@pernia So now it is unavoidable, but not due to nature? Just cause? I guess we're going to cite history now? Never has it ever been known before!

Regarding the grand meritocracy plan specifically: if there is a decision to be made that has no objective measure of quality, how does any sort of merit help and how do you reward it? It doesn't make any sense. "Our emperor Elon Gates Dickinson would surely know how to stop all crime! He's got to be very smart, he made all of our dicks longer! Such merit!"
And if what your fear is that merit otherwise will not be rewarded, that is unfounded. Merit is always rewarded, that's the definition of merit.

@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets what? i never said its not due to nature, i said the opposite. it is due to nature, and that's why its unavoidable.

>elon gates

also, there's specialization. if john dickinson were the best policeman, she should be the head police chief and get paid more than other policemen. if wilma johnson was the best detective, she should be the head detective, and get paid more than other detectives, etc.

>your fear is that merit won't be rewarded
you can give anyone merit and thank them, but that doesn't mean excelling at something is incentivized. for example in communism, you completely eliminate economic incentives since they create inequality. now there's no economic incentives since private property is abolished, and since the state pays for everything, no one has a reason to put effort into their work. the same would be with lain_os's retarded system: there are no incentives because there is not upwards mobility, so society will stagnate.

@pernia you did not address the nature specifically, so I thought you're dropping it now. If you recognize it you can defy it, and that is how you change it. If you don't not recognize it you can not change it either. I recognize that hunger is my nature, therefore I can change my eating habits by defying it at will. I don't necessarily eat when I'm hungry, and I may eat when I'm not hungry. I can go on a hunger strike, and I would rather die than eat others like me. Nothing you recognize as your own natural tendency is unavoidable, such is free will. Unless of course what you meant is that this nature is unrecognizable to others and you have figured it out and just need to set up an elaborate trap for all the sheeple to fall into and finally do the right thing. That wouldn't last though.

Regarding specialization. You don't reward anyone with specialized money that they can only spend in a specialized markets. The best dick elongator gets just the same as the best doctor, if not more of it. If anything you break specialization by doing that.
And that only applies to things that have objective measure of quality. Things that we have a strong conceptual grasp on and control of.

"Oh yes that chunky police chad, who's so strong and brave she's not afraid to stop an armed standoff by just just handing out bitchslaps to everyone involved, is so good we must get her out of the streets, shove her into office, and give her more money so she can retire asap". There is a reason why you usually see older people in these positions, that have no measure of quality. People assume these position because they are expected to by others. She does not want to do that, she just wants to bitchslab those mofos her whole career, maybe develop a new more effective bitchslap technique and then retire, but you tell her "nope, if you want to retire, you gotta be bob", to incentivize people to be bobs, because there is no actual speciality in it.

Good specialists seek to improve their skills and to be recognized by their peers, not abandon their speciality, become a chief and accumulate wealth. Recognition is much more valuable both subjectively and objectively. Whole economies can collapse, countries and currencies seize to exist, but the specialists will always be valued and rewarded for their service to society, in one way or the other.

I don't really know what communism is and why you bring it up. Smells like another one of those dichotomies I must press X to doubt. And @lain_os I'm challenging here even more than you, but I don't expect engagement.

@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @lain_os @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @miserablepileofsecrets
> you can defy nature

I disagree. you can try, but you still have to worry about your natural habits and desires, like wanting to fit in or eating. You can't fully escape it.

>regarding specialization

you don't seem to understand what i meant by specialization. specialization just means getting very good at something. My argument was that people that were very good at something should lead other people in their field, since they have the most experience, and should be payed the most to justify the amount of work that leading whole operations entails. This is the recognition that incentivizes people to want to do their job. I never said to give different industries some sort of different money, you made that up.

>good specialists
Getting more money for doing a job at a higher rank in an organization is part of the recognition that you say is "much more valueable". Getting more money is just a way of saying "we want you to keep doing this and we're willing to shell a lot of money for it".

>communism
i bring up communism because it is a system without economic incentives, to show how not having economic incentives can have a negative impact in a society. Economic incentives is a big part of my argument, if you've been reading.

@pernia @namark @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @orekix @sathariel You know pretty well a "ruling class" will always exist, even without money. Anarcho-Primitivists knows that very well

Money is a way to manage and distribute power without use of violence in quid pro quo

History is wise, every time Anarcho-Communists won some victory, later other communist got rid of them. Cuba/China/URSS/etc

@waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel yeah, which is why i want to ruling class to get their power through merit. democracy is just an implementation of that idea.

@pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel The reason why it's impossible to achieve a classless society, its because once no ruler exist, is pretty easy for anyone to get that power by violence one by one.

Just analyze the history of Rome from its very origins (a small tribe), and how they conquered (and slaved) a whole Europe without "evil capitalism"

@waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel true, i agree. "classless society" can't exist.

@waltercool
Hierarchy does not originate in violence. The bob must exist for you to take his power by killing him, or otherwise taking his place. And bobs existed, always, by nature.

@orekix @sathariel @pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@waltercool pernia agrees with you, but does not consider the historical argument satisfactory, except when it suits the narrative.
@orekix @sathariel @pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @waltercool @orekix @sathariel @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets what?

