When the men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, after signing the Declaration of Independence and during the Revolutionary War, they unanimously agreed on two conditions that needed to be protected in creating this new government.
First, they need to find a way to prevent any emperor, monarch, or other ruler from governing this country. They established a government with three branches instead of just one.
Second, power in the country would rest entirely with the citizens; they should constantly correct and oversee the government through their votes. These men created a separate branch of government where the people's representatives would vote on and supervise the other two branches; they believed this would keep power in the hands of the citizens. These two principles had to be incorporated into the design of this constitution: no rule by kings and government oversight by the citizens.
Today, we have a madman in the White House, billionaires with their money controlling Congress, two Supreme Court justices on their payroll, and they are working to reduce the voting power of citizens, so we are suffering.
Unfortunately, two conditions were beyond their understanding. If they had known about these two conditions when designing this government, they might have changed the map or the ideas in their constitution. Remember, in 1787, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was 4 million, and their western border was the Mississippi River. If they had known that their country would grow to a population of 380 million and cover a land area of 3.8 million square miles, I believe they would have put safeguards in place, such as limiting the country's territory to its current size. They were representatives of the thirteen states, aiming to control the conditions that would give them a sense of limits and control. The future expansion of this country would threaten their way of thinking, so they would limit their own growth by excluding other territories.
The next step beyond their recognition was the future existence of billionaires and MAGA organizations that would control their country with their wealth; they were not royalty or kings, but their power was such that they could force the government into submission. If they had known about this possibility, I think they would have included controlling documents in the Constitution. Even with whatever precautions they implement, we are witnessing our democratic government die, along with our way of life and our values, which are disappearing and being destroyed.
I understand that death is an ongoing process in nature; things die, leading to new growth. We are witnessing the decline of our government, marking the end of a 250-year chapter. We don't have a king ruling us, but other forces are taking control and limiting our citizens' ability to voice their opinions through votes. These changes are happening, and as a result, our government is dying. The compost of dead things can serve as fertilizer for something new.
We know one thing about our enormous, unruly, diverse, and dysfunctional states: how their size contributes to stagnation in our government, where factions clash and wait for their turn to take control and push their ideas. We see this daily and observe the variety of ideas, principles, and rules of social responsibility that have existed throughout our history. This is our compost, and we must grow from it to build a new and better government. We are aware of and accept corruption in every aspect of our lives—our government, our businesses—and consider it inevitable. If we returned control of our government to the smaller states, they could better manage corruption. Smaller states would allow for greater oversight of abuses and corruption. America, we are a land of creative thinkers, and we can use our current circumstances as compost for our future ideas.
The other flaw of Pascal's Wager (and I'd argue it's a bigger flaw) is that it depends on one particular conception of God being correct. You could spend your entire life as a devout Roman Catholic, or Hasidic Jew, or Sunni Muslim, but then if it turns out that the LDS Church was right all along (yes I'm stealing from South Park) then you're SOL anyway.
(I've seen an alternate form of the wager which posits that God seeded many religions as a test, and that the people who will be welcomed into Heaven are those who do not believe in any of them, because there is no way to tell from the evidence at hand which has the strongest truth claim; anyone uncritical enough to fall for any one particular set of religious claims is not someone God wants to spend eternity with. The winning option, therefore, is unbelief.)
Also, another remark in this article shines a light on what I think is an underappreciated part of the current crisis that the entire democratic world finds itself in: "When the regulatory state starts to look less like an obstacle to progress and more like an obstacle to you, specifically."
What I've noticed for years now, even decades, is that more and more people are taking the view that a law which disadvantages them, possibly only in the moment, even if it benefits society overall, is illegitimate. Matt Stoller recounts how this happened with antitrust and related laws decades ago: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/did-google-facebook-and-amazon-endorse More recently the rise of services like Uber and Lyft, in defiance of local taxicab regulations, or Airbnb and Vrbo, in defiance of hotel regulations, or generative AI, in defiance of copyright law, has had this same effect, making a tacit claim that a law which one sees as being against one's interest is not one which should be followed, or creatively reinterpreted to one's benefit, or at least any potential grey area in it should be exploited to maximal effect.
Once you accept the claim that a company like Uber should be able to start operating under its business model (which, to be sure, fills a market gap and offers a genuine alternative to taxicabs and public transit, and those latter may not have been in sufficient supply to meet demand anyway) without proper deliberation being done to ensure that its disruption serves the interests of society as a whole (small towns have seen their transport infrastructure devastated because of Uber and Lyft pulling service there, after bus and cab service had been reduced to make room for those companies; it turns out that outside big cities, public transport supply actually did meet demand), it becomes harder to rebut the claim that other "move fast and break things" disruptions should be paused so that proper deliberation can occur.
