Recall that in Neocameralism/Patchwork CEOs are under plausibly tight control to ensure profit maximization. You are using loaded terminology. Your argument is much better if you talk about profit maximizations not necessarily being as benign as imagined in a transhuman world rather than importing connotations of alpha apes doing anything they want and this ending badly.
+Tyrants are known to enjoy domination and torture of subjects even at cost to themselves (e.g. Hitler, Mussolini, the Kims, Pinochet or the various post-soviet dictators).
Disappointed you would do this. Down voted.
Note that Moldbug spins some long, unlikely, hyper-Functionalist story somewhere on UR—as an attempt to juggle the Holocaust into a different reference class, maybe?
Oh come on. Pot calling kettle black. You kind of do stuff like that all the time my friend. Without linking to the actual article related to this (which I don’t recall) is from a consequentalist view of communication nothing but a boo light.
Recall that in Neocameralism/Patchwork CEOs are under plausibly tight control to ensure profit maximization.
And? So someone can quite legally buy/acquire all the shares of a patch and order the CEO to do fucking anything, not just “maximize cash flow”. Doesn’t even have to be a single shareholder. What if the shareholders desire control over their property, huh—who’s gonna stop them then? The CEO? What if they promise the CEO a cushy deal?
Of course there would probably be more “rational” slave camps on average than “sadistic” ones. I’m going for the worst case scenarios here simply because… why shouldn’t I? I see zero evidence that, among a million patches, the worst cases would never ever arise once.
Psychopaths/sadists have amassed capital before, they have amassed influence before, they have gained partners’ trust before. Why wouldn’t they be able to exchange those for total+secure sovereignity within a Patchwork model?
I see zero evidence that, among a million patches, the worst cases would never ever arise once.
Looking at the real world spending of people with power and wealth and the traits these people have it seems to me that you would see many many more Dubai’s and Singapore’s than summer camps for sadists.
Why is one in a million that terrible? Its a far better track record than democracy or monarchy have… Indeed why would one in a hundred or one in ten be that horrible? Your opinion if this is an acceptable utilitarian trade and even desirable compared to modern third world misery, depend strongly on where you stand on torture vs. dust specks.
Looking at the real world spending of people with power and wealth and the traits these people have it seems to me that you would see many many more Dubai’s and Singapore’s than summer camps for sadists.
In the 20th century, in a world where democracy and human rights are actively promoted, all factors that would be missing from Moldburgia. Look at the real world behaviour of autocrats in the past.
Recall that in Neocameralism/Patchwork CEOs are under plausibly tight control to ensure profit maximization. You are using loaded terminology. Your argument is much better if you talk about profit maximizations not necessarily being as benign as imagined in a transhuman world rather than importing connotations of alpha apes doing anything they want and this ending badly.
Disappointed you would do this. Down voted.
Oh come on. Pot calling kettle black. You kind of do stuff like that all the time my friend. Without linking to the actual article related to this (which I don’t recall) is from a consequentalist view of communication nothing but a boo light.
And? So someone can quite legally buy/acquire all the shares of a patch and order the CEO to do fucking anything, not just “maximize cash flow”. Doesn’t even have to be a single shareholder. What if the shareholders desire control over their property, huh—who’s gonna stop them then? The CEO? What if they promise the CEO a cushy deal?
No one. But then don’t invoke Hitler or Kim or Stalin, invoke slave ownership.
Of course there would probably be more “rational” slave camps on average than “sadistic” ones. I’m going for the worst case scenarios here simply because… why shouldn’t I? I see zero evidence that, among a million patches, the worst cases would never ever arise once.
Psychopaths/sadists have amassed capital before, they have amassed influence before, they have gained partners’ trust before. Why wouldn’t they be able to exchange those for total+secure sovereignity within a Patchwork model?
Looking at the real world spending of people with power and wealth and the traits these people have it seems to me that you would see many many more Dubai’s and Singapore’s than summer camps for sadists.
Why is one in a million that terrible? Its a far better track record than democracy or monarchy have… Indeed why would one in a hundred or one in ten be that horrible? Your opinion if this is an acceptable utilitarian trade and even desirable compared to modern third world misery, depend strongly on where you stand on torture vs. dust specks.
In the 20th century, in a world where democracy and human rights are actively promoted, all factors that would be missing from Moldburgia. Look at the real world behaviour of autocrats in the past.