The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)(peterturchin.com)
peterturchin.com
The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)
http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/strange-disappearance/
188 comments
I blame the Cold War and decades of counter-collectivism propaganda.
An entire generation grew up in that atmosphere... they became the nation's teachers and leaders, influencing the opinions of subsequent generations. Game theory shows small changes in behaviors and opinions can have massive downstream impact, as demonstrated by this interactive demo: http://ncase.me/trust/ (HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14864183).
I haven't had any luck finding studies or data on this topic. The key would be voter turn-out for each party bucketed by age for the past few decades of elections.
If my propaganda theory holds true, the Republicans would see a popularity boost that ages at roughly 1 year per year. That segment would be ~50-80 around now, which does match recent voting data (older voters consistently skew conservative) - but historical data is needed to track a bulge over time and disprove the "naive youngsters vote liberal" narrative.
An entire generation grew up in that atmosphere... they became the nation's teachers and leaders, influencing the opinions of subsequent generations. Game theory shows small changes in behaviors and opinions can have massive downstream impact, as demonstrated by this interactive demo: http://ncase.me/trust/ (HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14864183).
I haven't had any luck finding studies or data on this topic. The key would be voter turn-out for each party bucketed by age for the past few decades of elections.
If my propaganda theory holds true, the Republicans would see a popularity boost that ages at roughly 1 year per year. That segment would be ~50-80 around now, which does match recent voting data (older voters consistently skew conservative) - but historical data is needed to track a bulge over time and disprove the "naive youngsters vote liberal" narrative.
This is fair. My dad grew up in the Great Depression in farmland, and the Federal government stepping in is what prevented widespread starvation. And during the dust bowl, again the Federal government came in and taugh everyone better soil management techniques. And from that, most people in that time and place were Democrats and expected that the government helped fund and organize the things that needed to be done on a grand scale that individuals couldn't do, nor did insurance.
Reagan did a lot of damage to the perception of what government should do and how citizens need to hold it accountable. Instead he described it in terms of being inherently bad, which is demonstrably b.s. but the country pretty much bought it as evidenced by his election, the ensuing cut in taxes, the near total stop in investments made to large scale private and and public infrastructure spending, and a shift to hoarding wealth rather than keeping it moving so that everyone benefits from it.
Reagan did a lot of damage to the perception of what government should do and how citizens need to hold it accountable. Instead he described it in terms of being inherently bad, which is demonstrably b.s. but the country pretty much bought it as evidenced by his election, the ensuing cut in taxes, the near total stop in investments made to large scale private and and public infrastructure spending, and a shift to hoarding wealth rather than keeping it moving so that everyone benefits from it.
Its hard for people like me to imagine what Reagan was as a president since his presidency cam before my birth. From what I've read though, it sounds like he had little understanding of how economics and government really worked and played on the fears of whites against the "welfare queen" phenomena, leading to significant defunding of mental health institutions leaving a lot of those people on the streets (i.e. homeless).
If he also caused a step back from large scale public investments... wow, this man has certainly done a lot of damage.
If he also caused a step back from large scale public investments... wow, this man has certainly done a lot of damage.
In my view Trump has already done more damage in 8 months than 8 years of Reagan, and in the end will far exceed it. The sheer damage being done at the State Department alone will take a decade to recover from already.
If you think State has been damaged you really don't want to see what's happening at EPA.
I'm aware. But the damage EPA can do in the short term is limited compared to what's already happening as dictator think Trump is on their side, and we pull back from generations of aggressive rhetoric and policies supporting free speech, free press, due process, minority rights, and so on. Non-combatant will lose their lives because the U.S. is turning its backs on problem areas of the world, and it's not going to result in some incentive for those people to violently overthrow their dictator.
> [I blame the lack of] decades of counter-collectivism propaganda.
How do Eastern European countries fare then? How about China?
How do Eastern European countries fare then? How about China?
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what comparison you're drawing here.
(Note: I specifically said collectivism, not Communism)
(Note: I specifically said collectivism, not Communism)
I disagree. It seems to be that collectivism, ironically, has made cooperation impossible rather than individualism. The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped. Government guarantees you healthcare and income in retirement, so there's no need to have a family big enough to take care of you. And as the kid, your parents are taken care of, so your role is diminished. When a hurricane comes through and damages your neighbor's rooftop there's no need to pick up your tool belt, FEMA is going to cut them a check. People feel like they don't need to get involved in charity work such as feeding the hungry because the government takes care of that for the most part. Each one of those items and countless others seem like a great idea individually, but collectively it's destroying the social fabric of our nation.
Just throwing out a question here - What evidence do you have for the order of events? e.g. "The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped" - how do you show that it wasn't the rise of urban centers, where you had too many neighbors to care for, that led to government stepping in where individuals were failing?
For each of the items you list, I can see it going the direction you describe, or instead going the other direction, with government stepping in only after individuals were clearly not taking care of the problems. How do you propose that we can tell which direction it went?
For each of the items you list, I can see it going the direction you describe, or instead going the other direction, with government stepping in only after individuals were clearly not taking care of the problems. How do you propose that we can tell which direction it went?
The 19th century in the US was the great age of limited government. It was also the period of the greatest outpouring of charitable giving the world has ever known. This was the period when the first modern nonprofit community hospitals were created. It's when the Carnegie libraries were built, huge numbers of colleges were built. It's when the society of the prevention of cruelty to animals was built, the first international missions were started. Considering the technology available at the time it's really amazing what was accomplished. This was the boom time for personal charitable giving. And there were no income taxes and no tax breaks. So everyone who gave did so without being induced by the large government to do so.
I have no intention of making an argument that government is better or worse at: providing healthcare, building libraries, feeding the hungry, etc. All I'm suggesting is that when the government creates programs like SNAP then people have a tendency to believe that the hungry are being fed.
I have no intention of making an argument that government is better or worse at: providing healthcare, building libraries, feeding the hungry, etc. All I'm suggesting is that when the government creates programs like SNAP then people have a tendency to believe that the hungry are being fed.
Britain led the way in that enlightenment e.g. The 1848 Public Health Act. Except in Britain it was government that led it. In the US, you had to rely on the hoping that some of the rich did good (today: Gates, Buffet?) whilst all the rest did bad (today: Koch, Trump?)?
This blame-the-government thing is uniquely American. In other parts of the world there are big governments that really help their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably (e.g. I live in Sweden).
This blame-the-government thing is uniquely American. In other parts of the world there are big governments that really help their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably (e.g. I live in Sweden).
> This blame-the-government thing is uniquely American. In other parts of the world there are big governments that really help their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably (e.g. I live in Sweden).
You are in top 10% of European countries. You are comparing your filthy rich country to the entire United States. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare Sweden to Washington State.
Also: ask Eastern European countries, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, African countries, Greece, Cambodia, Myanmar... how much they trust their government. You have no idea how much of a prosperity bubble you are in, in Sweden.
You also seem to be unaware that the United States has more Big Government economic regulations than in Sweden.
You are in top 10% of European countries. You are comparing your filthy rich country to the entire United States. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare Sweden to Washington State.
Also: ask Eastern European countries, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, African countries, Greece, Cambodia, Myanmar... how much they trust their government. You have no idea how much of a prosperity bubble you are in, in Sweden.
You also seem to be unaware that the United States has more Big Government economic regulations than in Sweden.
First, re wealth: This is laughable. A good software engineer gets $40k/year in Sweden, before tax (which is higher than the US). Sweden is not a filthy rich country, it's a relatively poor country with a good social net and nice people. Perhaps you were thinking Switzerland or Norway, which are both stinking rich whilst also nice?
Second, I was holding Sweden up as an example the you could aim to emulate. "Socialism" the Swedish way is really quite nice. I've lived and moved countries and know many who have moved around the world and to and from the states and I warmly recommend Sweden as the place everyone wishes their home countries was more like ;)
Second, I was holding Sweden up as an example the you could aim to emulate. "Socialism" the Swedish way is really quite nice. I've lived and moved countries and know many who have moved around the world and to and from the states and I warmly recommend Sweden as the place everyone wishes their home countries was more like ;)
> Second, I was holding Sweden up as an example the you could aim to emulate. "Socialism" the Swedish way is really quite nice.
Sweden does not have socialism. There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states. Sweden has a freer economy with higher tax rates.
Sweden also has 145% the per capita income of the EU average. And don't forget that excludes poor Eastern European non-EU countries like Ukraine.
Sweden does not have socialism. There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states. Sweden has a freer economy with higher tax rates.
Sweden also has 145% the per capita income of the EU average. And don't forget that excludes poor Eastern European non-EU countries like Ukraine.
> Sweden does not have socialism
Well, the Swedes think they have their 'nordic model' version of it. Its been governed by the Social Democrats for almost all the last hundred years. Perhaps their definition differs from yours?
> There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states
Crikey, poor you folks! Given how startup-hostile Sweden truly is on the ground, its amazing that Silicon Valley can exist at all if its worse over your side of the pond! ;)
Here, very few people can or would start a company, and startups are rare and happen despite the poor investment. I've met some of the founders of the companies that are often cited like skype and I don't think they started in Sweden rather than the states because Sweden is a less regulated economy. Sweden is part of the EU, and the rules are the EU rules which Britain alleges to have found so over-regulated that they had to leave! ;)
Everything you hear on the news is true unless you have some personal experience of it. So it is with the brush Sweden gets tarred with in the US. There's some crazy left-wingers who think Sweden isn't socialist enough (and their idea of collectivism seems to be towards communism, and Sweden isn't communist), but its mostly the right-wingers thinking Sweden is some immigration hellhole. People in Sweden don't recognize the Sweden portrayed on Fox News.
Interestingly, the coverage of the US that you get on the European media seems to be much more truthful and balanced; I know plenty of US citizens, I've visited an awful lot, I've worked for US companies for years, and the general portrayal of the US life in the media over here seems to ring true.
Well, the Swedes think they have their 'nordic model' version of it. Its been governed by the Social Democrats for almost all the last hundred years. Perhaps their definition differs from yours?
> There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states
Crikey, poor you folks! Given how startup-hostile Sweden truly is on the ground, its amazing that Silicon Valley can exist at all if its worse over your side of the pond! ;)
Here, very few people can or would start a company, and startups are rare and happen despite the poor investment. I've met some of the founders of the companies that are often cited like skype and I don't think they started in Sweden rather than the states because Sweden is a less regulated economy. Sweden is part of the EU, and the rules are the EU rules which Britain alleges to have found so over-regulated that they had to leave! ;)
Everything you hear on the news is true unless you have some personal experience of it. So it is with the brush Sweden gets tarred with in the US. There's some crazy left-wingers who think Sweden isn't socialist enough (and their idea of collectivism seems to be towards communism, and Sweden isn't communist), but its mostly the right-wingers thinking Sweden is some immigration hellhole. People in Sweden don't recognize the Sweden portrayed on Fox News.
Interestingly, the coverage of the US that you get on the European media seems to be much more truthful and balanced; I know plenty of US citizens, I've visited an awful lot, I've worked for US companies for years, and the general portrayal of the US life in the media over here seems to ring true.
Regulation-wise, Sweden is not hostile. But yeah, I don't see much incentive to start a business in Sweden when you forfeit 65% of your profits to the State.
I never suggested that a government would be incapable of helping their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably. I said when the government says it's going to take on the role of feeding the hungry, that people tend to mentally check that mark off in their brain and are less likely to get involved in that issue in their area. This isn't some vast anti-government conspiracy. I'm not suggesting the government shouldn't have a role in things like feeding people. I'm just saying that private charity has an emotional bonding experience with your community that government assistance lacks.
The difference between government and cooperation is involuntary vs voluntary. If your government is doing something, it's not voluntary for anyone who voted against it. Also, since tax evasion is a crime in nearly every country, any government activities are going to be supported by the citizens in a coercive nature.
So yes, big governments can certainly provide services that you like. They can also provide never ending wars funded by your income that you can't do a damn thing about.
So yes, big governments can certainly provide services that you like. They can also provide never ending wars funded by your income that you can't do a damn thing about.
And here we have the Disappearance of Cooperation. The whole system is bad if the government does something you didn't want. Naturally if they do something you want then the whole system is good.
You know what cooperation means - it means that some of the time you don't get what you want and that's OK because the system gives you what you want (and need) also.
I dare you to describe a society where all services are provided on a voluntary basis. Go ahead I dare you.
