236
let 'er rip
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
236 points (92.8% liked)
Bikini Bottom Twitter
3520 readers
292 users here now
Are ya ready kids?!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Actual direct conspiracy is usually not necessary to achieve the outcomes of most nefarious things people worry about. Two rich people which both want to protect their own wealth can look at each other and their respective actions and then take next steps working to protect their wealth without ever talking to each other and get basically the same outcomes as if they had coordinated. Shared interests and a reasonable understanding of the likely outcomes of choices can be almost as good as direct conspiracy.
It's not collusion, it's game theory. So you can't arrest me.
I get beat up every time I post something like this. Almost every nasty thing we see in the world is a simple case of an individual or group working towards their own best interests.
But why then do people do shitty things that they have to know will hurt someone? It's not that they're evil, they just don't care if you're not in their Monkeysphere.
Can't think of anything I've read that puts this together so well. Yeah, I know, cracked.com. Give it a spin, it really changed my thinking about the world. (It's old so the formatting in kinda hosed up.)
https://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
I read the article. It was entertaining, and there's definitely a lot of truth in what they write, but I found the whole thing to be, very ironically, over simplified. I think what bothers me the most is the author assumes/implies that human empathy does not extend beyond our line of sight. As if it's impossible for me to be considerate towards people I don't know. Which is complete bullshit. Their arguments seem to assume that a general sense of morality does not exist amongst people.
I, personally, believe that most people are good and value being good. Certainly there are plenty that do not, but I believe they are the minorty. Fortunately my gripes with the article don't really discount the main point being made, it just suggests that things aren't as simple as the author tried to make it seem.
Very good point.
Remind me of a bit about the oligarchy of various families in early Rome. Even when the families disagreed with each other they never let is spill out into the lower classes. Why ruin a perfect thing?... then gracchis
That's why you need regulations: the market doesn't regulate itself.