interesting how the class structure was so similar between civilizations on the other side of the world, warriors are alongside here too
This is why every time anarcho-communists win a class warfare, organized communists groups kill them later.
Even insects and fishes have strong hierarchies.
@pernia @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets if it's a nature you recognize, you can defy it. The notion of the best ruling is perfectionist's delusion. When we are faced with a decision that must be made, but none of us knows how, we tell bob to make it. If it turns out good we praise bob, our benevolent leader, and if it turns out bad we blame bob the cruel tyrant. This is how we cope with our inability to accept our own weakness.
@pernia Your initial stance was that hierarchy is unavoidable due to nature, which was undisputed. My first statement challenged that and, as you can see, in relevant enough way for you to change your stance from unavoidable to just "better". Afterwards I went on with an elaboration of this nature you alluded to, and that, from my point of view, it has nothing to do with merit or power. Regarding my stance on the dichotomy presented, I'm skeptical of it... might turn out false... need more redpills!
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets
@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
>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.
huge essay incoming
@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
re: huge essay incoming
> 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.
re: huge essay incoming
@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
re: huge essay incoming
>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.
re: huge essay incoming
@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
re: huge essay incoming