@pernia @namark @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @orekix @sathariel I have my difference with Pernia.

I do consider Democracy is a sh*tty political model... 4 wolves can vote to kill a sheep. And that pattern is VERY COMMON daily.

The sole benefit of Democracy, happens when you are part of the majority, or "part of the society". If you are a minority, you are really fcked up.

Late Feudalism (XIX century) was lot better on meritocracy, good inventors/scientists/soldiers had good privileges, people had mandatory education, even leaders (on semi-constitutional monarchy) received special education to rule.

Even a Republic may be good well implemented, but Democracy, hell no.

@waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel feudalism was objectively worse than democracy. there is no upwards mobility, so unless you were already rich you could be rewarded for your "merit", and if you were a noble you could do whatever you wanted to anyone below you. it sucked. atleast democracy has upwards mobility.

Also, you seem to make a differenciation between a democracy and a republic. AFAIK, most democracies are republics.

@pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel That's why I specified late Feudalism.

Most part of Feudalism was awful, specially on absolute monarchy. Just late Feudalism was "okay", and likely would persist if WW1 would never happen.

Related to Democracy/Republic, yeah, but still half of the world are Democracies but not Republic (UK, India, etc), and few countries are just a "Republic" (USA which is Federal Republic or Switzerland)

@waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel Well, but you can be a democracy and a republic, a republic is just a type of democracy. In the end, the fact that you elect officials on different levels of government means that you live in a republic, which is what happens in UK and USA and other countries.

@pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel I agree on that, but let me give you two examples of why Republic here is better than Democracy. (I'm not fan of Republic)

My country is a Democratic Republic country, so people vote and elect president.

USA is a Federal Republic, so people vote, pick their electors based on population groups, so can elect president.

Problem of Democratic Republics. Huge cities have lot of power against small cities, they can impose huge taxes/regulations they can pay/do and small cities can't.

Benefit of sole Republic: It's fair for all territory instead by mass of people.

A problem of Democracy: A majority can easy overcome constitution restrictions "if people wants it". On a Republic that's lot harder.

@waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel very fair point, and i think that has been addressed in the US. the US has a bill of rights, which prevents the mayority from infringing on the rights of a minority, as the bill of rights is above any law that the mayority might put forward. the US also has the electoral college, which gives every state the same amount of electoral votes, regarless of population. that is how trump won actually; most people voted for hillary, but trump had more electoral votes. If the US is what you refer to as a republic, then i agree, is good in that respect. what country do you come from that doesn't have those republican features?

@pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel France and mostly every country at Central//South America and some Africans, all of them based their form of government from France.

On those countries a president is mostly elected by capital cities as they concentrate most of the population. For ex. Argentina has 15M/44M at federal capital, 126k smallest region . Chile has 7M/18M just at capital city, 103k smallest region, Colombia has 23M/50M in just top 5 cities, 41k smallest region... etc.

@waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @sathariel hmm, you're right. I'm from central america and that tends to happen, where most votes come from the central provinces so they get to make most decisions. I don't think most people think about that though, which sucks

@pernia @waltercool @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel

Social mobility = constant competition = everyone's an economic unit

@amerika @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool i guess? i mean everyone exists within the market, and your skills become an asset once you start selling them. i wouldn't say people are economic units, i would say their skills are.

@pernia @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool

People selling their skills makes those people into properties.

Feudalism was the most gentle system we ever had.

@amerika @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool they are not property because they have to choice to not provide their services. its a voluntary exchange in the end. feudalism is the opposite, since serfdom made peasents the property of their lords. peasents didn't have the option to not offer their services or to offer different services, and worst of all they couldn't own land or any assets. i think you have the wrong idea on what feudalism and the free market are

@pernia @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool

Not really, because high costs mean that they MUST provide their services to someone, and their options for doing so are highly regulated.

@amerika @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool high costs aren't the same as not owning the land, crops, or animals you work with. its also very different in the sense that you have no self-determination, if you were born a peasant you stay a peasant, versus being able to persue any other career and provide services with the skills that you chose to have.

@amerika @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool also those "high costs" are greatly lowered through industrialization and competition

@waltercool @pernia @lain_os @namark @orekix @sathariel

Aristocracy produced everything that we have

Democracy just consumes it

@pernia I offered you to resort to historical argument, but you refused it. When offered the same thing by someone who agreed with your premise you were satisfied by it. @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets i probably didn't understand your phrasing then, sorry. history in the end is just a recounting of human nature following its course over time so it makes sense to me.

@pernia the phrasing was rather hostile I must admit.
I never studied history, but conceptually to me it is an obfuscated record of mistakes we made in our struggle to defy nature. Hence saying something never happened/worked before does not prove it to be impossible. I intentionally offered that resort to attack it like this.
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets well, since history is a struggle to defy nature, why defy nature? why struggle? so far it hasn't given fruits, what and does seem to give fruits are the systems closest to nature and freedoms (free market)

@pernia I guess your understanding of nature is as strange as your understanding of specialization... we defy nature because that is what makes us human. It's our whole thing.
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets that's a romantic take, made by writers who like to see themselves as above nature. in the real world, humans exist within nature, and act according to its laws. the only thing that humans have that is artificial is technology, which is what humans used to satisfy their own natural interests.

