand social structures—that killed enough people already.
Fair doos, it’s been nice talking to you. Considering how active you are I’m sure we’ll run into each other again
You have chosen examples where the status quo is a restriction. Lumifer has chosen examples where the status quo is no restriction. That is, you have both chosen examples that point in your respectively favoured directions.
I’m not sure I have on all the examples. Cigarette price hikes are status quo, as are (kinda) soft drinks but the rest don’t seem to be. The no speed limits for example is illegal in most countries apart from Germany with the Autobahn. Interfering with food prices and availability to massively favour healthiness is not done in any country that I’m aware of. It certainly couldn’t be called status quo or else crisps would cost £3.50 while healthy microwavable meals would be £1.
Unless I’ve misunderstood you?
Well, given the free speech laws of the UK (or rather lack thereof) I think your existing laws are bad enough.
True but irrelevant. I am not making a comparison between the UK and US laws.