Politics Discussion Thread February 2013

So if the ancients did want to avoid having kids…maybe they couldn’t avoid having them altogether, but they could have leaned very strongly towards having fewer and later kids, and we’d see historical evidence of that preference.

There is some evidence for such a preference in some ancient cultures during some times and places (these were rare for obvious reasons), e.g., Italians during the late Roman Empire.

Conservatives need to realize that the cultural ground has mysteriously shifted under their feet and they’re up against a huge, evolutionary novel change in social attitudes and that a handful of measly tax breaks is a ridiculously underpowered tool to prevent it. Liberals need to realize that something really powerful and strange is going on and that in the long run, there's no reason to believe that these forces are necessarily friendly to the liberal – or the human – project.

This reminds me of Calhoun's mouse universes.

I agree that something unusual is going on. Humans, unlike any other species I'm aware of, are voluntarily restricting our own population growth. But I don't know why you say that there's "no reason" to believe that this strange behavior might benefit us. Surely you can think of at least one reason? After all, all those other species that don't voluntarily limit their own reproduction eventually see their populations crash, or level off in the face of fierce competition over resources, when they meet or exceed their environment's carrying capacity. The laws of physics as we currently understand them dictate that exponential growth cannot continue forever.

I'm not saying that there are no foreseeable downsides to population leveling off. And I'm not saying that there's no risk of unforeseeable consequences of the social changes underlying this demographic shift. But I am saying that (amid all the pros and cons) there is one obvious, important reason why human population leveling off might be a good thing. The downsides are neither so obvious nor so potentially dramatic. To illustrate this, lets look at Last's (awful) WSJ article quoted in the Marginal Revolutions post.

Last does his best to paint declining fertility as a nightmare scenario. But the data he presents simply don't support his tone. For example:

Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don't invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down.

In other words, low-fertility societies do have an incentive to innovate - in medicine and life extension. And not just for the benefit of the old - they also have an incentive to keep the young healthy and productive as long as possible, to maintain their shrinking workforce (which may go some ways toward explaining Japan's excellent school nutrition program, and low, declining childhood obesity rates). They also have an incentive to develop automation to replace aging workers, which I know is a major reason that Japan is a leader in robotics. Let's take a closer look at Japan:

From 1950 to 1973, Japan's total-factor productivity—a good measure of economic dynamism—increased by an average of 5.4% per year. From 1990 to 2006, it increased by just 0.63% per year. Since 1991, Japan's rate of GDP growth has exceeded 2.5% in only four years; its annual rate of growth has averaged 1.03%.

Wait, did he just admit that Japan's economy is still growing? Yep, both GDP and GDP/capita have continued to grow, albeit more slowly, since the 1990s. Let that sink in a moment. The Japanese are, on average, working less than they used to. They're older and more likely to be retired. And yet they still get to enjoy having more stuff. (Largely thanks to innovations in automation driven, in part, by aging demographics.) And thanks to medical innovations, driven in part by aging demographics, they will continue enjoying that stuff longer than any generation before. So where's the grim cautionary tale? Last has none, just this:

At the current fertility rate, by 2100 Japan's population will be less than half what it is now.

Which would still be more than it was in 1900. So, where's the problem? Why is it preferable to keep taxing the earth's resources with more and more people with no foreseeable prospects at space colonization? On overpopulation, Last says,

First, global population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink within 60 years.

This is just unforgivably bad logic: 'Overpopulation isn't a problem, because population is leveling off, because fertility is declining. Therefore we must act immediately to put a stop to declining fertility!' If we ever do face a shrinking population, I'd rather deal with it by increasing healthy lifespans than by increasing birthrates.

Whatever happened to diminishing marginal utility of money?

It's probably not about money, but about status. There is never enough status, by definition, for an average person. Feminists taught women that having a job is high status, and taking care of children is low status.

(Of course there are also other reasons to prefer job, not only status. People may like their jobs, or at least enjoy the sense of financial security or social opportunities that jobs provide.)

Maybe jobs today are actually quite easy and pleasant, and we just have a cultural taboo against admitting it. I mean, I was surprised when I asked some people about what would they do if they luckily became millionaires and never had to go to work again. Many people responded that without a job, life would be boring. (What, they can't imagine a time-consuming hobby?) So it seems like to some degree people today have jobs to avoid boredom or existential anxiety; and they ask money only because they need to pay their expenses, and as a status symbol. This would explain why so many different jobs have similar working times and similar salaries.

And the ancients had reasonably good birth control, and were willing to use it if they really wanted to: see here.

Wikipedia doesn't say that much about the actual effectiveness of the birth control.

This seems like an odd position for someone who spends a relatively larger fraction of his LW time on politics.

Edit: Didn't mean to make it personal. Was just interested in the rationale.

