I found that article on Enough with this Basic Income Bullshit an interesting read. I had to wonder why he capitalized Entrepreneur, as if it were Realtor, or some other nonsensical social climbing, but I agree that the system will need major overhauls. He is not alone in believing this, given all the “end of capitalism” writings we see.
Pamela > On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > > glen - > > >> As usual, I ignore all the places where we agree and emphasize the >> disagreements ... because life is more fun that way. 8^) > I understand that... though it IS my habit to acknowledge the things I agree > on to more starkly expose the ones I don't (or at least I try to do that). >> >> I'm not sure when it happened. But at some point I began to buy the idea >> that politics is deeply embedded in everything. I think it started when I >> moved to the bay area and heard people (constantly) say things like "that's >> just politics" ... implying that whatever they were talking about was >> somehow not politics. > This is very much the Glen I know... a particular subdiscipline of > contrarianism? >> This article reinforced my position just this morning: >> >> Enough With This Basic Income Bullshit >> https://salon.thefamily.co/enough-with-this-basic-income-bullshit-a6bc92e8286b#.1xcadg3vf >> > I'm reading it now, though the rich hyperlinking to interesting side topics > and references is causing some intellectual ablation! I've come to > recognize something like a "0th world problem" which are issues that are even > more abstract and relatively empty than "1st world problems"... That is > what I'd call my experience with this rich offering you made. thefamily.co > is all new to me BTW... thanks for that too! >> >> As a result, I began following all the politics I could stomach as closely >> as my [in]competence would allow. >> >>> Though I think gay (LGBTQZedOmega) and reproduction rights would have been >>> retarded and a few (other) conservative Xtian rights would have been >>> advanced differently but... >> >> Maybe. I resist our "great person" >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory) tendencies wherever I find >> them, though. It's reasonable to speculate that Obama had much less to do >> with those advances than we might think. > I agree with dismissing the GPT in first order effects, but I think there are > many second order effects which are much more significant. Sure jOeBama > couldn't pull us out of Iraq/Afghanistan or shutter Gitmo or ... and ... the > way we thought he would/could/should... and we can postulate reasons and > excuses until the cows come home for that. My point about the things that > *were* achieved under his watch and the *different* ones to have likely been > achieved under a Wealthy/Conservative/Mormon Romney relates to the spirit of > the community. An unfortunate example might be the current focus on police > abuse, particularly in urban african-american communities. I think the > minimal empowerment of having our first black president may have lead both to > the popular pushback against the abuses and possibly even generated more > abuses? Under our first female president, I think we will likely see some > significant shifts in gender issues, not necessarily because Hillary is a > "Great Woman" who would single handedly "lead us forward", but just because > of the social tenor set by her rise to the top of our political game. >> But it's also dangerous to argue that some event/process would have >> happened regardless. That's a typical flaw of my libertarian friends who'll >> claim that advances like artificial hearts or whatnot, despite being >> government funded, would have emerged even without government funding. >> Criticalities (like "great people") probably do play some/much role in >> some/many cases. I'm simply skeptical that we can tease out which cases. > I think this is an acute example of the things dual/hybrid models which > include both discrete (particle, agent, etc) and continuous (field, patch, > etc.). I am hypothesizing that the individual (great person) does less in > their direct role, exercising their personal/professional agency than they do > by setting a tone, representing an ideal... and that doesn't just include > their sycophantic followers, it includes their vitriolic opponents as well... > those who "rise up against". I think a good deal of our gridlock in the > government was a reaction to Obama both as a black man and as a (presumed) > liberal, more than anything he specifically did or did not do. >> >>>> In short, this game has absolutely nothing to do with the >>>> idealistic system(s) framing Arrow's or Condorcet's propositions. And >>>> that may partially explain why markets would be more robust predictors. >>> >>> Excepting, I would contend that "this game" is *shaped* by the lack of >>> viable paths to successful 3rd party intrusions INTO the game. >> >> Well, good games, games that I find _fun_, anyway, are always >> co-evolutionary with implicit objective functions. Boring games are those >> with unambiguous rules, zero-sum outcomes, etc. Were I to run for a large >> office (or participate on the campaign of someone running), I'd regard the >> viable paths as part of the game, not isolable merely as the context of the >> game. > I am not arguing against the strategies of the two major parties or their > candidates. I understand why they want to keep the game defined for their > own purposes. I also understand why the wannabes wanna change the game up. > What is more puzzling to me is why/how "we the people" can continue to > *pretend* we are unhappy with the status quo while all but *citing* the > status quo as the motivation for our behaviour? "I HATE our polarized two > party system but I won't even LOOK at the third parties because THEY are not > viable in our current context!" What? How will they ever BECOME viable if > you won't give them any consideration? For me, this moment of clear and > extreme disaffection with the party in the first part and the party in the > second part, is the perfect opportunity to make some inroads into the very > change we *claim* we want. Oh well. >> >> Perhaps this is why, during near-drunken argumentation, people always accuse >> me of private definitions and "moving the goal posts". 8^) Who says I can't >> move the goal posts? What game were _you_ playing? > I have played a variant of battleship where each player is allowed to move > one ship after each salvo from the other player. It is at least as > interesting as the original. >> >> Yes, I would have thought this directly in the camp of "applied complexity". >> I have a friend working on election security: http://freeandfair.us/ But >> that work is too "close to the metal" for me, I guess. I'd prefer a systems >> engineering project experimenting on geopolitical systems in general. I >> imagine there are lots of people doing that work, breathing stale air in >> faraday cages peppered around the country housed in various nondescript >> buildings. > Oddly, NM is a great place for faraday cages without stale air! As you may > guess, contemporary adobe structures make pretty fair faraday cages... at > least if they have stucco netting (or better yet expanded metal > plaster-lathe) and metal (rather than nylon) window-screens... just make sure > the two are well connected (stucco net and window screens) and the embedding > in the adobe on a foundation makes a pretty good ground. By having lots of > thermal mass (adobe, preferably double) you can leave the windows open and > solve the stale air problem. > > I haven't done careful analysis or research, so the density of stucco netting > might not be fine enough to handle all frequencies, but it sure does work > well to attentuate/absorb wifi, bluetooth and cellular signals! I'm doing a > pilot project in a small farmstead in NNM to deploy/test/prototype a > village-telco mesh and I'm *very* thankful that the window screens are nylon > (and NOT electrically connected to the stucco mesh)... on most of the > buildings... > > People unfamiliar with NM architecture would call most of our farmhouses > "nondescript". > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