You know what cooperation means - it means that some of the time you don't get what you want and that's OK because the system gives you what you want (and need) also.
I dare you to describe a society where all services are provided on a voluntary basis. Go ahead I dare you.
I live in a country with universal healthcare and it works pretty well much of the time, so perhaps I don't have the same perspective as you. But some of your examples ring a little extreme.
Do you really suggest "having a big family" as the way to survive health problems and retirement? Because that's how it works in some (e.g.) SE Asian countries, and life there can be very harsh indeed if you strike adversity and don't have family to care for you. Some people are infertile, or have lost their children.
Not to mention that simply populating the world with more and more people is kind of environmentally short-sighted. I'd rather have the government bulk buying my meds, and lighten my overall footprint on the planet, rather than harking back to ancient times when there was little or no government, and family was everything.
Do you really suggest "having a big family" as the way to survive health problems and retirement? Because that's how it works in some (e.g.) SE Asian countries, and life there can be very harsh indeed if you strike adversity and don't have family to care for you. Some people are infertile, or have lost their children.
Not to mention that simply populating the world with more and more people is kind of environmentally short-sighted. I'd rather have the government bulk buying my meds, and lighten my overall footprint on the planet, rather than harking back to ancient times when there was little or no government, and family was everything.
> ...life there can be very harsh indeed if you strike adversity and don't have family to care for you.
Life can be very harsh if you're unfortunate but don't qualify for government benefits. Or maybe you've genuinely turned a corner in your life but government rules don't have mercy like individuals can.
Life can be very harsh if you're unfortunate but don't qualify for government benefits. Or maybe you've genuinely turned a corner in your life but government rules don't have mercy like individuals can.
I guess I don't know what sort of scenarios you're alluding to. In the context of healthcare, universal healthcare means by definition that its available to everyone.
But yes, unfortunate you if you get something that's not covered under the universal deal, e.g. some kind of leading edge cancer treatment. That's when you hope your private insurance (if any) will pick up the tab.
But yes, unfortunate you if you get something that's not covered under the universal deal, e.g. some kind of leading edge cancer treatment. That's when you hope your private insurance (if any) will pick up the tab.
> In the context of healthcare, universal healthcare means by definition that its available to everyone.
The government doesn't literally pay for anything you want or need. It picks what things it will pay for and what things it won't. You can't always ask government to make a special exception in extenuating circumstances like you could with a parent or cousin.
I'm not saying family is always better. I'm saying there are certainly downsides to government-based charity.
The government doesn't literally pay for anything you want or need. It picks what things it will pay for and what things it won't. You can't always ask government to make a special exception in extenuating circumstances like you could with a parent or cousin.
I'm not saying family is always better. I'm saying there are certainly downsides to government-based charity.
You think Universal Healthcare is charity? Thanks for demonstrating the disconnect that many people have in the US and why lack of care about facts and information has us in the place we are right now.
>I'd rather have the government bulk buying my meds, and lighten my overall footprint on the planet, rather than harking back to ancient times when there was little or no government, and family was everything
That's a perfectly respectable opinion. And you and I probably are in agreement on the government's role on many of these kinds of social issues. However, it's completely possible to both support those programs and simultaneously understand their impact on social fabric.
That's a perfectly respectable opinion. And you and I probably are in agreement on the government's role on many of these kinds of social issues. However, it's completely possible to both support those programs and simultaneously understand their impact on social fabric.
The US hardly lacks collectivism, it is merely on an incomprehensibly grand scale. Pay your taxes and the state will help you, evade them and the state will punish you.
Certain African countries are strongly individualistic. The state is too weak to help or punish anybody. Infrastructure crumbles, crime and slavery abounds.
You seriously don't want to visit let alone live in a country that lacks collectivism.
Certain African countries are strongly individualistic. The state is too weak to help or punish anybody. Infrastructure crumbles, crime and slavery abounds.
You seriously don't want to visit let alone live in a country that lacks collectivism.
Collectivism != cooperation. The comment to which you replied also says the US has heavily collectivism. But due to its coercive nature, it killed the cooperation that existed before it.
Why then does the society with the flimsiest socialised provisions amongst rich nations (the US) also have on most measures by far the most precipitous collapse in social cohesion?
European countries are much smaller than the USA. I realize that within the USA there exist differences but I think your population centers are far larger than ours. Europe has a larger population but it is very dense with small, medium and then rarer large communities (similar to Japan I think). The USA appears to me (this could be quite wrong) to have large, very large and then sparse communities.
I wish I could summon up a one of those nice charts on this subject from gapminder! That would show immediately if there's something to it.
It could also be simply that the American media and intellectual class are unusually neurotic and there similar issues exist everywhere but the local reporting in my country doesn't emphasize it as much.
I wish I could summon up a one of those nice charts on this subject from gapminder! That would show immediately if there's something to it.
It could also be simply that the American media and intellectual class are unusually neurotic and there similar issues exist everywhere but the local reporting in my country doesn't emphasize it as much.
The relevant comparison is amongst all the wealthy nations (European, N. American, Asian & Australasian), not "USA" vs "Europe" (the various nations constituting the latter have highly divergent social policies).
There are many differences among these nations. Some are densely populated (the Netherlands), some sparse (Australia). No comparisons I've ever seen amongst them however remotely suggests that as you add more sophisticated social welfare policies, this reduces social cohesion. On the contrary, such policies tend to smooth out the effects of inevitable industrial change, rendering populations more resilient. It's no accident that nations clinging to relatively crude social policy (the US, the UK) have far lower economic mobility than those using the state of the art (Sweden, Germany). And it is about sophistication, not absolute expenditure, by the way. France, for example, has high spending, but it's badly targeted and rendered inflexible by traditional interests, so on many indicators other than health, it looks more like the laggards (US, UK) than leaders (Sweden, Denmark, Canada).
There are many differences among these nations. Some are densely populated (the Netherlands), some sparse (Australia). No comparisons I've ever seen amongst them however remotely suggests that as you add more sophisticated social welfare policies, this reduces social cohesion. On the contrary, such policies tend to smooth out the effects of inevitable industrial change, rendering populations more resilient. It's no accident that nations clinging to relatively crude social policy (the US, the UK) have far lower economic mobility than those using the state of the art (Sweden, Germany). And it is about sophistication, not absolute expenditure, by the way. France, for example, has high spending, but it's badly targeted and rendered inflexible by traditional interests, so on many indicators other than health, it looks more like the laggards (US, UK) than leaders (Sweden, Denmark, Canada).
This is where the rightist points out that most positive examples historically had ethnically homogeneous populations and that those populations with growing minorities also are developing integration problems that are usually blamed, perhaps scapegoated, on social welfare policy.
Do you have a deconstruction of that?
Do you have a deconstruction of that?
Actually all mentioned countries have sizeable immigrant minorities (except Denmark I guess).
I'd say burden of proof is on the side claiming "developing integration problems" and such in Australia / Sweden / Germany. Without any data it seems like empty rightist populism.
I'd say burden of proof is on the side claiming "developing integration problems" and such in Australia / Sweden / Germany. Without any data it seems like empty rightist populism.
Terrorism is unrelated to integration problems. Also, Germany is the (second? Idk how that's measured) most inviting country? Why does it have least attacks on that chart? That chart actually reinforces my point ... Just empty populism connecting random things to desperately prove its point.
That's nonsense. If that was the case, European countries would have a lower level of social cohesion, which is just the opposite. American society is far more individualistic, and still there is very little in terms of social support for poor people and disaster relief, for example.
Bah. I've lived on a farm, in the city, in the burbs. People are people where ever you go. If you're not neighborly, that's your problem, not the government's.
Socially advanced European nations do not have cooperation and social cohesion problems. What makes America unique?
Your making the classic mistake of equating the top 10% European countries like Switzerland and Sweden with the entire United States. Midwestern states, Washington state, and New England have cohesion.
Correct your perspective and see that the United States and Europe are fairly equal. Example: Italy has next to no cohesion.
Correct your perspective and see that the United States and Europe are fairly equal. Example: Italy has next to no cohesion.
> Italy has next to no cohesion
References? In my personal experience that's far for accurate. If anything they are an extremely nationalistic country.
Living half way between the US and the EU has taught me otherwise - that the kind of cohesion between say Portugal and Sweden is surprisingly solid - once you know where to look e.g. social values, political views. Trying to do the same with someone from deep Texas and a little town in the Maine coast could be an interesting example of the opposite.
Having different languages even inside the same territory doesn't account for lack of cohesion. It's quite irrelevant in practice actually.
Cohesion seems to be mistaken these days by sheepishly following politicians into unnecessary wars and lacking critical thinking. Widespread ignorance is not cohesion, is divisive at best.
References? In my personal experience that's far for accurate. If anything they are an extremely nationalistic country.
Living half way between the US and the EU has taught me otherwise - that the kind of cohesion between say Portugal and Sweden is surprisingly solid - once you know where to look e.g. social values, political views. Trying to do the same with someone from deep Texas and a little town in the Maine coast could be an interesting example of the opposite.
Having different languages even inside the same territory doesn't account for lack of cohesion. It's quite irrelevant in practice actually.
Cohesion seems to be mistaken these days by sheepishly following politicians into unnecessary wars and lacking critical thinking. Widespread ignorance is not cohesion, is divisive at best.
> References? In my personal experience that's far for accurate. If anything they are an extremely nationalistic country.
Turkey is a nation that is even more nationalistic and they have very serious trust issues with their fellow citizens.
Turkey is a nation that is even more nationalistic and they have very serious trust issues with their fellow citizens.
It's not a value judgment. It is a fact. Plenty of polls, references and other evidence exists. Or ask any Turk.
Uh, visit inner-city Milwaukee, Detroit, or Gary sometime. Or, for that matter, some opioid-ravaged population-3000 former logging town in central Wisconsin. Social cohesion seems to evaporate along with jobs in the Midwest as everywhere else.
> some opioid-ravaged population-3000 former logging town in central Wisconsin
You're buying a false narrative. Most midwestern town in states like Montana, the Dakotas, Utah do not have opioid problems. In fact, those states have the happiest and most satisfied people in this country.
You're buying a false narrative. Most midwestern town in states like Montana, the Dakotas, Utah do not have opioid problems. In fact, those states have the happiest and most satisfied people in this country.
Actually that is the false narrative. Those states may have the most satisfied people, but they also have the highest overdose death rates: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2011/11/oregons_h...
(Google "National drug overdose rates" for more info - CDC and academia have plenty of studies, but no pretty graphs)
(Google "National drug overdose rates" for more info - CDC and academia have plenty of studies, but no pretty graphs)
Isn't caring for your neighbor an inherently 'collectivist' act?
Yes of course, but let me try to shine a light on the distinction I was trying to make.
If I as an individual become aware that there are hungry people in my area, I may as an individual choose to put forth some effort, funds, etc. to attempt to rectify this problem. This is an individual act for the collective good. You are emotionally attached to your own act and have a personal interest in improving the system of feeding people because you want to make sure your money feeds the most people possible.
Conversely, if we all decide we're going to take some of your money, whether you like it or not, and decide how all of us cumulatively wish to solve the hunger problem, that is not an individual act. It is not an act of your conscience. It separates you emotionally and cognitively from the people you're feeding. You never meet them, you never get to know them. You have no attachment whatsoever to what's going on. You just pay taxes and hope the bureaucracy does a decent job, or more likely you stop thinking about feeding the hungry altogether because it's "taken care of." You still want your money to be used efficiently/effectively but the entire scope of government is far too big for the average person to deal with at that level.
I'm not intending to make any argument about which way is the most effective at: feeding the hungry, providing healthcare to the poor, etc. That's a different debate altogether. I'm only pointing out that the government giving some of your money to feed people is a completely different social experience than you doing so yourself. And further that when the government tells you it's going to take care of feeding everyone, it tends to drop off your radar.
If I as an individual become aware that there are hungry people in my area, I may as an individual choose to put forth some effort, funds, etc. to attempt to rectify this problem. This is an individual act for the collective good. You are emotionally attached to your own act and have a personal interest in improving the system of feeding people because you want to make sure your money feeds the most people possible.
Conversely, if we all decide we're going to take some of your money, whether you like it or not, and decide how all of us cumulatively wish to solve the hunger problem, that is not an individual act. It is not an act of your conscience. It separates you emotionally and cognitively from the people you're feeding. You never meet them, you never get to know them. You have no attachment whatsoever to what's going on. You just pay taxes and hope the bureaucracy does a decent job, or more likely you stop thinking about feeding the hungry altogether because it's "taken care of." You still want your money to be used efficiently/effectively but the entire scope of government is far too big for the average person to deal with at that level.