Fair enough, but they do seem pretty civil thus far. I've been monitoring them to make sure they don't get out of hand, and that they don't start infecting the rest of the discussions. (There have been a couple of political-leaning topics, but no more than before, and I think maybe less.)

Incidentally, my biggest problem with these threads comes from the fact that the positions I'm most interested in hearing good arguments in opposition to, I suspect I wouldn't find any opposition on here. I'm fairly aware of the first-principles differences which result in most of my disagreements; the baffling ones are things like support of drone warfare coming from people who believe in universal healthcare. (I can see support of one, or the other, but not both at the same time. And yet people exist who do support both at the same time.)

A quick talking point is that colonial Rhodesia used to be practically a first-world country. (Is now zimbabwe). Same story for most of the third world, AFAIK.

The fact that only rich imperialist powers happen to be progressive democracies isn't much evidence; if democracy fails in 9 cases out of 10, and fails in a way that degenerates to third-world barbarism, you will see a few successful progressive democracies, and a lot of third-world hellholes. Mind you, this is not an argument for tearing down democracy, merely that it could be the case that setting up a new democracy is a bad idea (see afganistan, iraq, etc).

Further, if you accept the cynical take, realizing that you live in a brainwashing theocracy ought to affect your intuitions about what looks like "doing a pretty good job". Have you taken this into account?

These are not my opinions. Being neither a historian, political philosopher, or government employee, I am not qualified to have opinions on this subject.

Gerry Mackie's book Democracy Defended is probably the best scholarly counter-argument to Moldbug. It goes through all the usual arguments against democracy, and offers counter-counter arguments.

You would probably want to read Stephen Holmes' The Anatomy of Antiliberalism and Albert O. Hirschman's The Rhetoric of Reaction (Amazon link) as well to put Moldbug's claims in historical and rhetorical context. Holmes' book is on the history of reactionary thought, while Hirschman's is on the rhetoric that reactionaries have used through history.

Not that I think all of Moldbug's claims are bad. The idea that there is a definite connection between American Protestants and democracy is a very strong one, I think (see this paper that was linked on Moldbug's comments section that is a much better scholarly take on Protestants and democracy).

I don't actually agree with the assertion, but I can see at least one coherent way to argue it. The thinking would be:

The world is currently very prosperous due to advances in technology that are themselves a result of the interplay between Enlightenment ideals and the particular cultures of Western Europe and America in the 1600-1950 era. Democracy is essentially irrelevant to this process - the same thing would have happened under any moderately sane government, and indeed most of the West was neither democratic nor liberal (in the modern sense) during most of this time period.

The recent outbreak of peace, meanwhile, is due to two factors. Major powers rarely fight because they have nuclear weapons, which makes war insanely risky even for ruling elites. Meanwhile America has become a world-dominating superpower with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so many small regional conflicts are suppressed by the threat of American intervention.

That gets us to "democracy/liberalism" doesn't get credit for making things better. To go from there to "democracy / liberalism makes things worse" you just have to believe that modern liberal societies are oppressive in ways that plausible alternatives wouldn't be, which is somewhat plausible if your personal values conflict with liberal thinking.

In reality I suspect that the alternative histories mostly involve autocratic governments banning innovation and fighting lots of pointless wars, which is why I don't buy the argument. But the evidence that liberal democracy is better than, say, a moderately conservative republic or a constitutional monarchy, is actually pretty weak. The problem is the nice alternatives to democracy are rare, because normally a country that starts moving away from autocracy ends up falling completely into the populism attractor instead of stopping somewhere along the way.

What do you mean by "made the world a worse place"? Worse than it was before democracy and liberalism started spreading, i.e. pre-1700s? Or worse today than it would have been today if democracy and liberalism hadn't spread? The first question seems easy (we're more peaceful and prosperous than the past), the second a nearly impossible counterfactual, depending heavily on what government systems and philosophies we'd have instead.

One example I stumbled on today: from a brief reading of Wikipedia, it seems like Ethiopia was doing pretty well under Halle Selassie I, but not so great now.

A potential issue here - liberalism can be taken in very different ways. Moldbug uses the term Progressivism for the target of his criticism.

Thomas Sowell comes to mind - worse, compared to that?

In Moldbug's case, it seems to be anarchocapitalism with non geographically overlappping defense agencies. Which sounds like what we have now, except for people believing that they should have no say and exert no power against the defense agencies. As much as I find harmful in the progressive world order, I don't think that abjection toward government power would be an improvement.

.

I support the government acting as a solver of coordination and lack-of-information problems.

To reuse an example I brought up in another discussion, suppose that a company is using a chemical in some manufacturing process which is highly toxic, and that toxic chemical is making its way into the population in harmful quantities. 0.2% of the population knows about this and understands the danger, and of these, all who do not work for the company oppose the practice. The remaining 99.8% of the population has no opinion.

