Achilles

I'm 99% sure that I've already recommended The Empathy Gap by J.D. Trout to you, but just in case I haven't.... I don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing that human are awful at certain forms of reasoning. Furthermore, I don't think there's anything wrong with building systems that act like a corrective, just as someone with poor eyesight might wear glasses to see better. Most of the examples that you provide above are things that we agree on. The difference is that you use them as an argument for less government and I use them as an argument for better government. Come on, man. I know you've read Hobbes.

I feel your pain

I think it also disqualifies him from some of the post-presidential perks that come with the office.

You're attacking the analogy rather than addressing the point. The fact is that people *can* want "bad" things and sometimes the rule of law is necessary to compel them to "right action". Sometimes people needs rules that compel others from acting against them. Sometimes people need rules to compel them to act in their own best interest. So again, it's "good government or bad government". "Too far" belongs in the "bad government" bucket...but you and I would need to agree on what "too far" means. I rest my case.

lol, good joke I'll use an extreme example to make my point: a corporation can kill dozens or hundreds of people over a span of years or even decades before anyone is the wiser and people will still buy products from them. It's often government intervention that forces a change in the form of regulation. I love you, man, but all I can do is shake my head and chuckle at this one Tell me how many people it would take to put Amazon in check. Over what period of time. After how much economic damage is done. I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe this. If you want own slaves, but I don't think that you should be allowed to own slaves, then you shouldn't be compelled to act in accordance with my beliefs?

And I would argue that we're still pretty much saying the same thing, though neither one of us are operationally defining terms. Government is a tool. Like all tools, it has a function and can be used effectively in the hands of the skilled. It can also be used improperly. Key words for discussion here are "effectively", "skilled", and "improperly". We would also probably benefit from having a shared understanding of "function". Similarly, I'm guessing that you and I define "minimum government" very differently, even though we're in agreement that it's the appropriate amount of government to have. I feel comfortable speculating that "minimum" for me is "too much" for you and "minimum" for you is "not enough" for me. Because the feedback mechanisms are profoundly different. We have an institutional process that people are encouraged to participate in that is designed to keep our government accountable. What is the equivalent for corporations?

I imagine this is a bit like a fish saying that some group wants to make water a big part of its life. The debate we should be having is "good government or bad government", not "government or no government". That's one take, but not necessarily mine. They might seem incompetent because they're too interested in governing by consensus, letting idealism get in the way of strategic wins, and/or randomly shooting themselves in the foot at inopportune times.

Without context it seems that all one could possibly do is guess

That's probably fair. It's also probably fair to suggest that your take and mine are still pretty contradictory. My guess is that we both hear Democrats say "we should have universal healthcare" and I think, "you'll never get your act together enough to get that passed" and you hear, "the totalitarians are trying to control me again"

Unless there are two of them, yes

Interesting. My beef with Dems is that they tend toward incompetence. Another funny example of how the same thing looks completely different to you and I.

Supply and demand. When supply is high, value is low. Not saying we should burn books so that people care about them again, but I share your sentiment.

I hope you are right

QFE

Recently finished: Reading now:

Most people are probably quick to associate this brand of media with Alex Jones, but Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have been peddling the crazy for decades. Not just you. Not just now.

Both. Latter before the former :)

Even the Conquest presents the player with value choices that allow them to express a fair amount of agency. Act 1 is all about choosing your path. If the player is "playing evil" then I'm not sure the game is the problem. The biggest problem with Tyranny is that we didn't get parts 2 or 3.

Yeah, they're both cute. Dead wrong, but cute. Here's another one for your collection:

I don't know if consultant jokes would be as funny if more people knew how many big companies can barely keep their fingers out of their own noses.

Pretty sure I've said this before, but just in case... You should probably read this

People who confuse their worth with their things feel threatened by arguments which imply that things don't matter. Gotta get in front of a lifetime of marketing if you want to slay the beast. Step one: kill your TV Yeah, "chicken or the egg" problems are definitely frustrating. I got Juvenal's best known catch phrase ("panem et circenses") tattooed on as a constant reminder that human nature can be difficult to change.

That's fairly "present-day". I fear my beloved Walden wouldn't make the cut though

There were more things wrong with it than right with it. Cold weather was definitely a lot to ask from the audience.

That’s on the watchlist for tonight