I've had the experience of explaining to someone in detail how Uber literally started as an illegal enterprise (its founders knew it was illegal) and deliberately impeded multiple investigations into their actions by remotely wiping servers, only to be told, in effect, that she didn't care about the rank illegality because she liked it better than the alternatives. It's hard for democratic governance to survive in the face of such casual contempt for the law.
"...anyone uncritical enough to fall for any one particular set of religious claims is not someone God wants to spend eternity with. The winning option, therefore, is unbelief" I like that. 😊I've come to see that all of our religions are like different translations of one book. Each term my students read the yoga sutras together with different translations. We had some great discussions about the vast differences we found. And that was just a single text from a single tradition.
Andreessen has always been a bit of a fraud. Eric Bina, by many accounts, did most of the significant coding for the Mosaic browser at NCSA. Andreessen is said to have stopped coding entirely after founding Netscape in 1994, an accomplishment based largely on his having been the main press contact for the Mosaic project, portraying himself as the key man. Seems he was always a "There's a sucker born every minute" kind of American -- a venerable type, to be sure.
The concept that “I have seen good, not just my idea based on a reflection of good” is a proposition. To put in terms that Andreesson should understand, the answer to whether this proposition is true is not computable. It requires faith, not logic. Some people are more disposed to faith than others. Those people generally believe in God. I find it hard to believe that any sizeable fraction of them, never mind a majority, will replace their faith God with faith in Tech Bros.
Aside from using (economic) force, the only way Tech Oligarchs could move people to their side would be to convince people that they represent God. This worked for Trump via the Evangelicals, but Trump courted them. I don’t see Tech Oligarchs courting faith leaders. In fact, Thiel is busy alienating the Vatican.
The most likely outcome of the Tech Oligarch antics is widespread political and economic destabilization, which will lead to unpredictable outcomes. These outcomes will not automatically be optimal for the current Oligarchs or for anyone else for that matter. I think we all need to “strap in.”
Marc has made a career out of mistaking good fortune for wisdom, and now, for a mandate.
SOMETHING IS DYING
When the men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, after signing the Declaration of Independence and during the Revolutionary War, they unanimously agreed on two conditions that needed to be protected in creating this new government.
First, they need to find a way to prevent any emperor, monarch, or other ruler from governing this country. They established a government with three branches instead of just one.
Second, power in the country would rest entirely with the citizens; they should constantly correct and oversee the government through their votes. These men created a separate branch of government where the people's representatives would vote on and supervise the other two branches; they believed this would keep power in the hands of the citizens. These two principles had to be incorporated into the design of this constitution: no rule by kings and government oversight by the citizens.
Today, we have a madman in the White House, billionaires with their money controlling Congress, two Supreme Court justices on their payroll, and they are working to reduce the voting power of citizens, so we are suffering.
Unfortunately, two conditions were beyond their understanding. If they had known about these two conditions when designing this government, they might have changed the map or the ideas in their constitution. Remember, in 1787, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was 4 million, and their western border was the Mississippi River. If they had known that their country would grow to a population of 380 million and cover a land area of 3.8 million square miles, I believe they would have put safeguards in place, such as limiting the country's territory to its current size. They were representatives of the thirteen states, aiming to control the conditions that would give them a sense of limits and control. The future expansion of this country would threaten their way of thinking, so they would limit their own growth by excluding other territories.
The next step beyond their recognition was the future existence of billionaires and MAGA organizations that would control their country with their wealth; they were not royalty or kings, but their power was such that they could force the government into submission. If they had known about this possibility, I think they would have included controlling documents in the Constitution. Even with whatever precautions they implement, we are witnessing our democratic government die, along with our way of life and our values, which are disappearing and being destroyed.
I understand that death is an ongoing process in nature; things die, leading to new growth. We are witnessing the decline of our government, marking the end of a 250-year chapter. We don't have a king ruling us, but other forces are taking control and limiting our citizens' ability to voice their opinions through votes. These changes are happening, and as a result, our government is dying. The compost of dead things can serve as fertilizer for something new.
We know one thing about our enormous, unruly, diverse, and dysfunctional states: how their size contributes to stagnation in our government, where factions clash and wait for their turn to take control and push their ideas. We see this daily and observe the variety of ideas, principles, and rules of social responsibility that have existed throughout our history. This is our compost, and we must grow from it to build a new and better government. We are aware of and accept corruption in every aspect of our lives—our government, our businesses—and consider it inevitable. If we returned control of our government to the smaller states, they could better manage corruption. Smaller states would allow for greater oversight of abuses and corruption. America, we are a land of creative thinkers, and we can use our current circumstances as compost for our future ideas.
Stated Beautifully and Precisely.
Thanks Offering to you, Mr. Brock.
