Vosem's Ten Truths

[Vosem]

Well, I too like attention.

I initially thought about doing this as "what ten things do I believe strongly that basically no one here would agree with", but the prospect of having to defend those was bleak, so I tried to go with a bit of a medley (but skewed to politics, since this is Atlas). Thought for a while about how to phrase the religion one, and then got a few other good truths by bouncing off of that. Hope you enjoy.

[MasterJedi]

You need to go touch grass, and be forced out of your rich bubble into the real world.

[DavidB.]

Voted for 1 (obviously) and all of 3-7. Agreeing with some of those makes me realize how much of a libertarian I still am, in some ways. Disagreeing with some of the others also shows me the limits of this.

[Aurelius2]

1. If I said no to this that would be a sign something is deeply wrong. Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad!

2. Obviously.

3. Yeah, pretty much, that plus a shltload of privately owned firearms.

4. While a useful first principle, it is not absolute. For instance, people absolutely do not have an absolute right to inject themselves with fentanyl. Voted no.

5. Sometimes helps, often hurts, often orthogonal. Voted no.

6. Yeah, usually. There are exceptions but in the world of business it's very accurate.

7. No. Short term interests often differ from long term interests.

8. Hard no. Materialism is a very shallow way to look at history. They *can* be caused by this but it is certainly not some iron law. There are usually other causes.

9. Yeah, pretty much, and even while vigorously suppressed, such as under communist regimes, it often manages to establish itself simply because communism is so counter to human nature and basic sanity; capitalism is not.

10. Life is better now (higher material standards, better medical care, kids don't die en masse from colds and flus) but it has gotten less joyful (loneliness is through the roof, mental illness has reached record highs, deaths of despair are rising). Voted no.

[Aurelius2]

How on earth is #2 getting only 1/3 of the vote on Atlas of all places?

[Vosem]

How on earth is #2 getting only 1/3 of the vote?

Well, I only voted for #12, so it's actually at 4/9, not 1/3. Still a very strange one, though.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Only the first one

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

2, 4, 6, 10

5. Really depends on the timeframe and on a case-by-case basis.
8. Ethnic tensions are often exacerbated by redistribution, but arise organically.

[Xing]

2 is a clear agreement for me. While I voted for 4 as well, I think it requires the caveat of their actions not negatively impacting others. 10 depends on the reference point. If we’re talking about the Middle Ages, then obviously yes. If we’re talking about 2019, then it’s a hard no, at least for now. Not sure what to make of 9. It seems impossible to prove in absolute terms.

[John Dule]

Everything but 1 and 8.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

2, 4 (where it doesn't affect others), generally but not absolutely (and with the potential of getting much worse) 10

[Antonio the Sixth]

2, 3 (choosing to interpret this as philosophical individualism rather than rank selfishness) and 10

[T'Chenka]

2 seulement

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I'm curious as to how you'd elaborate on #8: Do you mean this as redistributive policies are a cause of ethnic tensions, or that ethnic tensions are only caused by redistributive policies? (Voted AOTA)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs are gonna lose again in 2024 sorry to tell you it's a 303/111 map with AZ and GA  gone for Rs and OH, NC, FL, TX and FL as wave insurance and Obama and Biden win them in 2008/12

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I did not "agree" with #8, but given your background and resulting likely samples, I can certainly understand where it came from.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Fighting inequality exacerbated poverty plse why do you say this we African American are Native American and I can't get my Native American Choctaw Reparations because it cost 2K to get my slavery roots, and my cuz the samething that's why we deserve reparations Native Americans get  it and Latinos intermarry with Indians, in SF they do and they know their ancestors already because they are direct descendants and most blks like myself are Creole from slavery


Latinos and whites are Apache and Navajo and get 3o K and blks are Chocktaw and get less than 10 K that's why Blks need reparations it's gonna be more like 30 K than 5M it won't exacerbated poverty, I can go back to school and get a car or something else on 30 K

That's why Shawn Wilson has a chance in LA G blks aren't all blk we are Creole French and Indian, Jamaican but that's not Indian, my father is French and Indian Creole , I could be an indirect descendant of WEB Dubois

Hispaniola is Haiti  French and Indian and Dominican is Aztec or Mayan and blk


Guess  who passed immigration reform, reparations for Japanese and Native American and an increase on the cap on SSDI Which meant a higher tax on wealthy RonKd Reagan, that's why Wayne Newton is a Reagan Republican he was there in 1986 Newton is Native American that got reparations to build Casinos in Vegas