@pernia @namark @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @orekix @waltercool sorry for posting almost unrelated to the topic, but would you call a nest or an anthill "artificial" (just for name two examples)? Okay, human tech is way more complex but still obeying the laws of nature.

@sathariel @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @waltercool hmm, good question. animals create things intentionally just like humans do, like birds nests, and we generally assume those things are part of nature. I would say then that technology is as natural as an anthill. its more complex, but it is still made to satisfy an animal's (humans') needs.

@pernia What's the difference between an anthill and your bones. Are your bones artificial or is absolutely everything natural?
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets well you didn't create your bones intentionally. that's the difference. and anthill was intentionally created, just as are scythes or guns

@pernia didn't your cells create your bones just as intentionally as ants - the anthill.
This line is not drawn anywhere outside of your mind. Thoughts are only things you can call unnatural, and that is where the meaningful definition begins. That is why saying humans are not natural, or defy nature, is only meaningful thing to say. Otherwise everything is natural and the word is meaningless.
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@pernia
I might be some sort of an alien, but In my experience that is not how human nature works. The sneaky devil that will trick you is nature you don't recognize. The nature you do recognize you can defy easily if you have a reason to do so, and you do it on daily basis. So you either can't recognize this nature you speak of, and it's just a speculation, or you defy it.

I guess I also did not understand your notion of specialization as I find it rather bizarre from your description. "Getting good at a particular thing" sound about right, but the rest seems just nonsensical. By your logic bill gates is the best programmer who ever lived, and the ultimate goal of every profession is ownership of wealth. My specialized money idea was just my attempt at somehow salvage this train wreck, so that if you are in some specific business, you only get a say in that business and not in arbitrary others. I also don't understand how experience with a specific profession helps lead people. You need to have a clue yes, but you mustn't be most experienced, that is just clearly not true, best professionals rarely want to abandon their profession for a leadership role. Are you confusing leadership with mentorship perhaps?

When I get my salary I don't feel any recognition what so ever. I would feel a lot of it however if my contribution was accepted to gnu's implementation of c++ standard library, which entails no monetary compensation. More money = recognition is only true in your proposed bizarro world, where money is everything apparently.

"We want you too keep doing this, here is more money" doesn't work. You can't just throw money at every problem and consider it solved. If my incentive is money I will stop doing what I was doing once I get enough, or if I know that you will give me money regardless (see the degeneracy of proprietary software industry). If it wasn't money, then it doesn't matter how much you throw at me, past certain amount that I can spend.

@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets i guess we ultimately disagree on nature, so im gonna stop discussing that point

>bill gates example
bill gates was a good programmer, but he was also a businessman and managed to generate profit from his programs. the market rewarded his efforts in creating and marketing a product that people used. In that case, he was able to fulfill various roles, which is what entrepeneurs do. after his company became big, he went from programming to administration, and just payed someone else to program. The programmer bill gates hired was more specialized in programming, while bill gates became more specialized in administration. they are doing very different things for the same company, and because they are working on the same company, the company gets more money. Within the company, the programmer gets rewarded with money for doing the job they're best at, and bill gates rewards himself by being a good administrator. The company gets the money for rewards within it from the money that the market rewarded it.

You're right, i meant mentorship rather than leadership.

>monetary incentive
I think you personally prefer recognition in a community rather than money, which is why you don't see money as that important. in software, this is more normal, since free software is great, but in other industries its not. Most people will not work a job if they are not payed. Most doctors, lawyers, and engineers will not work for free like free software programmers will. This is probably because software is a digital thing you can infinately share, while things like heart transplants or physical machines are not, so doing/creating those finite things for free is less rewarding.

@pernia first he specialized at programming, then at marketing, then at HR, then at mentoring(without even being that good at anything specifically), then at patent and copyright trolling, then at sitting on his ass doing nothing waiting for the next fad to throw money at... then at virology? You call that specialization? It goes against the very principle. Why did he become administrator and hire a programmer, and not stay a programmer and hire an administrator? Well that's just incomprehensible isn't it to our puny monkey brains, "first I slave, then I master", that's all that can fit apparently.

I brought up programming as an example, cause I specialize in it, but I don't think other specialization are much different. I didn't mean to present this contribution thing as altruistic, the point isn't that the project is open source, but that it is an established standard of quality worked on by many experts. You want to be recognized by your peers as an expert, make a meaningful contribution in the specific field, not just make more money. Even to laymen you always strive to explain you specific nuance, by bringing up (mostly futile) analogies. I think most specialist would agree, and those who wouldn't are probably opportunists.

@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets entrepeneurs can't do one thing only. he specialized in programing, but then he did other things to try and advance his company. that he did those different things doesn't mean that he specialized in them necessarily. after programming took too much work, he decided to focus on administration, once his empire was establised. but yeah, i guess entrepeneurs are the exception as far as especialization goes, since they do many things at once.