Jump to content

~*Official Utterly Useless Old Woman, AOC, and UBI Thread*~


Recommended Posts

Those who gain most from the system must pay the most into the system. Small d democratic power(in our system, but government generally) is the only check on wealthly/business interests, assuming these interests have not completely subsumed a lever of power for their own will. Who gives a shit about social contracts, when you have social, political, and economic reality. Political theorizing is bunk outside of two things: might makes right; and to govern for the long term, you must have some semblance of support from the bottom up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sblfilms said:

This does not exist, all social contract ideas fall apart with the most minimal of examination.

 

Its use has always seemed to be allegory to me, so I'm not sure remarking that there isn't a literal communicated agreement is a meaningful objection to the intent of the speakers. Of course, I'm always happy to ground out allegory statements to avoid confusion or applying the idea in poor ways. In this case, I think the salient point is game theoretically there are plenty of policies that are in the interest of the population to enforce via punishment of defectors or other means. So when someone says something is "part of the social contract" they just mean its something we should be enforcing as a population for our own betterment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread was fascinating to read, right from the start. Granted, that's about a week and a half I'll never be able to get back in my life, but wow, that was fascinating to read, just to see how so many people just weren't understanding what was happening as they were living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, legend said:

 

Its use has always seemed to be allegory to me, so I'm not sure remarking that there isn't a literal communicated agreement is a meaningful objection to the intent of the speakers. Of course, I'm always happy to ground out allegory statements to avoid confusion or applying the idea in poor ways. In this case, I think the salient point is game theoretically there are plenty of policies that are in the interest of the population to enforce via punishment of defectors or other means. So when someone says something is "part of the social contract" they just mean its something we should be enforcing as a population for our own betterment.

 

Maybe people intend it as allegory, but social

 contract theory In academia certainly isn’t treated as such. Or maybe more accurately, it isn’t just allegorical. CV may indeed have been using the term as you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Maybe people intend it as allegory, but social

 contract theory In academia certainly isn’t treated as such. Or maybe more accurately, it isn’t just allegorical. CV may indeed have been using the term as you describe.

 

Fair enough. Of the non-CS academics I've collaborated with, they've been psychologists that typically use game-theoretic groundings for otherwise soft terms. I would have expected economists to be similar given the importance of game theory to that field, but I don't actually interact with that group, so I may be wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

This says more about the potential candidates than the gnd because there's not much yet that I know about the gnd other than a good brand

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline

 

Some of the details are fully off fossil fuels by 2030. Upgrading all federal buildings to be energy efficient. It also combines economic New Deal programs like Universal Health Care.

 

It's also a non-binding resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chris- said:

A whole committee to contribute to her meaningless proposal? Damn, she really wants to go all in.

Yeah, I'm for very aggressive action on carbon pollution, but this should be one of many options on the table.

 

Mind you, I like it because decarbonization will require substantial investments in transportation (read: public transit and human powered transportation, maybe some electric cars in the short to medium term) and power generation. Additionally, funding energy efficiency measures in local, state, and federal public buildings, and subsidies and support for energy efficiency for everyone, but especially for poor and lower/fixed income homes. A carbon tax and dividend are also needed to get more of the private sector moving along in decarbonization mode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Yeah, I'm for very aggressive action on carbon pollution, and this should be one of many options on the table.

 

Mind you, I like it because decarbonization will require substantial investments in transportation (read: public transit and human powered transportation, maybe some electric cars in the short to medium term) and power generation. Additionally, funding energy efficiency measures in local, state, and federal public buildings, and subsidies and support for energy efficiency for everyone, but especially for poor and lower/fixed income homes. A carbon tax and dividend are also needed to get more of the private sector moving along in decarbonization mode. 

 

I am also for aggressive action, and I love all of those ideas...But I'm not going to drink AOC's bath water and get salty because Pelosi mocked a pointless symbolic gesture.

 

Put together a real bill, pay for it through broadly popular measures (e.g. a wealth tax), make sure it doesn't add to the federal deficit, and force Congressional Republicans to oppose it. Fuck a non-binding resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of love for Pelosi will be lost when people realize she's not down for most progressive reforms, non-binding resolutions or something more real. It's been my biggest concern with her this whole time, despite her political savvy. 

 

I'm tired of the tranquilizing drug of gradualism, we need strong and effective change now on at least some of these issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...