This post involves politics, but in a way that I think is sufficient to avoid mind-killing properties: it can’t be easily matched up with any party, candidate, or entrenched position, and it’s at the “meta” level.
Nevertheless, I notice some people downvoting it. I notice that the first of these downvotes was less than a minute after it was posted, which isn’t long enough to have actually read it. Is meta-politics a mind killer, too? It ought not to be.
Possible mind-killing property: you are telling people to give up on their sides. That means that no matter what people’s identities are, you’re attacking them.
For example, I feel strongly about issues such as creationism not being taught in classrooms and gay rights. I can easily imagine that someone went to harvard and got a 4.0 but is still completely “backwards” about these issues. While I happen to believe that I could make a rational argument about it, fundamentally it makes me ANGRY to hear you saying that these contentious issues that are affected by the people I vote for are unimportant, and that my opinions are not better than chance at predicting their answers accurately.
Possible mind-killing property: you are telling people to give up on their sides. That means that no matter what people’s identities are, you’re attacking them.
The reaction to this post has been completely different than what I expected, and this theory seems to explain it. An earlier, unfinished draft got better feedback—perhaps the difference is the list of examples at the end, priming thoughts of disliked candidates (whichever side of the issue those candidates took)?
I think I’ll take that out. I’m editing this paragraph
Don’t waste time talking about abortion, gun control, taxation, health care, military spending, drug laws, gay marriage, or any other contentious political issue, unless that issue is actually going to be on an upcoming ballot that you are going to vote on directly. If you’re voting on politicians, talk about the politicians themselves—their integrity, their intelligence, and their rationality. That’s what really matters, and that’s what should win your support.
to instead say
Don’t waste time arguing about issues which already have entrenched positions, with intelligent people on both sides, unless the issue is actually going to be on an upcoming ballot that you are going to vote on directly. If you’re voting on politicians, talk about the politicians themselves—their integrity, their intelligence, and their rationality. That’s what really matters, and that’s what should win your support.
That would be better; I think the phrase “with intelligent people on both sides” especially will allow people to exclude their pet issue by thinking that everyone on the other side is stupid.
I don’t think it fully solves the problem, though I think combining it with the idea of voting for parties makes it much more sensible.
As Vladimir M points out we really don’t elect people to directly exercise power. Popular issues really only are pursued when a sympathetic party has a supermajority (at least in the US). But even if that is a more useful political metaphor, selecting from two parties which both have serious flaws is unlikely to create a strong signal for rationality.
While your argument is certainly valid and interesting in terms of having political arguments I don’t think it’s sensible to use for actual voting.
At least some of those people, judging by the comments, seem to be downvoting it not because it’s about politics but because they don’t agree with your point and/or find it poorly argued. I am personally in the “don’t agree” camp, for reasons which have already been well explained by other people.
I hope not since I think it is something that is not discussed enough in general. I hope lesswrong can be a place to discuss futarchy and even ways of deciding who should be in charge that do not involve voting as such*.
I’m curious to know how controversial this article is and why.
*While unlikely to be adopted by the big countries they may be relevant for charities we set up and sea-steaders
This post involves politics, but in a way that I think is sufficient to avoid mind-killing properties: it can’t be easily matched up with any party, candidate, or entrenched position, and it’s at the “meta” level.
Nevertheless, I notice some people downvoting it. I notice that the first of these downvotes was less than a minute after it was posted, which isn’t long enough to have actually read it. Is meta-politics a mind killer, too? It ought not to be.
Possible mind-killing property: you are telling people to give up on their sides. That means that no matter what people’s identities are, you’re attacking them.
For example, I feel strongly about issues such as creationism not being taught in classrooms and gay rights. I can easily imagine that someone went to harvard and got a 4.0 but is still completely “backwards” about these issues. While I happen to believe that I could make a rational argument about it, fundamentally it makes me ANGRY to hear you saying that these contentious issues that are affected by the people I vote for are unimportant, and that my opinions are not better than chance at predicting their answers accurately.
tl;dr you’re still mind-killing pretty hard.
The reaction to this post has been completely different than what I expected, and this theory seems to explain it. An earlier, unfinished draft got better feedback—perhaps the difference is the list of examples at the end, priming thoughts of disliked candidates (whichever side of the issue those candidates took)?
I think I’ll take that out. I’m editing this paragraph
to instead say
That would be better; I think the phrase “with intelligent people on both sides” especially will allow people to exclude their pet issue by thinking that everyone on the other side is stupid.
I don’t think it fully solves the problem, though I think combining it with the idea of voting for parties makes it much more sensible.
As Vladimir M points out we really don’t elect people to directly exercise power. Popular issues really only are pursued when a sympathetic party has a supermajority (at least in the US). But even if that is a more useful political metaphor, selecting from two parties which both have serious flaws is unlikely to create a strong signal for rationality.
While your argument is certainly valid and interesting in terms of having political arguments I don’t think it’s sensible to use for actual voting.
At least some of those people, judging by the comments, seem to be downvoting it not because it’s about politics but because they don’t agree with your point and/or find it poorly argued. I am personally in the “don’t agree” camp, for reasons which have already been well explained by other people.
I hope not since I think it is something that is not discussed enough in general. I hope lesswrong can be a place to discuss futarchy and even ways of deciding who should be in charge that do not involve voting as such*.
I’m curious to know how controversial this article is and why.
*While unlikely to be adopted by the big countries they may be relevant for charities we set up and sea-steaders