I'm not intending to make any argument about which way is the most effective at: feeding the hungry, providing healthcare to the poor, etc. That's a different debate altogether. I'm only pointing out that the government giving some of your money to feed people is a completely different social experience than you doing so yourself. And further that when the government tells you it's going to take care of feeding everyone, it tends to drop off your radar.
So according to you, NO ONE takes care of their neighbours, NO ONE helps anyone in their family when they need it, and NO ONE does charity work, because the government know fulfills that roll.
But we can all plainly see that this is completely wrong, and people do do all that.
But we can all plainly see that this is completely wrong, and people do do all that.
As with virtually every case of the use of "everyone" when I said everyone stopped I did not mean it literally.
And yes, families are far more likely to be broken today than in decades past. The elderly are more likely to be dumped in a home somewhere. Welfare has ravaged families. The single motherhood rate is 8x what it was in the 50s because we incentivize broken families. Over 50% of adults are single now. That's historically unprecedented, and it didn't start heading that direction until the 1950s when socialist programs started really taking hold in the US.
And yes, families are far more likely to be broken today than in decades past. The elderly are more likely to be dumped in a home somewhere. Welfare has ravaged families. The single motherhood rate is 8x what it was in the 50s because we incentivize broken families. Over 50% of adults are single now. That's historically unprecedented, and it didn't start heading that direction until the 1950s when socialist programs started really taking hold in the US.
You could do what a lot of people do, and don't use the word everyone when it is not the case, or not even close to being the case.
I'm not sure I follow his thought process on why "through the growth of individualism and personal experience that makes cooperation impossible." On a simple personal level, I'm for individualism and cooperation, so I'm not seeing the inherent conflict. Perhaps it's a matter of definitions?
When we celebrate rather than punish differences, we a get a population where people are more self-actualized and less oppressed, but have little in common with each other. If we are to have any semblance of community, we need to build it through voluntary associations.
Trust, empathy, bonding, etc. are going to be a lot harder when someone's identity, life experiences, and circumstances are completely foreign to your own. I don't think it makes cooperation impossible, but as a practical matter it means we're more likely to need huge, complex institutions like the federal government to mediate cooperation. People also seem less likely to want to cooperate or sacrifice their resources for others who are nothing like them.
One way societies have historically dealt with this is to close their borders, beat the shit out of internal nonconformists and, if they remain unrepentant, torture them to death in the public square by lighting them on fire. Subtler variants persist; for example, the official government's indifference to vigilante enforcement actions ranging from bullying (Japan) to beheading (Saudi Arabia).
It seems clear to me that our culture of welcoming and celebrating differences is more just and causes better outcomes for more people, but it does mean that we aren't all in the same boat.
Trust, empathy, bonding, etc. are going to be a lot harder when someone's identity, life experiences, and circumstances are completely foreign to your own. I don't think it makes cooperation impossible, but as a practical matter it means we're more likely to need huge, complex institutions like the federal government to mediate cooperation. People also seem less likely to want to cooperate or sacrifice their resources for others who are nothing like them.
One way societies have historically dealt with this is to close their borders, beat the shit out of internal nonconformists and, if they remain unrepentant, torture them to death in the public square by lighting them on fire. Subtler variants persist; for example, the official government's indifference to vigilante enforcement actions ranging from bullying (Japan) to beheading (Saudi Arabia).
It seems clear to me that our culture of welcoming and celebrating differences is more just and causes better outcomes for more people, but it does mean that we aren't all in the same boat.
The American culture values individualism...and also has a strong "you can't tell me what to do!" reaction to social pressure. If those points are connected, I can easily see too much individualism interfering with cooperation even if the base ideas are not in conflict.
Evidence: who are the heroes in american TV and movies? The rebel against authority, the one that breaks the rules. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, House, I could go on and on. We celebrate the idea of something we actively argue against in daily life.
There's also some weird connection between extremes of claiming to value individualism and idolizing authoritarianism that I won't claim to understand, so I could be completely wrong on all of this. I'm not positive that extremes of individualism are a death knell for cooperation...but I don't find the idea unlikely either.
Evidence: who are the heroes in american TV and movies? The rebel against authority, the one that breaks the rules. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, House, I could go on and on. We celebrate the idea of something we actively argue against in daily life.
There's also some weird connection between extremes of claiming to value individualism and idolizing authoritarianism that I won't claim to understand, so I could be completely wrong on all of this. I'm not positive that extremes of individualism are a death knell for cooperation...but I don't find the idea unlikely either.
> who are the heroes in american TV and movies? The rebel against authority, the one that breaks the rules. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, House
All of these heroes cooperated with close friends, colleagues, and other people in order to solve problems and achieve goals.
The difference is not individualism vs. cooperation. The difference is cooperation based on the voluntary choices of individuals, as needed to accomplish goals, vs. cooperation dictated from the top by someone's ideology.
All of these heroes cooperated with close friends, colleagues, and other people in order to solve problems and achieve goals.
The difference is not individualism vs. cooperation. The difference is cooperation based on the voluntary choices of individuals, as needed to accomplish goals, vs. cooperation dictated from the top by someone's ideology.
I don't think we're talking about people that are utterly unwilling to cooperate with ANYONE. We're talking about whether they are willing to cooperate as a society.
> We're talking about whether they are willing to cooperate as a society.
And what does "cooperate as a society" mean? If there is indeed a goal that every member of the society has in common, then yes, it makes sense for everyone in the society to cooperate to achieve that goal. But too often, "cooperate as a society" really means that some people get to choose the goal and force everyone else to cooperate to achieve it, whether they agree with the goal or not. That is the kind of "cooperation" that the American culture of individualism rejects.
And what does "cooperate as a society" mean? If there is indeed a goal that every member of the society has in common, then yes, it makes sense for everyone in the society to cooperate to achieve that goal. But too often, "cooperate as a society" really means that some people get to choose the goal and force everyone else to cooperate to achieve it, whether they agree with the goal or not. That is the kind of "cooperation" that the American culture of individualism rejects.
I feel like this is a bit of a straw man.
Does american culture resist coercion? Yes, excluding a few big bandwagon issues and incidents. But that's not really the point.
One might say when something needs to get decided or done, does the country get together and get it done or bicker and in-fight? Let's check some big "needs to get this taken care of issues":
* Slavery - Somehow, the "land of the free" was one of the last developed nations to condemn this practice. And while racism is a separate issue, even over a century later we're still having large public arguments about whether the slaves had it "easy" (?!)
* Climate Change - There is largely universal consensus that if current trends continue, there has been and will continue to be an accelerating increase in human suffering. Every developed nation on the planet agrees, almost every qualified scientist in the US agrees. We can accept that our scientists can predict the movements of celestial bodies across distances mind-bogglingly vast down to the minute, but trust our "guts" over them. Some might argue that the US is rejecting a goal chosen by everyone else, and doing so as a brave stand of individualism. I'd argue they are just demonstrating the issue.
Do I need to go on?
Does american culture resist coercion? Yes, excluding a few big bandwagon issues and incidents. But that's not really the point.
One might say when something needs to get decided or done, does the country get together and get it done or bicker and in-fight? Let's check some big "needs to get this taken care of issues":
* Slavery - Somehow, the "land of the free" was one of the last developed nations to condemn this practice. And while racism is a separate issue, even over a century later we're still having large public arguments about whether the slaves had it "easy" (?!)
* Climate Change - There is largely universal consensus that if current trends continue, there has been and will continue to be an accelerating increase in human suffering. Every developed nation on the planet agrees, almost every qualified scientist in the US agrees. We can accept that our scientists can predict the movements of celestial bodies across distances mind-bogglingly vast down to the minute, but trust our "guts" over them. Some might argue that the US is rejecting a goal chosen by everyone else, and doing so as a brave stand of individualism. I'd argue they are just demonstrating the issue.
Do I need to go on?
> when something needs to get decided or done, does the country get together and get it done or bicker and in-fight?
You phrased this wrong. It should be: when some small group of people believe that something needs to get done, do they just go out and do it, or do they try to co-opt everyone else's resources using government power?
> Slavery - Somehow, the "land of the free" was one of the last developed nations to condemn this practice.
And somehow, the "something needs to get done, so let's get it done" methodology ended up killing somewhere between half a million and a million people and leading to a century or more of Jim Crow. If that's what "getting together to get it done" looks like, I'll take bickering and in-fighting.
By contrast, countries that were willing to countenance something less than "getting it done" the abolitionist way (such as Britain, which simply bought the slaves' freedom by paying off the slave owners) ended up ending slavery with no loss of life and a much smoother social transition.
Not to mention that, if the abolitionists had simply left the South alone, they probably would have ended slavery on their own, and probably sooner than 1865. In 1831, the Virginia State Legislature was considering a bill to abolish slavery in the state, and there was a good chance it was going to pass. If it had, the other slave states would probably have followed Virginia's lead. Then word came that William Lloyd Garrison in Boston had published an abolitionist pamphlet calling for no compromise and just forcing the South to end slavery, and the bill died.
> Climate Change - There is largely universal consensus that if current trends continue, there has been and will continue to be an accelerating increase in human suffering.
A consensus that is based on flawed climate models that do not make correct predictions, and economic numbers based on no predictive power whatsoever. Consensus is worthless if there is no predictive power to back it up.
> We can accept that our scientists can predict the movements of celestial bodies across distances mind-bogglingly vast down to the minute, but trust our "guts" over them.
That's because astronomers can back up their predictions of the movements of celestial bodies with a track record of accurate predictions to many decimal places, over a period of more than a century. Whereas climate scientists, as above, can back their predictions up with--nothing.
> Some might argue that the US is rejecting a goal chosen by everyone else, and doing so as a brave stand of individualism.
Yep. If everybody else has a consensus that we should all shoot ourselves in the foot, should the US follow it?
> Do I need to go on?
No, you've given quite enough background to see where you're coming from. Hopefully I've done the same.
You phrased this wrong. It should be: when some small group of people believe that something needs to get done, do they just go out and do it, or do they try to co-opt everyone else's resources using government power?
> Slavery - Somehow, the "land of the free" was one of the last developed nations to condemn this practice.
And somehow, the "something needs to get done, so let's get it done" methodology ended up killing somewhere between half a million and a million people and leading to a century or more of Jim Crow. If that's what "getting together to get it done" looks like, I'll take bickering and in-fighting.
By contrast, countries that were willing to countenance something less than "getting it done" the abolitionist way (such as Britain, which simply bought the slaves' freedom by paying off the slave owners) ended up ending slavery with no loss of life and a much smoother social transition.
Not to mention that, if the abolitionists had simply left the South alone, they probably would have ended slavery on their own, and probably sooner than 1865. In 1831, the Virginia State Legislature was considering a bill to abolish slavery in the state, and there was a good chance it was going to pass. If it had, the other slave states would probably have followed Virginia's lead. Then word came that William Lloyd Garrison in Boston had published an abolitionist pamphlet calling for no compromise and just forcing the South to end slavery, and the bill died.
> Climate Change - There is largely universal consensus that if current trends continue, there has been and will continue to be an accelerating increase in human suffering.
A consensus that is based on flawed climate models that do not make correct predictions, and economic numbers based on no predictive power whatsoever. Consensus is worthless if there is no predictive power to back it up.
> We can accept that our scientists can predict the movements of celestial bodies across distances mind-bogglingly vast down to the minute, but trust our "guts" over them.
That's because astronomers can back up their predictions of the movements of celestial bodies with a track record of accurate predictions to many decimal places, over a period of more than a century. Whereas climate scientists, as above, can back their predictions up with--nothing.
> Some might argue that the US is rejecting a goal chosen by everyone else, and doing so as a brave stand of individualism.
Yep. If everybody else has a consensus that we should all shoot ourselves in the foot, should the US follow it?
> Do I need to go on?
No, you've given quite enough background to see where you're coming from. Hopefully I've done the same.
> You phrased this wrong. ...some small group .... try to co-opt everyone else's resources using government power?
My whole point was that a society occasionally does, in aggregate, feel it needs to do something. If you're going to insist that it's only ever a minority imposing their will over everyone, then there is no point in further discussion.