[Dr. MB]

1. not particularly sure
2. for the most part, yeah, but I don't extend that to beliefs over human nature such as evolutionary psychology
3. individualism can harbor authoritarianism just as much as collectivism can, especially when this attitude is brought to the workplace
4. again, yeah pretty much
5. Wrong
6. only true in a system based on profits
7. absolutely not
8. stupid
9. as an idea yes, but you could say the same about practically any ideology; as a system, no
10. to some extent yes, to another extent no

[Vosem]

I'm curious as to how you'd elaborate on #8: Do you mean this as redistributive policies are a cause of ethnic tensions, or that ethnic tensions are only caused by redistributive policies? (Voted AOTA)

Sure: my meaning is that in developed, industrialized countries, ethnic tensions are usually exacerbated by the presence of significant redistributive policies, which feed into 'us vs. them' dynamics, and are usually ameliorated by these policies' absence. Thus, you can observe phenomena like the Soviet Union (in many places) and Yugoslavia devolving into bloody race wars, but the relatively capitalist US passing a Civil Rights Act. Similarly, modern European countries usually have more pronounced ethnic tensions (consider policies towards Roma, forced assimilation of Muslims in Scandinavia, and so on) than the US does, notwithstanding rhetoric. (If I were to be edgy I might list Israel here as an example of a country with developed redistributive policies and significant ethnic tensions).

There's a significant lag, though, I think. Once people become used to the presence of redistributive policies they will come to see their repeal in the light of hurting some particular ethnicity (you can read any of Badger's posts for this perspective), not in the light of helping everyone.

Ethnic tensions are not only caused by redistributive policies; they are incredibly ancient and probably date to before behavioral modernity. In the modern world, though, their levels are most importantly modulated by redistributive policies.

(Someone might ask -- Vosem, you seem to think that virtually all bad things are downstream of redistributive policies, and virtually all good things downstream of their absence? This is a fair observation, but I tend to think many good outcomes, like wealth, health, individualism, and harmony, tend to be correlated, as are many bad outcomes. This is perhaps a perspective imported from genetics, where 'spelling errors' at a particular locus will tend to make all systems work a little worse. But I think it is fair to say that redistributive policies make pretty much everything worse.)

Guess  who passed immigration reform, reparations for Japanese and Native American and an increase on the cap on SSDI Which meant a higher tax on wealthy RonKd Reagan, that's why Wayne Newton is a Reagan Republican he was there in 1986 Newton is Native American that got reparations to build Casinos in Vegas

Well, taxes fell overall, and 'reparations' coming in the form of deregulation (or coming in the form of compensation for victims of very concrete crimes) are definitely good. I think immigration reform made sense in the context of the 1980s, too. Reagan was far from perfect and, as a democratic leader, he obviously had to work within the constraints of the system, but he nevertheless accomplished a very remarkable amount of good. I think Reagan was the most recent President (maybe GHWB; I lean no, but maybe) to leave a healthier political culture than he inherited, even if some of his successors achieved other kinds of success.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

1: Wasn't sure how to vote on this as a Christian, but I checked the box anyway.

2: Agree.

3: Not necessarily.

4: Generally, yes.

5: No.

6: No.

7: Yeah, I think so. All humans have the same need for survival. While we differ on how those materials should be distributed, I don't think it would make sense to suggest those needs are different.

8: Hahaha. No.

9: I don't view capitalism as something to be "destroyed" so much as evolved from. I feel like a 12th century-version of this poll could say "Feudalism can be suppressed, but once introduced it can never be destroyed." "Capitalism" as we know it could look very different in a few decades.

10: Generally, yes. But as with all good things there is a cost, and in this case it's the environmental damage incurred from, well, capitalism.

Agree: 1, 2, 4, 7, 10
Disagree: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9

50/50 ain't bad.

[Vosem]

9: I don't view capitalism as something to be "destroyed" so much as evolved from. I feel like a 12th century-version of this poll could say "Feudalism can be suppressed, but once introduced it can never be destroyed." "Capitalism" as we know it could look very different in a few decades.

For definitions of 'feudalism' as expansive as my definition of 'capitalism', they wouldn't really be wrong. (And, yes, of course 'capitalism' changes even over the course of decades; what I mean here is something like 'interpersonal relations motivated chiefly by monetary gain', as opposed to some particular model of 19th-century industrialism. I think this is how it is usually used today, but this is not an incredibly Marxian definition.)

1: Wasn't sure how to vote on this as a Christian, but I checked the box anyway.

Mark 12:29!