"Never follow people who are afraid of their own natural deaths" - This!
The other flaw of Pascal's Wager (and I'd argue it's a bigger flaw) is that it depends on one particular conception of God being correct. You could spend your entire life as a devout Roman Catholic, or Hasidic Jew, or Sunni Muslim, but then if it turns out that the LDS Church was right all along (yes I'm stealing from South Park) then you're SOL anyway.
(I've seen an alternate form of the wager which posits that God seeded many religions as a test, and that the people who will be welcomed into Heaven are those who do not believe in any of them, because there is no way to tell from the evidence at hand which has the strongest truth claim; anyone uncritical enough to fall for any one particular set of religious claims is not someone God wants to spend eternity with. The winning option, therefore, is unbelief.)
Also, another remark in this article shines a light on what I think is an underappreciated part of the current crisis that the entire democratic world finds itself in: "When the regulatory state starts to look less like an obstacle to progress and more like an obstacle to you, specifically."
What I've noticed for years now, even decades, is that more and more people are taking the view that a law which disadvantages them, possibly only in the moment, even if it benefits society overall, is illegitimate. Matt Stoller recounts how this happened with antitrust and related laws decades ago: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/did-google-facebook-and-amazon-endorse More recently the rise of services like Uber and Lyft, in defiance of local taxicab regulations, or Airbnb and Vrbo, in defiance of hotel regulations, or generative AI, in defiance of copyright law, has had this same effect, making a tacit claim that a law which one sees as being against one's interest is not one which should be followed, or creatively reinterpreted to one's benefit, or at least any potential grey area in it should be exploited to maximal effect.
Once you accept the claim that a company like Uber should be able to start operating under its business model (which, to be sure, fills a market gap and offers a genuine alternative to taxicabs and public transit, and those latter may not have been in sufficient supply to meet demand anyway) without proper deliberation being done to ensure that its disruption serves the interests of society as a whole (small towns have seen their transport infrastructure devastated because of Uber and Lyft pulling service there, after bus and cab service had been reduced to make room for those companies; it turns out that outside big cities, public transport supply actually did meet demand), it becomes harder to rebut the claim that other "move fast and break things" disruptions should be paused so that proper deliberation can occur.
I've had the experience of explaining to someone in detail how Uber literally started as an illegal enterprise (its founders knew it was illegal) and deliberately impeded multiple investigations into their actions by remotely wiping servers, only to be told, in effect, that she didn't care about the rank illegality because she liked it better than the alternatives. It's hard for democratic governance to survive in the face of such casual contempt for the law.
"...anyone uncritical enough to fall for any one particular set of religious claims is not someone God wants to spend eternity with. The winning option, therefore, is unbelief" I like that. 😊I've come to see that all of our religions are like different translations of one book. Each term my students read the yoga sutras together with different translations. We had some great discussions about the vast differences we found. And that was just a single text from a single tradition.
"Rent-seeking dressed in a toga."
1. No discussion with rent-seeking is complete without addressing rent wastage (eg winners curse). I predict multiple busted accelerationists.
2. Togas were worn by the vulgarians, the linguistic ancestors of the people who call Chi "eks."
Andreessen has always been a bit of a fraud. Eric Bina, by many accounts, did most of the significant coding for the Mosaic browser at NCSA. Andreessen is said to have stopped coding entirely after founding Netscape in 1994, an accomplishment based largely on his having been the main press contact for the Mosaic project, portraying himself as the key man. Seems he was always a "There's a sucker born every minute" kind of American -- a venerable type, to be sure.
“This one promises it to the cap table.” Did you mean to say “cap able”? (Wordplay on those having “capital.”)
No. I meant cap table.
Then I don’t get it. Can you explain?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalization-table.asp
Thanks. 40 years in finance and never heard the term. Glaring omission.
Capitalization table.
The concept that “I have seen good, not just my idea based on a reflection of good” is a proposition. To put in terms that Andreesson should understand, the answer to whether this proposition is true is not computable. It requires faith, not logic. Some people are more disposed to faith than others. Those people generally believe in God. I find it hard to believe that any sizeable fraction of them, never mind a majority, will replace their faith God with faith in Tech Bros.
Aside from using (economic) force, the only way Tech Oligarchs could move people to their side would be to convince people that they represent God. This worked for Trump via the Evangelicals, but Trump courted them. I don’t see Tech Oligarchs courting faith leaders. In fact, Thiel is busy alienating the Vatican.
The most likely outcome of the Tech Oligarch antics is widespread political and economic destabilization, which will lead to unpredictable outcomes. These outcomes will not automatically be optimal for the current Oligarchs or for anyone else for that matter. I think we all need to “strap in.”
..."This is the self-conception. This is what is being offered."... Sounds more like 'self-deception' to me.