> And somehow, the "something needs to get done, so let's get it done" methodology ended up killing [far too many]...and leading to .... Jim Crow.
You seem to have forgotten the context - I was demonstrating how the American refusal to cooperate led to a civil war, while the rest of the world managed to deal with it both faster and with a lot less bloodshed.
> A consensus that is based on flawed climate models that do not make correct predictions, and economic numbers based on no predictive power whatsoever.
Your assertion that your conclusion is somehow more valid that that of, well, just about everyone, is both a demonstration of the concept in question AND somewhat laughable considering your opinions on a minority forcing suffering upon the majority.
> If everybody else has a consensus that we should all shoot ourselves in the foot, should the US follow it?
Another straw man - no one is saying that. If the world thought it was dumb to shoot yourself in the foot, would you ignore them? One of these two scenarios is happening.
> Hopefully I've done the same.
I would say yes.
My whole point was that a society occasionally does, in aggregate, feel it needs to do something. If you're going to insist that it's only ever a minority imposing their will over everyone, then there is no point in further discussion.
> And somehow, the "something needs to get done, so let's get it done" methodology ended up killing [far too many]...and leading to .... Jim Crow.
You seem to have forgotten the context - I was demonstrating how the American refusal to cooperate led to a civil war, while the rest of the world managed to deal with it both faster and with a lot less bloodshed.
> A consensus that is based on flawed climate models that do not make correct predictions, and economic numbers based on no predictive power whatsoever.
Your assertion that your conclusion is somehow more valid that that of, well, just about everyone, is both a demonstration of the concept in question AND somewhat laughable considering your opinions on a minority forcing suffering upon the majority.
> If everybody else has a consensus that we should all shoot ourselves in the foot, should the US follow it?
Another straw man - no one is saying that. If the world thought it was dumb to shoot yourself in the foot, would you ignore them? One of these two scenarios is happening.
> Hopefully I've done the same.
I would say yes.
> a society occasionally does, in aggregate, feel it needs to do something
Perhaps, but neither of your examples show that. They just show a portion of society feeling the need to do something and imposing it on everybody else.
> I was demonstrating how the American refusal to cooperate led to a civil war
Yes, exactly: refusal to cooperate, according to my definition of cooperate--work together to achieve a common goal--because the American abolitionists had a flawed concept of "cooperate". The British were willing to cooperate (in my sense) with the slaveowners, by buying the slaves' freedom, in order to achieve the common goal of avoiding civil war. The American abolitionists, because the very thought of cooperating (in my sense) with slaveowners gave them apoplexy, refused to consider any such alternative.
But with your definition of "cooperate", the abolitionists were doing it right--that's my point. What happened in the US is what happens when your version of "cooperate"--feel you need to do something and just make everybody do it--is working.
> Your assertion that your conclusion is somehow more valid that that of, well, just about everyone
Is based on the very simple and common sense criterion of predictive power. Whereas yours is based on an apparent mystical belief that if enough people agree with something, it must be right. You have offered no other argument.
> no one is saying that
Yes, they are. The rest of the world is saying that everyone should spend huge amounts of money on the Paris agreement, just like Kyoto before it, even though everyone admits that it will have negligible impact on the climate. That is shooting yourself in the foot.
Perhaps, but neither of your examples show that. They just show a portion of society feeling the need to do something and imposing it on everybody else.
> I was demonstrating how the American refusal to cooperate led to a civil war
Yes, exactly: refusal to cooperate, according to my definition of cooperate--work together to achieve a common goal--because the American abolitionists had a flawed concept of "cooperate". The British were willing to cooperate (in my sense) with the slaveowners, by buying the slaves' freedom, in order to achieve the common goal of avoiding civil war. The American abolitionists, because the very thought of cooperating (in my sense) with slaveowners gave them apoplexy, refused to consider any such alternative.
But with your definition of "cooperate", the abolitionists were doing it right--that's my point. What happened in the US is what happens when your version of "cooperate"--feel you need to do something and just make everybody do it--is working.
> Your assertion that your conclusion is somehow more valid that that of, well, just about everyone
Is based on the very simple and common sense criterion of predictive power. Whereas yours is based on an apparent mystical belief that if enough people agree with something, it must be right. You have offered no other argument.
> no one is saying that
Yes, they are. The rest of the world is saying that everyone should spend huge amounts of money on the Paris agreement, just like Kyoto before it, even though everyone admits that it will have negligible impact on the climate. That is shooting yourself in the foot.
The constant battle between rigidity and chaos.
Cooperation used to be by free association through civic organizations. As the government has grown in scope, it has eclipsed these, and it really isn't surprising that civic society has declined as a result.
When people freely participate in civic activities, they are being generous. There is no coercion. When government does the same thing, it is coercive. The activity does not occur unless taxes are collected. Choice goes out the window.
I've heard many people ask why they should volunteer or help out others, when they're already paying lots of money in taxes to "take care of those problems".
This is the final tragedy of the government intervention. It turns activities where people are helping people into programs that solve problems.
When people freely participate in civic activities, they are being generous. There is no coercion. When government does the same thing, it is coercive. The activity does not occur unless taxes are collected. Choice goes out the window.
I've heard many people ask why they should volunteer or help out others, when they're already paying lots of money in taxes to "take care of those problems".
This is the final tragedy of the government intervention. It turns activities where people are helping people into programs that solve problems.
Why should I believe what you say? It sounds truthy and has plenty of logic to it, but I've come to ask for more before believing something.
It could be kin selection. In the past people lived closer to and interacted more with people of similar genetic ancestry.
The real question is why wouldn't civic qualities decline.
You can look at this on an economic lens - people don't need to depend on familial relations as much because of money.
You can look at this with a racial/ethnic lens - more genetic variance reduces cooperative behaviours (see Charles Murray).
Then there's the libertarian version you've heard above.
Then there's the social lens - people have become atomized by individualism in their manners, social conditioning etc.
I like to think there's a non-relativistic way in which all of them are true, sometimes some of them more at certain times than others, but that they are models of the same phenomena.
Should we genetically manipulate ourselves to increase our pro-social behaviours? It seems clear that if society flies apart then all the critiques I've mentioned will be true simultaneously, I do not see how that can plausibly be positive. What about genetic intervention?
The real question is why wouldn't civic qualities decline.
You can look at this on an economic lens - people don't need to depend on familial relations as much because of money.
You can look at this with a racial/ethnic lens - more genetic variance reduces cooperative behaviours (see Charles Murray).
Then there's the libertarian version you've heard above.
Then there's the social lens - people have become atomized by individualism in their manners, social conditioning etc.
I like to think there's a non-relativistic way in which all of them are true, sometimes some of them more at certain times than others, but that they are models of the same phenomena.
Should we genetically manipulate ourselves to increase our pro-social behaviours? It seems clear that if society flies apart then all the critiques I've mentioned will be true simultaneously, I do not see how that can plausibly be positive. What about genetic intervention?
> Should we genetically manipulate ourselves to increase our pro-social behaviours? It seems clear that if society flies apart then all the critiques I've mentioned will be true simultaneously, I do not see how that can plausibly be positive. What about genetic intervention?
You had me and then you lost me.
You had me and then you lost me.
Do you mean you don't agree or that you don't see what I meant?
The government hasn't recently grown in scope, in any meaningful way. Since the 1980's, the government as percent of GDP has stayed about the same 30-35% ... our taxes are lower and our 'welfare' is arguably lower than in the 80s, so if it was growth of government, you'd see it it correlated with that
I know it is cool to blame everything on the government, but ...
I know it is cool to blame everything on the government, but ...
a percentage of GDP is a fairly meaningless measurement.
We've entered into an era of unprecedented government surveillance and power. We have agencies such as the DEA, NSA, homeland security, etc that wield enormous power over the lives of Americans.
Also the welfare programs are significantly more pervasive now. You have subsidized farming, subsidized food, subsidized business, subsidized housing, a subsidized economy.
At this point, aren't we all just living off the hand of the federal government? Isn't that by design?
We've entered into an era of unprecedented government surveillance and power. We have agencies such as the DEA, NSA, homeland security, etc that wield enormous power over the lives of Americans.
Also the welfare programs are significantly more pervasive now. You have subsidized farming, subsidized food, subsidized business, subsidized housing, a subsidized economy.
At this point, aren't we all just living off the hand of the federal government? Isn't that by design?
> We've entered into an era of unprecedented government surveillance and power. We have agencies such as the DEA, NSA, homeland security, etc that wield enormous power over the lives of Americans.
You're claiming that people are less cooperative because the NSA is spying on them?
You're claiming that people are less cooperative because the NSA is spying on them?
I'm saying the power and reach of our government into our personal lives has reached an unprecedented level, contrary to what GP was suggesting.
Your point is well written but you seem to be referencing some past golden age of inter-person cooperation before "big government" got involved. I'm not saying your wrong but anytime our thoughts lead us to imagine the past as a place wth less problems, it's a good clue we're maybe thinking about the situation less well than we could.
In your mind, when you imagine the 1920's, or the 1960's, do you think that there were incredibly high levels of cooperation between people? I don't want to put a huge burden of evidence of you, but am curious.
Also if anyone gets a chance please look into the book "The Way We Never Were" by Stephanie Coontz. Good examination of American family trends and activities over time.
In your mind, when you imagine the 1920's, or the 1960's, do you think that there were incredibly high levels of cooperation between people? I don't want to put a huge burden of evidence of you, but am curious.
Also if anyone gets a chance please look into the book "The Way We Never Were" by Stephanie Coontz. Good examination of American family trends and activities over time.
I don't buy the golden age of giving scenario either, but it seems there was an era where people had more time (single income households), more disposable income, less pressure to save for education, retirement, medical expenses, etc.
My parents tell a story about how in the 1950's, my grandfather built his house himself. One day after work, he came to the site and his neighbors were at work helping out on it. Of course, he was an immigrant living in a relatively homogeneous ethnic community. So, maybe small communities took care of their own, but in the post-drug, post-industrial economy small communities aren't diverse enough to handle the load.
My parents tell a story about how in the 1950's, my grandfather built his house himself. One day after work, he came to the site and his neighbors were at work helping out on it. Of course, he was an immigrant living in a relatively homogeneous ethnic community. So, maybe small communities took care of their own, but in the post-drug, post-industrial economy small communities aren't diverse enough to handle the load.
I think one aspect is income equality during the 1950s:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/income-...
Especially these graphs:
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/median...
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/mean%2...
And during this time, the GDP growth rate was great:
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Of course the average worker would be less stressed, have more time for communal activity, as well as rotate A LOT more money back into the economy compared with money sitting still on top.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/income-...
Especially these graphs:
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/median...
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/mean%2...
And during this time, the GDP growth rate was great:
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Of course the average worker would be less stressed, have more time for communal activity, as well as rotate A LOT more money back into the economy compared with money sitting still on top.
That must be why citizens of other countries like Australia and the UK are awfully uncooperative and uncharitable, right? /s
I also hate this idea that helping the poor should be left to personal whim. "Programs that solve problems" sounds more effective and egalitarian than "people helping people" if you ask me.
I also hate this idea that helping the poor should be left to personal whim. "Programs that solve problems" sounds more effective and egalitarian than "people helping people" if you ask me.
Presumably the '/s' implies that they are very charitable. Do you have numbers that show that they were more charitable than people in the US used to be?
[deleted]
If there is a massive hail storm and my neighbor's roof is damaged and needs to be repaired, the reason all the neighbors don't pitch in and give him a new roof is insurance, not the government. You know, free market insurance. The part of your story about people pitching in has more to do with the skill sets of people back then vs now; even with all the desire in the world, I couldn't raise a barn.
And in the case of hurricanes, yes, the government does step in because even insurance companies can't afford that scale of loss. And if you look at the aftermath of things like Hurricane Katrina, yes, there was a lot of community involvement in coping with the losses.
There was more than enough misery to go around 100 years ago, and heaven help you if you weren't a member of the in-group. I'd much rather have the government help me out than having to pretend to be a member of the church, or whatever was required to be acceptable in such communities.
And in the case of hurricanes, yes, the government does step in because even insurance companies can't afford that scale of loss. And if you look at the aftermath of things like Hurricane Katrina, yes, there was a lot of community involvement in coping with the losses.
There was more than enough misery to go around 100 years ago, and heaven help you if you weren't a member of the in-group. I'd much rather have the government help me out than having to pretend to be a member of the church, or whatever was required to be acceptable in such communities.
