You’re more than welcome to disagree with the premise (“Planning law is not designed in principle to protect public goods”). I wanted to avoid opening a dispute about whether planning law is good at doing this or even can achieve it in practice—essentially the arguments from the Abundance movement—because I don’t think it’s an effective path (surfaces cruxes?) in the conversation.
It would be very easy to get in long drawn-out discussion about the ideas from Abundance movement which takes the focus away from AI 2040 and towards modern politics which there’s a bit of a taboo on LW anyway.
I spoke imprecisely, if one wishes to point out that actual bad effects of planning law are more important for assessing its removal than good intent, that is not technically disagreeing with the premise, merely its relevance to the conclusion.
More precisely, you have significantly restricted dissenters’ ability to discuss relevant cruxes. If you feel that political discussion on that level is or should be taboo on LW then it is poor form to raise political arguments while forbidding political replies.
Based on what you’re saying, I think you’d like to argue “Planning law leads to bad outcomes on average, therefore arcologies avoiding planning law is good”. I think this is a good argument.
If someone disagrees with the premise, you’ve made it impossible for them to dispute your conclusion. Neat trick!
You’re more than welcome to disagree with the premise (“Planning law is not designed in principle to protect public goods”). I wanted to avoid opening a dispute about whether planning law is good at doing this or even can achieve it in practice—essentially the arguments from the Abundance movement—because I don’t think it’s an effective path (surfaces cruxes?) in the conversation.
It would be very easy to get in long drawn-out discussion about the ideas from Abundance movement which takes the focus away from AI 2040 and towards modern politics which there’s a bit of a taboo on LW anyway.
I spoke imprecisely, if one wishes to point out that actual bad effects of planning law are more important for assessing its removal than good intent, that is not technically disagreeing with the premise, merely its relevance to the conclusion.
More precisely, you have significantly restricted dissenters’ ability to discuss relevant cruxes. If you feel that political discussion on that level is or should be taboo on LW then it is poor form to raise political arguments while forbidding political replies.
Based on what you’re saying, I think you’d like to argue “Planning law leads to bad outcomes on average, therefore arcologies avoiding planning law is good”. I think this is a good argument.