The question isn't why we didn't repair our neighbor's roof (I wouldn't know how either), but why we didn't invite them to sleep at our house while theirs was flooding.
What's this "we" business? I'd definitely invite my neighbours in if their house was flooded and they were out of options. I pay more than 50% tax when all is told. What's wrong with you?
I used "we" to reflect we as a society, as the original article was noting a the general decline of cooperation.
Sorry if I misread you. Unfortunately your comment found harmony with a prevalent libertarian chorus.
Ah, the first downvotes of the day start at 8am Pacific Time. Go figure.
Having insurance is prudent, but really beside the point. If you can safeguard your valuables by paying for a service, why wouldn't you? This really has nothing to do with civic society.
In the case of hurricanes, it's only because of government intervention and subsidies that people build in imperiled areas. Flood insurance mostly subsidizes more wealthy people to the tune of $3B/year. They would likely not choose to live in imperiled areas without the subsidies. Is it really a social good to promote the building of dwellings in places where it is likely the dwellings will be destroyed every 20 - 30 years or so?
Having seen the devastation of Katrina in MS first hand, this seems like a remarkably poor choice of things to subsidize and promote. In fact, when we were there about a year after the storm, the only people who were helping the people who were left were voluntary associations. The government had pretty much pulled out.
Tocqueville wrote extensively about associations and their beneficial impact on society. You should give his book, Democracy in America, a read. Here's an intro: http://www.learningtogive.org/resources/philanthropy-describ...
In the case of hurricanes, it's only because of government intervention and subsidies that people build in imperiled areas. Flood insurance mostly subsidizes more wealthy people to the tune of $3B/year. They would likely not choose to live in imperiled areas without the subsidies. Is it really a social good to promote the building of dwellings in places where it is likely the dwellings will be destroyed every 20 - 30 years or so?
Having seen the devastation of Katrina in MS first hand, this seems like a remarkably poor choice of things to subsidize and promote. In fact, when we were there about a year after the storm, the only people who were helping the people who were left were voluntary associations. The government had pretty much pulled out.
Tocqueville wrote extensively about associations and their beneficial impact on society. You should give his book, Democracy in America, a read. Here's an intro: http://www.learningtogive.org/resources/philanthropy-describ...
I remember reading stories of folks in hospitals and nursing homes left to die during Katrina. Or how many Congress people from a certain political party voted against helping out folks devastated by Sandy.
In fact, the "greed is good, corporations are people, etc." mentality that promotes selfishness as a vice is a major plank of one of the main political parties of the US.
In fact, the "greed is good, corporations are people, etc." mentality that promotes selfishness as a vice is a major plank of one of the main political parties of the US.
I think that's generous. If only it were limited to greed is good. This is about class, not merely greed. Class is the idea that some people are simply better than other people, be it by bloodline, family name, meritocracy. The preservation of the aristocracy is paramount, but right there along with it is aristocrats first, others second. Sometimes a distant second. If you have more money you get better education, health care, justice, and might even pay lower taxes as a percentage of earned income.
This sort of nonsense is also where we get prosperity theology from. You'd think these people would have read Job.
This sort of nonsense is also where we get prosperity theology from. You'd think these people would have read Job.
I honestly believe this is just people being people and wanting to maintain their quality of life for their children and grandchildren.
Tell me that if ever become exceedingly wealthy you wouldn't do what you could to protect your wealth. I know I'm doing what I can with what I have.
Only the extremly wealthy can be philanthropic to an extreme extent.
Tell me that if ever become exceedingly wealthy you wouldn't do what you could to protect your wealth. I know I'm doing what I can with what I have.
Only the extremly wealthy can be philanthropic to an extreme extent.
> Only the extremly wealthy can be philanthropic to an extreme extent.
So it follows that the normally wealthy can be philanthropic to a normal extent, then?
Separately, I have to admit I'm unsure if you meant to conflate philanthropy with monetary value.
So it follows that the normally wealthy can be philanthropic to a normal extent, then?
Separately, I have to admit I'm unsure if you meant to conflate philanthropy with monetary value.
[deleted]
Rise of "hot" media (radio, TV, social), decline of civility. Utterly unoriginal observation (McLuhan, Postman, many others).
While it lacks the satisfying simplicity of your government has a monopoly on violence, err, banality worldview, it does have some basis in objective reality.
While it lacks the satisfying simplicity of your government has a monopoly on violence, err, banality worldview, it does have some basis in objective reality.
I think the coercion argument is nonsense. There are all kinds of coercion including economic coercion that happens in free markets.
It also ignores vastly top end income tax rates for nearly 4 decades, which weren't less than 75%. And ignores the relatively higher taxes in other countries where people, where trust in government is much higher than in the U.S.
Taxes should be seen as fair, and increasingly Americans think that you can avoid taxes by having clever accoutants and attorneys. Leona Helmsley "We don't pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes" is an example of how tax burden has changed.
It also ignores vastly top end income tax rates for nearly 4 decades, which weren't less than 75%. And ignores the relatively higher taxes in other countries where people, where trust in government is much higher than in the U.S.
Taxes should be seen as fair, and increasingly Americans think that you can avoid taxes by having clever accoutants and attorneys. Leona Helmsley "We don't pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes" is an example of how tax burden has changed.
Taxation is not voluntary. If you don't pay, there will be penalties. This is coercion. "Nice house you have there - too bad you didn't pay your taxes..."
If the collected money is then put to a purpose you don't like, or is incompetently managed, what can you do? Nothing in any realistic sense.
If you would have liked to have been generous with the money instead, too bad.
As an aside, tax rates are pretty meaningless. Revenues are at record levels.
If the collected money is then put to a purpose you don't like, or is incompetently managed, what can you do? Nothing in any realistic sense.
If you would have liked to have been generous with the money instead, too bad.
As an aside, tax rates are pretty meaningless. Revenues are at record levels.
The weight shifts but the overall value stays relatively constant: Quebecers give less than most Americans to homeless people because there are lots more social programs in place. Overalk, those in need get roughly the same amount of support.
I think your wrong, Quebec is one of the poorer Canadian provinces. You can't give what you don't have.
I don't see Kansan's charity increasing as taxes went down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...
Seems to me like it's rather tangential to the true source of political division in America, in which both sides now tie ideas/facts to one of two "teams" / political parties, and actively reject discussion about something that appears to hurt their team or benefit the other. See: Republicans and global warming, Democrats and national debt, either party and any bad decision by a President of their party.
Doesn't help that when one side is wrong, the other makes sure to kick some dirt in the face and rub it in as long as possible.
Doesn't help that when one side is wrong, the other makes sure to kick some dirt in the face and rub it in as long as possible.
So you are proposing that high cooperation is dependent on low government intervention. This seems incorrect. In Denmark for example there is a far more interventionist state than in the US, while membership of associations and clubs is also very high.
Part of it is game theory. If your community is your means of survival then being cooperative in your community increases the chance of reciprocation when needed. But I think the size of the community isn't something that can be institutionally grown to scale. A community without accountability devolves into anarchy very quickly. Instead of trying to get out what you put in, the game is to take as much and contribute as little as possible.
Game Theory, is based on the premise that all individuals are selfish. It makes sense in an atomised society, where all relationships are utilitarian. It's an economic theory, not a sociological one, and it breaks down once you factor in actual "society" as a premise. If you take the position that society exists first, then the individual rather than the other way round it all becomes quite messy an unwieldy. A society will typically reject members that only take, and there are many studies (sorry, no citation at hand) that demonstrate this with animal groups and actual human groups. You "can" attempt to explain many social phenomena using game theory but you have to integrate all sorts of remote concepts in order to make it work.
> Game Theory, is based on the premise that all individuals are selfish
Wrong. Selfish strategies aren't sustainable. Why should I continue with anything else you said? Your basic premise leads me to believe you don't have a rudimentary grasp on game theory, economics, psychology or sociology.
> If you take the position that society exists first
Yeah don't do that. Reason from first principle first and work your way up. Not the other way around.
https://xkcd.com/435/
Wrong. Selfish strategies aren't sustainable. Why should I continue with anything else you said? Your basic premise leads me to believe you don't have a rudimentary grasp on game theory, economics, psychology or sociology.
> If you take the position that society exists first
Yeah don't do that. Reason from first principle first and work your way up. Not the other way around.
https://xkcd.com/435/
It's called leading by example: do you want a government that shows people it's important to care about others, or do you want a government that doesn't care about it's people? A government that sets the example by lying, ignoring people that can't pay healthcare, can't pay for education, and basically shows it's all a fight about who gets to keep most money?
What example would you have citizens rather follow?
Also, if you think it coercive you are basically admitting your democracy isn't working. Otherwise it wouldn't be coercion but executing on the whishes of the people voting.
What example would you have citizens rather follow?
Also, if you think it coercive you are basically admitting your democracy isn't working. Otherwise it wouldn't be coercion but executing on the whishes of the people voting.
It's coercion regardless of democracy unless everyone is voting 100% the same way.
If 60% of the people vote to tax everyone and use that money to bomb the moon, the remaining 40% are going to feel coerced into supporting it.
The government forcing people to support things is not leading by example at all, because any other organization would be breaking the law if it tried to force support. How would you feel if the local church just started taking 30% of your income?
If 60% of the people vote to tax everyone and use that money to bomb the moon, the remaining 40% are going to feel coerced into supporting it.
The government forcing people to support things is not leading by example at all, because any other organization would be breaking the law if it tried to force support. How would you feel if the local church just started taking 30% of your income?
This is nice example why are some people less cooperative. Everybody paying for something that majority wants is labeled as "coercion". So "if I don't like I should be able to not cooperate". And we end up with game theory and tragedy of the commons.
It's coercive because you will be penalized unless you pay the taxes. The example the government is setting is that it is OK to take wealth from people and give it to others as long as whoever's in power has noble intent. There is certainly noble intent behind Head Start, but its an expensive program that doesn't work. There are many examples.
You can't say that we as a people are being generous when we're only doing what we're doing to avoid massive fines or imprisonment.
You can't say that we as a people are being generous when we're only doing what we're doing to avoid massive fines or imprisonment.
>I've heard many people ask why they should volunteer or help out others, when they're already paying lots of money in taxes to "take care of those problems".
They'll say that no matter what the tax rate is.
They'll say that no matter what the tax rate is.
I don't think the scope of the government action has anything to do with civic activities. Take a step back and look across the Atlantic: plenty of European countries have both large government action and very active civic societies.
> This is the final tragedy of the government intervention. It turns activities where people are helping people into programs that solve problems.
It's interesting that you think this is a tragedy. The point of such programs is to solve significant human problems, such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless. This seems to me to be a superior goal to the alternative you propose, which seems to be to allow some altruistic people to feel good about themselves.
It's interesting that you think this is a tragedy. The point of such programs is to solve significant human problems, such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless. This seems to me to be a superior goal to the alternative you propose, which seems to be to allow some altruistic people to feel good about themselves.
While I found this quite interesting, and I'm as concerned about some of these trends as the next person, I was eerily reminded of some of John Robbins's stuff graphing meat consumption against incidence of diseases and his kind of casual thinking about causation. We have so many datasets available now that it's so easy to graph things against each other and notice things that may be coincidentally related, or even causally related, and then tell some kind of story about where the relationship came from. And I remember that there's even a funny web site that tries to underscore the difficulty in reasoning from these associations.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
In this case, the n-grams chart really exemplified this for me. There are so many influences on the frequency of a word, including lexical substitution of a word by its synonyms, changes in spelling, and increased or decreased interest in a topic regardless of whether that interest is positive or negative.
For example, check out the long-term decline in avarice in America! It's profound!
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=avarice&year_s...
Oh, wait, maybe we just stopped using the word "avarice" rather than the concept. :-)
Or, during this Second Gilded Age, our society actually started to become less atomized:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=atomized&year_...
... or maybe we just moved away from calling the phenomenon that.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
In this case, the n-grams chart really exemplified this for me. There are so many influences on the frequency of a word, including lexical substitution of a word by its synonyms, changes in spelling, and increased or decreased interest in a topic regardless of whether that interest is positive or negative.
For example, check out the long-term decline in avarice in America! It's profound!
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=avarice&year_s...
Oh, wait, maybe we just stopped using the word "avarice" rather than the concept. :-)
Or, during this Second Gilded Age, our society actually started to become less atomized:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=atomized&year_...
... or maybe we just moved away from calling the phenomenon that.
Why don't you hop into Sugihara's method and see for yourself?
My hunch is that the thing that most frequently trickles down in the trickle down economy is DEBT. I imagine distrust follows close behind.
My hunch is that the thing that most frequently trickles down in the trickle down economy is DEBT. I imagine distrust follows close behind.
We have so many datasets available now that it's so easy to graph things against each other and notice things that may be coincidentally related, or even causally related, and then tell some kind of story about where the relationship came from.
Yeah, it's a fun website -- but you could say that about just about any claimed correlation.
Meanwhile, for those who have been around long enough to have a sense for the 'barometric' changes he's talking about -- the shift in the basic, underlying "we're-all-in-this-together" ethos has been not just noticeable, but profound. Probably a lot more work needs to be done to find a solid statistical basis behind this observation (if this is at all possible).
But by and large (aside from the singe n-gram example, which I agree smells like cherry-picking), it's not like his arguments are simply frivolous.
Yeah, it's a fun website -- but you could say that about just about any claimed correlation.
Meanwhile, for those who have been around long enough to have a sense for the 'barometric' changes he's talking about -- the shift in the basic, underlying "we're-all-in-this-together" ethos has been not just noticeable, but profound. Probably a lot more work needs to be done to find a solid statistical basis behind this observation (if this is at all possible).
But by and large (aside from the singe n-gram example, which I agree smells like cherry-picking), it's not like his arguments are simply frivolous.
> Meanwhile, for those who have been around long enough to have a sense for the 'barometric' changes he's talking about -- the shift in the basic, underlying "we're-all-in-this-together" ethos has been not just noticeable, but profound. Probably a lot more work needs to be done to find a solid statistical basis behind this observation (if this is at all possible).
I need to see some very solid evidence before I change my assumption, which is that people have always felt this as they get older, because we romanticize our memories of youth and we are uncomfortable with the societal changes that younger generations inevitably introduce.
I need to see some very solid evidence before I change my assumption, which is that people have always felt this as they get older, because we romanticize our memories of youth and we are uncomfortable with the societal changes that younger generations inevitably introduce.
Fair point - it's very tricky to measure.
I should also have been more careful to more clearly distinguish spurious correlations from correlations where both things are related to a third factor (which I think is probably often the case in John Robbins's graphs and somewhat plausibly here).
> the shift in the basic, underlying "we're-all-in-this-together" ethos has been not just noticeable, but profound
Depends on your value of "we."
There is certainly lower solidarity/interest in public life among the straight white landowning Christian men from good families who used to participate in things like freemasonry and Rotary.
On the other hand, both the left and right have been adding previously marginalized demographics to their constituencies and platforms.
I don't think there's any less solidarity going around. My intuition is that more people than ever have their voices heard and interests represented in public life. But rather than one line of solidarity across the center of the political spectrum, we now have two disjoint lines reaching from each party's center to what used to be its marginalized fringes. (Not just in ideology, but in identity).
We also just aren't in this together so much anymore. The rise of coastal cities means the country is increasingly split between (at least) two totally distinct patterns of geography, economics, culture, built environment, and lifestyle. The correlation between population density and vote share on the latest electoral map is staggering.
Depends on your value of "we."
There is certainly lower solidarity/interest in public life among the straight white landowning Christian men from good families who used to participate in things like freemasonry and Rotary.
On the other hand, both the left and right have been adding previously marginalized demographics to their constituencies and platforms.
I don't think there's any less solidarity going around. My intuition is that more people than ever have their voices heard and interests represented in public life. But rather than one line of solidarity across the center of the political spectrum, we now have two disjoint lines reaching from each party's center to what used to be its marginalized fringes. (Not just in ideology, but in identity).
We also just aren't in this together so much anymore. The rise of coastal cities means the country is increasingly split between (at least) two totally distinct patterns of geography, economics, culture, built environment, and lifestyle. The correlation between population density and vote share on the latest electoral map is staggering.
This is due to the entrenchment of neoliberalism since the 70s (famously Reagan in the 80s), the ideology that government's sole responsibility is to enforce free markets, any other function of government is bad, and that every aspect of life should be dictated by free markets. Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society, only individuals" sums it up. Rising wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of this.
When we're indoctrinated to suppress our humanity and see each other as self-interested profit-maximizing businesses rather than people, then it shouldn't come as any surprise that we're less cooperative.
When we're indoctrinated to suppress our humanity and see each other as self-interested profit-maximizing businesses rather than people, then it shouldn't come as any surprise that we're less cooperative.
Way to take that Thatcher quote out of context in order to reverse its meaning.
What she really said was:
"No government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."
What she really said was:
"No government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."
The full quote only shows in more vivid colors the same regretful idea.
The full quote doesn't reverse the meaning at all.
Of course it does. Which part of Thatcher's quote do you see as promoting the idea that we should "suppress our humanity"? Do you see that in there anywhere? And can you imagine why the out-of-context "there is no such thing as society" quote could be construed as a dishonest interpretation of her philosophy?
The rest of the quote just describes the same thing in a euphemism. The quality of your life depends on your own responsibility (meaning you're SooL if you have any disabilities or are born poor/with less opportunities). But your quality of life also depends on someone else freely wanting to help you, so government shouldn't bother with it, which is basically just reiterating objectivism. Some people will help others to their own detriment out of the goodness of their hearts. Most wont.
> "There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"
I think this whole argument is mostly a problem because some people view government as an adversary, instead of the product of populace cooperation. Sure you get "oppression of the majority", but that's what policing has always been. Being free to do whatever you want means being free to oppress others. The only difference with government involvement is that it's using collective knowledge/intellect over individual.
> "There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"
I think this whole argument is mostly a problem because some people view government as an adversary, instead of the product of populace cooperation. Sure you get "oppression of the majority", but that's what policing has always been. Being free to do whatever you want means being free to oppress others. The only difference with government involvement is that it's using collective knowledge/intellect over individual.
> I think this whole argument is mostly a problem because some people view government as an adversary, instead of the product of populace cooperation.
That's because government is an adversary to anyone who doesn't agree with what it's doing. There is no such thing as "populace cooperation" unless all of the populace agrees on what should be done. That is very rarely the case; most cases of "populace cooperation" are a portion of the populace using the coercive power of the government to force everyone else to do the things that portion of the populace thinks are good ideas.
> that's what policing has always been. Being free to do whatever you want means being free to oppress others.
But if all the government does is "policing" in this sense--preventing people from oppressing others--then almost all of what governments do today would be off the table.
That's because government is an adversary to anyone who doesn't agree with what it's doing. There is no such thing as "populace cooperation" unless all of the populace agrees on what should be done. That is very rarely the case; most cases of "populace cooperation" are a portion of the populace using the coercive power of the government to force everyone else to do the things that portion of the populace thinks are good ideas.
> that's what policing has always been. Being free to do whatever you want means being free to oppress others.
But if all the government does is "policing" in this sense--preventing people from oppressing others--then almost all of what governments do today would be off the table.
> That's because government is an adversary to anyone who doesn't agree with what it's doing. There is no such thing as "populace cooperation" unless all of the populace agrees on what should be done. That is very rarely the case; most cases of "populace cooperation" are a portion of the populace using the coercive power of the government to force everyone else to do the things that portion of the populace thinks are good ideas.
Cooperation doesn't mean that everyone gets their way. It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people. Having a country want the same thing is infeasible. Cooperating means compromising to maximise total utility.
> But if all the government does is "policing" in this sense--preventing people from oppressing others--then almost all of what governments do today would be off the table.
I didn't say that it is all it does, or should do, merely that the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups, and you don't get a vote. Personally I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings.
Cooperation doesn't mean that everyone gets their way. It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people. Having a country want the same thing is infeasible. Cooperating means compromising to maximise total utility.
> But if all the government does is "policing" in this sense--preventing people from oppressing others--then almost all of what governments do today would be off the table.
I didn't say that it is all it does, or should do, merely that the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups, and you don't get a vote. Personally I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings.
> Cooperating means compromising to maximise total utility.
I don't think this is a useful definition of cooperation, because "total utility" is not measurable, and might not even be well-defined.
I would define cooperation as people working together towards a common goal.
> It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people
It's rare for multiple people to want all of the same things, yes. This is why collective action should be limited.
But it's quite common for multiple people to have some common goal, in which case they can cooperate to achieve that goal, without having to share all of their other goals.
Your definition of cooperation appears to be all or nothing: either everybody agrees on everything, or people have to compromise. But if people don't agree on a particular goal, they can just choose not to pursue it together. They can go off and pursue their own goals separately. Nothing requires everybody to agree on a common set of goals and only pursue those.
> the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups
No, the alternative to government oppression is voluntary choice. You can't be oppressed by individuals or corporations or groups that don't have power. And who gives them that power? Governments. Individuals or corporations and groups get to oppress others because they have bought the privilege of doing so from the government--which was supposed to protect people from oppression.
> you don't get a vote
My vote doesn't make any difference anyway; neither major political party in my country (the US) is willing to touch any policy proposals that I would advocate. The best I can do with my vote is to choose the candidates that I think will do the least damage. But I would be glad to trade the loss of that dubious privilege for a much smaller government that didn't try to meddle in so many things.
> I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings
Governments do do good things. But that doesn't mean all good things get done by governments, or that governments doing them are the best way to do even those good things that governments do.
I don't think this is a useful definition of cooperation, because "total utility" is not measurable, and might not even be well-defined.
I would define cooperation as people working together towards a common goal.
> It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people
It's rare for multiple people to want all of the same things, yes. This is why collective action should be limited.
But it's quite common for multiple people to have some common goal, in which case they can cooperate to achieve that goal, without having to share all of their other goals.
Your definition of cooperation appears to be all or nothing: either everybody agrees on everything, or people have to compromise. But if people don't agree on a particular goal, they can just choose not to pursue it together. They can go off and pursue their own goals separately. Nothing requires everybody to agree on a common set of goals and only pursue those.
> the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups
No, the alternative to government oppression is voluntary choice. You can't be oppressed by individuals or corporations or groups that don't have power. And who gives them that power? Governments. Individuals or corporations and groups get to oppress others because they have bought the privilege of doing so from the government--which was supposed to protect people from oppression.
> you don't get a vote
My vote doesn't make any difference anyway; neither major political party in my country (the US) is willing to touch any policy proposals that I would advocate. The best I can do with my vote is to choose the candidates that I think will do the least damage. But I would be glad to trade the loss of that dubious privilege for a much smaller government that didn't try to meddle in so many things.
> I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings
Governments do do good things. But that doesn't mean all good things get done by governments, or that governments doing them are the best way to do even those good things that governments do.
No, have to agree with the others here, it doesn't say what you think it does at all.
You're going to try to point at such a large, complex phenomenon through a single cause?
Not OP, but the entrenchment of neoliberalism is itself a large, complex phenomenon. https://chomsky.info/profit01/
While I don't doubt this contributed, it also presumes that government is the main driver of social interation, which itself implies a non-participatory philosophy of the person..
If you are correct, how then did this philosophy get into place to begin with?
I would argue that it is more likely the rise of corporatism in the post war era which brought massive disruption of 'organic' social networks and through the large-scale transformation of economic activity from small businesses into larger ones removed much of the need for societal participation.
mass media, the decline of religious life, and the entrance of women into the workplace also likely are major factors - we can entertain ourselves, don't hear moral/values in a community, and have fully 1/2 of the house dedicated to matters of societal rather than economic concern
If you are correct, how then did this philosophy get into place to begin with?
I would argue that it is more likely the rise of corporatism in the post war era which brought massive disruption of 'organic' social networks and through the large-scale transformation of economic activity from small businesses into larger ones removed much of the need for societal participation.
mass media, the decline of religious life, and the entrance of women into the workplace also likely are major factors - we can entertain ourselves, don't hear moral/values in a community, and have fully 1/2 of the house dedicated to matters of societal rather than economic concern
I think all those are contributing factors, and you're right - it's not just the result of one thing.
It seems to be the result of a successful PR campaign on behalf of economists like Milton Friedman and the wealthy elites who stood to gain from it. The 1973 oil crisis was a tumultuous time, and so it was a ripe time for a new ideology.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-t...
It seems to be the result of a successful PR campaign on behalf of economists like Milton Friedman and the wealthy elites who stood to gain from it. The 1973 oil crisis was a tumultuous time, and so it was a ripe time for a new ideology.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-t...
Here's a question. Do you belong to any organization which chooses its leaders democratically? That is, you get to vote, there's more than one candidate, and the incumbents and their designated successors sometimes get kicked out?
Do you belong to any organization which has member meetings in which members can vote and make decisions binding on the organization?
Do you belong to any organization which has member meetings in which members can vote and make decisions binding on the organization?
Lots of clubs/community orgs are like this. The community soccer org for the city I grew up in had lots of turnover in the management due to voting.
The best sports and social clubs I've been a member of generally try to avoid too many political games although they are nominally democratic.
Club politics is generally tiresome, few people join a tennis club or hackerspace to play politics, they want to play tennis or make things.
Club politics is generally tiresome, few people join a tennis club or hackerspace to play politics, they want to play tennis or make things.
"The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings." -Wilde
That's the problem with democracy. It's hard work.
That's the problem with democracy. It's hard work.
One of the things that Tocqueville approved of in America is that everyone had some experience of government via jury duty. Which is compulsory (at least in principle, and in those days, probably in practice too).
I've often wondered if random juries should play a larger role in day-to-day government. Forcing people to work like this is a huge tax and not to be taken lightly, but taxing peoples attention rather than their wallets might actually be what we need.
I've often wondered if random juries should play a larger role in day-to-day government. Forcing people to work like this is a huge tax and not to be taken lightly, but taxing peoples attention rather than their wallets might actually be what we need.
Being on a jury is not an elevating experience.
I was on a jury deciding a driving while intoxicated case. The first vote was basically two of us against the rest of the jury. The reasons I heard justifying the guilty verdict votes were things like "Well, I'm a mom and I think drunk driving is terrible. That's why I think she is guilty".
Fortunately, there was one other educated person on the jury, and eventually, after discussing the actual facts of the case the rest of the jury understood and we acquitted the accused.
It was scary, during the selection process, the candidates mostly fell into two categories. Those looking forward to the $40 (as I remember it) allowance they gave us for each day of the trial and those that valued their time at more than $5/hour. The latter group all seemed to have some excuse for getting out of the trial. If it wasn't for the two of us on the jury, I believe the accused woman would have have been found guilty.
I was on a jury deciding a driving while intoxicated case. The first vote was basically two of us against the rest of the jury. The reasons I heard justifying the guilty verdict votes were things like "Well, I'm a mom and I think drunk driving is terrible. That's why I think she is guilty".
Fortunately, there was one other educated person on the jury, and eventually, after discussing the actual facts of the case the rest of the jury understood and we acquitted the accused.
It was scary, during the selection process, the candidates mostly fell into two categories. Those looking forward to the $40 (as I remember it) allowance they gave us for each day of the trial and those that valued their time at more than $5/hour. The latter group all seemed to have some excuse for getting out of the trial. If it wasn't for the two of us on the jury, I believe the accused woman would have have been found guilty.
[deleted]
Important to remember that, despite jokes like these, Oscar Wilde remained a committed (if ideosyncratic) libertarian socialist.
> That's the problem with democracy. It's hard work.
I think that misses the point. The problem is not hard work, but rather hard work dictated by a preconceived belief that a one-size-fits-all collective solution is the best approach to all problems.
I think that misses the point. The problem is not hard work, but rather hard work dictated by a preconceived belief that a one-size-fits-all collective solution is the best approach to all problems.
In my experience (have served in a few of these) it's hard enough to find one person willing serve in each organizational position. Contested elections are almost never seen.
It depends on the place.
Where I live the Little League is like the farm team for the local democratic machinery.
Where I live the Little League is like the farm team for the local democratic machinery.
usa cycling
Do you belong to any organization which chooses its leaders democratically?
Yes. I belong to a university, the academic governance of which rests in the Senate. True, it's not a completely elected body -- almost 1/4 of its members are administrators holding ex officio seats -- but over 3/4 of the Senate is elected by Faculty, Students, and Convocation.
Yes. I belong to a university, the academic governance of which rests in the Senate. True, it's not a completely elected body -- almost 1/4 of its members are administrators holding ex officio seats -- but over 3/4 of the Senate is elected by Faculty, Students, and Convocation.
No. The only organization I belong to is my employer.
Many IEEE sub-groups have democratic elections. Most of my college organizations had elections and large turnover. My condo has elections, though it is difficult to find individuals who even want to run (and commit the necessary time.) The congregation I belong to had elections.
My home owners association is democratic, though often there aren't many candidates.
Nothing 'strange' about this at all; to a first-order approximation, it's the inevitable byproduct of the transformative shift in the society's governing ideology over the same timespan:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-t...
That said, the various participation rates he's siting may presumed to be somewhat skewed by immigration.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-t...
That said, the various participation rates he's siting may presumed to be somewhat skewed by immigration.
Thanks for that link. Interesting rundown of the topic.
>Almost 200 years ago that discerning observer of social life, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote about the exceptional ability of Americans to form voluntary associations and, more generally, to cooperate in solving problems that required concerted collective action. This capacity for cooperation apparently lasted into the post-World War II era, but several indicators suggest that during the last 3-4 decades it has been unraveling.
>In these articles I argue that general well-being (and high levels of social cooperation) tends to move in the opposite direction from inequality. During the ‘disintegrative phases’ inequality is high while well-being and cooperation are low. During the ‘integrative phases’ inequality is low, while well-being and cooperation are high.
With economic inequality only getting worse [0, 1, 2] I can't help but wonder if there is also a decline in open source contributions? Or do our contributions increase because it provides visibility, and therefore increased economic opportunity, for those lower on the income scale?
[0]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-w...
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonh...
[2]: https://twitter.com/lpolovets/status/890610260251033602
>In these articles I argue that general well-being (and high levels of social cooperation) tends to move in the opposite direction from inequality. During the ‘disintegrative phases’ inequality is high while well-being and cooperation are low. During the ‘integrative phases’ inequality is low, while well-being and cooperation are high.
With economic inequality only getting worse [0, 1, 2] I can't help but wonder if there is also a decline in open source contributions? Or do our contributions increase because it provides visibility, and therefore increased economic opportunity, for those lower on the income scale?
[0]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-w...
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonh...
[2]: https://twitter.com/lpolovets/status/890610260251033602
> polarization
What polarization is there in Washington? Or outside the beltway? What are the two poles? How people feel about transexuals? I don't see any polarization. The two parties are close together on almost everything. As the real differences fade, unimportant differences must be heightened. Trump is of that type - he makes a big show, but on what big issue in which he can get anywhere is he substantially far from the Democratic (or Republican) party? As real differences fade, the showmanship of there being a difference must increase, thus, Trump.
Even healthcare has no polarization. Both parties are agreed on what it should be. Any party acting as if it will do single player or scrap Obamacare is just showboating. Any changes that get through will be minor ones. It was a 60 Senator consensus vote of the middle-of-the-road consensus view of what healthcare would be. McCain's thumbs down to any major overhaul.
In the past two centuries the US went from a civil war to the intitial struggle of how to deal with the Great Depression. There hasn't been much polarization since that. Even the big squabble in the 1960s was over a non-issue - over a small, peasant country in Indochina. The cold war began cooling off in the early 1950s, and stayed cool, aside from occassional flare-ups in certain areas. By the 1970s, US conservatives were trying to figure out how to heat the cold war up again against the background of SALT and the Helsinki accords.
The political establishment is less polarized than ever nowadays. It's not like post-war France, where Joliot-Curie, Picasso, Sartre etc. were members of the largest political party in France - the PCF.
What polarization is there in Washington? Or outside the beltway? What are the two poles? How people feel about transexuals? I don't see any polarization. The two parties are close together on almost everything. As the real differences fade, unimportant differences must be heightened. Trump is of that type - he makes a big show, but on what big issue in which he can get anywhere is he substantially far from the Democratic (or Republican) party? As real differences fade, the showmanship of there being a difference must increase, thus, Trump.
Even healthcare has no polarization. Both parties are agreed on what it should be. Any party acting as if it will do single player or scrap Obamacare is just showboating. Any changes that get through will be minor ones. It was a 60 Senator consensus vote of the middle-of-the-road consensus view of what healthcare would be. McCain's thumbs down to any major overhaul.
In the past two centuries the US went from a civil war to the intitial struggle of how to deal with the Great Depression. There hasn't been much polarization since that. Even the big squabble in the 1960s was over a non-issue - over a small, peasant country in Indochina. The cold war began cooling off in the early 1950s, and stayed cool, aside from occassional flare-ups in certain areas. By the 1970s, US conservatives were trying to figure out how to heat the cold war up again against the background of SALT and the Helsinki accords.
The political establishment is less polarized than ever nowadays. It's not like post-war France, where Joliot-Curie, Picasso, Sartre etc. were members of the largest political party in France - the PCF.
Your measure of polarization is talking about distance on a political spectrum. This is perhaps the correct way, since it's literally polar.
The vernacular "polarization" here would be better thought of as a measure not of conceptual distance, but of the intensity with which that distance is perceived.
The left and right are both very centrist (with some wacky outlier issues), but they perceive the other side as being very wrong, which allows for polarization regardless of actual political distance.
The vernacular "polarization" here would be better thought of as a measure not of conceptual distance, but of the intensity with which that distance is perceived.
The left and right are both very centrist (with some wacky outlier issues), but they perceive the other side as being very wrong, which allows for polarization regardless of actual political distance.
I would argue that the big US squabble in the 1960s was civil rights.
Still not resolved (for example a couple of states have just recently been found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act).
Still not resolved (for example a couple of states have just recently been found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act).
It's kind of like we never satisfactorily resolved the end of slavery, we had to amend the Constitution in the 1960's because of states scamming African Americans of their right to vote because the post Civil War amendments did not outright prevent weasels from making it hard to vote for people of the wrong skin tone. We might have been further along now if Woodrow Wilson hadn't helped resurrect the KKK and started bringing racial discrimination and segregation into the federal government, the latter development took close to 50 years to roll back.
Arguably Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant were too kind to southern aristocrats. What they should have done, historic atrocities as a guide, is executed the entire aristocracy down to the children and divided up the land to the slaves. We'd certainly have been further along now had that happened.
But Grant threatened resignation if pardons were not granted to Lee and all who surrendered at Appomattox. These men were absolutely over the war, and as the papers of the day indicate, most people were too. There really was no meaningful demand for treason trials for the lead generals.
And the sadly, as the Civil War determined slavery was absolutely wrong, it began 100 years of institutionalized 2nd class citizenry based on skin color. The Civil War was not a successful egalitarian enterprise by any stretch of the imagination.
But Grant threatened resignation if pardons were not granted to Lee and all who surrendered at Appomattox. These men were absolutely over the war, and as the papers of the day indicate, most people were too. There really was no meaningful demand for treason trials for the lead generals.
And the sadly, as the Civil War determined slavery was absolutely wrong, it began 100 years of institutionalized 2nd class citizenry based on skin color. The Civil War was not a successful egalitarian enterprise by any stretch of the imagination.
>What polarization is there in Washington? Or outside the beltway? What are the two poles?
The polarization is between those who prefer authoritarian leadership, and those who don't. The poles are defined primarily by personality.
The polarization is between those who prefer authoritarian leadership, and those who don't. The poles are defined primarily by personality.
Bullshit. There's polarization between whether the authoritarian crackdown should primarily police business/capital, or people with the wrong identities, or more concerningly, both.
If you watch/read/listen to pundits you'll see lots of polarization. Or go to Facebook and look at the comments on articles. Liberals are evil. Conservatives are dumb. You'll see all sorts of such comments.
Conservative media portrayed Obama as an extreme leftist when he was, in terms of policies, more in line with Eisenhower and Reagan. Look at the label of RINOs for Congressmen who vote the wrong way on a particular issue.
In the U.S. there is a lot of political polarization.
Conservative media portrayed Obama as an extreme leftist when he was, in terms of policies, more in line with Eisenhower and Reagan. Look at the label of RINOs for Congressmen who vote the wrong way on a particular issue.
In the U.S. there is a lot of political polarization.
There's a fairly great Reddit post that I won't attempt so summarize here, but it walks through the party votes on major issues and highlights what I would consider a broader degree of difference.
https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6pc5qu/democrats...
Separately, something that really concerns me is gerrymandering - which has pushed for more extreme views on both sides as there are far fewer "mixed" districts.
https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6pc5qu/democrats...
Separately, something that really concerns me is gerrymandering - which has pushed for more extreme views on both sides as there are far fewer "mixed" districts.
> What polarization is there in Washington?
Lower frequency of compromise and bipartisan bills. I've seen it just from reading the papers and staying semi-aware of politics. My mother-in-law worked in DC for decades, and it was glaringly evident to her even when she retired a decade or so ago.
> The two parties are close together on almost everything.
Along certain axes, sure. They're both broadly corporatist, for instance.
But overall? Not even close, particularly since the rise of the Tea Party. I read through my House Rep's notes on the legislation each side advances / endorses / votes for, which makes their actual legislative priorities pretty clear. Not to mention knowing people whose health, environment, and/or job are impacted by those ideological differences.
Most of the time I see "there's no difference between the two parties" asserted, it seems like it's either being used as a justification for apathy, or as a rallying cry for a third party.
Lower frequency of compromise and bipartisan bills. I've seen it just from reading the papers and staying semi-aware of politics. My mother-in-law worked in DC for decades, and it was glaringly evident to her even when she retired a decade or so ago.
> The two parties are close together on almost everything.
Along certain axes, sure. They're both broadly corporatist, for instance.
But overall? Not even close, particularly since the rise of the Tea Party. I read through my House Rep's notes on the legislation each side advances / endorses / votes for, which makes their actual legislative priorities pretty clear. Not to mention knowing people whose health, environment, and/or job are impacted by those ideological differences.
Most of the time I see "there's no difference between the two parties" asserted, it seems like it's either being used as a justification for apathy, or as a rallying cry for a third party.
The proposed link between civic participation ("cooperation") and both inequality and political polarization is a strange one to me, since civic participation seems like it would be a local phenomenon, and both inequality and political polarization mostly show up as regional differences rather than differences within communities.
Sure, the political space between Allegany County, NY (low income and trump voting) and Westchester County, NY (high income and clinton voting) is huge. But if you go to an elk lodge in Allegany or a (i dunno) running club in Westchester, you're going to find that everybody there has basically the same politics and basically the same income.
Something else is going on here.
Sure, the political space between Allegany County, NY (low income and trump voting) and Westchester County, NY (high income and clinton voting) is huge. But if you go to an elk lodge in Allegany or a (i dunno) running club in Westchester, you're going to find that everybody there has basically the same politics and basically the same income.
Something else is going on here.
Maybe we're a bit more varied here in the UK and this is anecdata but I'm a member of a running club that has at one end of the spectrum members of the Conservative party through to anarcho-vegans.
Yeah - sure I'm not literally saying that all clubs are full of people with identical politics. I'm just pointing out that most communities in America are actually not that diverse or polarized.
To be fair, the dynamic range in incomes probably is isn't that great and it's in a large multi-cultural city.
A decline in cooperation is probably a natural consequence of prosperity. Groups with more prosperous, empowered individuals see a decline in mutual cooperation over time, simply because it's not as necessary for their members to stick together.
Meanwhile, groups with fewer prosperous members tend toward the opposite behavior. They realize that the only way to compete with the "in group" is to gang up on them... or at least, that's what they tell themselves.
It hardly seems necessary to point to US electoral politics as a case in point.
Meanwhile, groups with fewer prosperous members tend toward the opposite behavior. They realize that the only way to compete with the "in group" is to gang up on them... or at least, that's what they tell themselves.
It hardly seems necessary to point to US electoral politics as a case in point.
The arena for 'cooperation' has shifted from socio-political realms to economic ones. Business now is the primary vehicle for cooperative efforts.
At one point the US military borrowed binoculars from citizens.
https://clickamericana.com/media/newspapers/why-the-navy-wan...
It's hard to even imagine now. But presumably people sent them. They were helping. It was their war. Now the military probably buys 20 times the binoculars they'll ever use. At 20 times the price a citizen pays for them. And it's all run by career service bureaucrats. The taxpayers foot the bill but the specific expenses are unknown. And the war isn't the peoples war now. It's usually some kind of undefined action cheered on by think tanks and special interests and pumped up by news stories of terrorists. The citizens are mostly removed from the process, as it goes right on regardless of who they vote for. Unless they enlist, then they are involved, but that is less for principal now and more for a free college education or because what else to do?
This is what has changed in society. Life has become a faceless bureaucracy running on it's own agenda. Corporate, government, you name it. The concept of community is a pale shadow of what it once was. I don't know if this is better or worse, it's probably not great if your military has to beg for binoculars but seems the new hazards may be even more dangerous.
https://clickamericana.com/media/newspapers/why-the-navy-wan...
It's hard to even imagine now. But presumably people sent them. They were helping. It was their war. Now the military probably buys 20 times the binoculars they'll ever use. At 20 times the price a citizen pays for them. And it's all run by career service bureaucrats. The taxpayers foot the bill but the specific expenses are unknown. And the war isn't the peoples war now. It's usually some kind of undefined action cheered on by think tanks and special interests and pumped up by news stories of terrorists. The citizens are mostly removed from the process, as it goes right on regardless of who they vote for. Unless they enlist, then they are involved, but that is less for principal now and more for a free college education or because what else to do?
This is what has changed in society. Life has become a faceless bureaucracy running on it's own agenda. Corporate, government, you name it. The concept of community is a pale shadow of what it once was. I don't know if this is better or worse, it's probably not great if your military has to beg for binoculars but seems the new hazards may be even more dangerous.
This is one of those questions where people can reference their pet Big Theory: corporate dominion, government coercion, individualism vs collectivism, insurance, secularization, leaderlessness...
It's hard to pin cultural changes to anything definiteively. So, my 2c with the same grain of salt...
Personally, I think it's the regionalism vs globalism dynamic. At least, I think that's the force acting on me.
We think of our political & cultural identities as part of a much bigger whole. Solidarity and identitiy are closely related. Take HN, for example. If HN was regional and something happened in our region then we'd be far more inclined mobalize. If we regulalry met in person to discuss ideas, we'd have more solidarity. We'd probably be an impactful force.
As an online group, we draw from a much bigger pool. The intellectual aspects are richer. But, the community is weaker.
TLDR, solidarity of mass culture, maybe. Could be something else.
It's hard to pin cultural changes to anything definiteively. So, my 2c with the same grain of salt...
Personally, I think it's the regionalism vs globalism dynamic. At least, I think that's the force acting on me.
We think of our political & cultural identities as part of a much bigger whole. Solidarity and identitiy are closely related. Take HN, for example. If HN was regional and something happened in our region then we'd be far more inclined mobalize. If we regulalry met in person to discuss ideas, we'd have more solidarity. We'd probably be an impactful force.
As an online group, we draw from a much bigger pool. The intellectual aspects are richer. But, the community is weaker.
TLDR, solidarity of mass culture, maybe. Could be something else.
In the specific measures of civic organizational membership, you have to put a lot down to women entering the workforce. People of my grandparent's generation (middle aged in the 50s and 60s) participated heavily in these activities, Elks and church in their case. A lot of the planning and organization of these groups was done by women who stayed home. Particularly after the kids had gone off to school, homemakers put a lot of effort into civic groups during the day. Now, of course, there were lots of women who worked, but there were enough women who didn't to keep these groups running. With women staying home now rare, especially after the kids are old enough for school, the people with free time to keep these organizations going don't exist. If you want to see a subculture where these organizations are still thriving, look at members of the LDS church.
Perhaps this has to do with the increasing heterogeneity of American society. The US probably looked more like Sweden, Denmark and Japan in the past. People may feel more compelled to partake in civil engagement and similar things like helping your neighbors out if you have the same background. At the very least you must trust the members of your community to play fair. Homogeneity comes at a cost but it's definitely useful to be able to assume correctly that you are a reasonable model for other people in your community.
They say nothing brings people together like a common enemy. I'm surprised no one has correlated the periods of 'good feelings' with incidence of war, at least of the ones that posed credible threats to the nation. The first polarization low immediately followed the war of 1812. From there polarization increased until WW1, at which point it abruptly halted, then plummeted through to the end of WW2.
My view is that people shouldn't be putting too much of their resources into collaboration, charity and helping their neighbors (only). Rather if they want to "do good" they should spend time and effort making the government better, more transparent, more accountable, less corrupt. A better government can better help everybody.
The Economist had an article on this is Issue last week.
Mistrust in America could sink the economy
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21726079-part-proble...
Mistrust in America could sink the economy
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21726079-part-proble...
Population density? I'd love to see a chart of these social indicators plotted against population density.
Probably has a lot to do with the rise of the suburbs.
Maybe we are just parts of other groups now, like this one, instead of trade associations and soccer clubs?
Did I miss it or did this article not mention online social networks even once?
people respond to incentives.
how have the benefits of membership in the Elks lodge or the FreeMasons (or whatever) changed since the 1970s?
how have the benefits of membership in the Elks lodge or the FreeMasons (or whatever) changed since the 1970s?
The dating market for men has become extremely difficult over the last few years (lots of factors for that), more and more men are unable to find a mate. Men are less inviting of other men from my observation as they are in deep competition with each other -- why risk having another man around when he might take your girl or reduce your chances? Apps, dating sites, clubs, and events are filled with men looking for women, don't expect them to be cooperative with you, you are their compitition.
I believe this is a factor in men becoming less cooperative.
I believe this is a factor in men becoming less cooperative.
There's a lot to unpack in that comment, and I'm not going to take a swing at much of it, except to say that you should be careful of confusing visibility with reality. Both the haves and the have nots are equipped with increasingly large megaphones (instagram, et al). Most people are regular, and guys have been "taking" other guy's girls since we were beating each other with sticks. The idea that this phenomenon is new or unnatural aims to make it easier to paint as unfair, and for the plaintiff to claim victimhood. Watch out for that. Lots of lonely guys trying to deflect blame away from their own shortcomings. It's not intellectually honest.
Anyway, I think the issue is one level up from that: Economic uncertainty in general, rather than strictly social/reproductive uncertainty. The former invites the latter.
Anyway, I think the issue is one level up from that: Economic uncertainty in general, rather than strictly social/reproductive uncertainty. The former invites the latter.
Never before could a woman open an app and literally have hundreds of men at her door within minutes (all while men struggle to get a single match). This has created such an imbalance that the women are able to reject roughly the bottom 80% of men leaving most men struggling to get the attention of the bottom 20% of women.
And yes, there are lots of men with shortcomings, physical ones, that have rendered them out of the modern dating pool whereas in the past they would have met an equivalent woman. That's no longer the case as that equivalent woman can demand a much higher quality man -- there's an unlimited supply of men to pick from.
And yes, there are lots of men with shortcomings, physical ones, that have rendered them out of the modern dating pool whereas in the past they would have met an equivalent woman. That's no longer the case as that equivalent woman can demand a much higher quality man -- there's an unlimited supply of men to pick from.
I think it is worse (and better) than it seems when you assume that your competition is other men.
It's not that you have to prove yourself better than other men; you have to prove that being with you is better than being alone.
Harder than that, you don't only have to prove yourself, you have to continue to remain better than being alone.
(I mean, I'm typing this from a male perspective, because that's what I know, and because I think that men have always had more freedom to 'opt out' than women, meaning that women having this power to 'opt out' is a relatively new phenomena, but I imagine that this cuts both ways)
Emancipation, I think, is a social good... and yes, that means we all will spend more time alone, but being alone is dramatically better, in my experience, than being in a bad relationship, even if it's dramatically worse than being in a good relationship. But maintaining a relationship is difficult, and now that most people have the option of saying "I'd rather be alone" many of them do, at least some of the time.
It's not that you have to prove yourself better than other men; you have to prove that being with you is better than being alone.
Harder than that, you don't only have to prove yourself, you have to continue to remain better than being alone.
(I mean, I'm typing this from a male perspective, because that's what I know, and because I think that men have always had more freedom to 'opt out' than women, meaning that women having this power to 'opt out' is a relatively new phenomena, but I imagine that this cuts both ways)
Emancipation, I think, is a social good... and yes, that means we all will spend more time alone, but being alone is dramatically better, in my experience, than being in a bad relationship, even if it's dramatically worse than being in a good relationship. But maintaining a relationship is difficult, and now that most people have the option of saying "I'd rather be alone" many of them do, at least some of the time.
The statistics in this article contradict what you say: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/moneybox/2015/05/sex_hist...
RickS(3)
johnny22(1)
This quote (by Bertrand Russell) stood out: "Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments. Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; and on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of individualism and personal experience that makes cooperation impossible."