In such a situation, a boycott is highly unlikely to be useful (getting a boycott to work even under favorable conditions is a formidable coordination problem, and it's much worse in a situation where most of the population is unaware of the relevant information, since any attempt to raise awareness has to compete with every other source of information jockeying for the target audience's attention.) However, if the concerned parties can go to the government and say "this is the evidence that this manufacturing process is harmful, we all agree that it's too dangerous to allow," then the government can review the information and decide whether the process should be banned or not. By having a body which can engage in full time review of public concerns, the population can address more issues than if individuals had to research all the issues that might be relevant to them all the time (they have other things to do which put constraints on their time,) with a greatly reduced opportunity cost compared to every member of the public having to address all those issues for themselves.

I do not think that rights, negative or positive, are a particularly useful way of framing what the government should or should not treat as within its purview. I think that there are some ethical injunctions the government should follow against certain actions even if they may seem like good ideas at the time, when we know that there are certain things that tend to appear to be good ideas at the time and then lead to bad consequences anyway, thus warranting a policy based on the outside view. But I think that framing issues in terms of rights is a bad way to sort out what are and aren't good policies to pursue. I'm going to be the second person to reference Yvain's work here, and quote from his Non-Libertarian FAQ (rights and heuristics section)

Third, when push comes to shove the Non-Aggression Principle just isn't strong enough to solve hard problems. It usually results in a bunch of people claiming conflicting rights and judges just having to go with whatever seems intuitively best to them.

For example, a person has the right to live where he or she wants, because he or she has "a right to personal self-determination". Unless that person is a child, in which case the child has to live where his or her parents say, because...um...the parents have "a right to their child" that trumps the child's "right to personal self-determination". But what if the parents are evil and abusive and lock the child in a fetid closet with no food for two weeks? Then maybe the authorities can take the child away because...um...the child's "right to decent conditions" trumps the parents' "right to their child" even though the latter trumps the child's "right to personal self-determination"? Or maybe they can't, because there shouldn't even be authorities of that sort? Hard to tell.

Another example. I can build an ugly shed on my property, because I have a "right to control my property", even though the sight of the shed leaves my property and irritates my neighbor; my neighbor has no "right not to be irritated". Maybe I can build a ten million decibel noise-making machine on my property, but maybe not, because the noise will leave my property and disturbs neighbor; my "right to control my property" might or might not trump my neighbor's "right not to be disturbed", even though disturbed and irritated are synonyms. I definitely can't detonate a nuclear warhead on my property, because the blast wave will leave my property and incinerates my neighbor, and my neighbor apparently does have a "right not to be incinerated".

If you've ever seen people working within our current moral system trying to solve issues like these, you quickly realize that not only are they making it up as they go along based on a series of ad hoc rules, but they're so used to doing so that they no longer realize that this is undesirable or a shoddy way to handle ethics.

In general, I think that the government should act according to a decision process of "what, within the ethical injunctions we're restricted by, are the most positive impacts we can make on society, according to our best understanding of the public's preferences should they have the information available to us?"

I reject the idea that it is my duty to have political opinions. Conscription into the de-facto government is barbaric. Further, I don't have the power to tell them what to do anyways, so the question is low-value. Therefor I have no official opinion on what the GoC ought to be doing.

However, for the purposes of our entertainment in this thread, if I had a magic button that could make one small change to the government, I would require all MPs to read Yvain's consequentialism FAQ, and possibly something to kick some statistical sense into them.

The Conservative Party is already pretty good at talking the consequentialist talk, it would just be nice if they believed it too. On the other hand, they occasionally make stupid comments like "we don't make decisions based on numbers" (their excuse for scrapping the mandatory long bonus census). I'm also not sure they've got their values straight, or if they're pursuing lost purposes (they do an awful lot of selling "pieces of Canada's future" to China), and delusion (Christianity).

I'd like to question what counts as "government" here. Everything tax-supported? Only the legislature, courts, and agencies with regulatory or law-enforcement powers?

Take schooling, for instance. I see a pretty big difference between ① requiring citizens to pay taxes that fund state schools, and ② requiring kids to go to state schools instead of autodidacticism, homeschooling, or other unregulated education. Not just a difference of degree, but a qualitative one — because the latter forbids alternatives.

I think the most important task for the government is to handle oncoming automization in a good way.

The current trend with robotics and automization is fewer and fewer workers being necessary for the functioning of society. The end-point as I see it is one of two societies - either the fruits of automization are used to bribe the unemployed masses from rioting, or they're used to wall off safe places so that the people who own and run the robots don't care about riots.

Obviously, I'd much rather have the first case than the second.

There are probably lots of examples of coffee-table "damned leeches, living off my tax-dollars" conversation getting proven wrong, or at least grossly simplified, but this is probably one of the most damning examples.

There really ought to be a means of conveying information like this to the public, en masse. News outlets have stories like this on their websites, though I haven't found any live TV reports. Just imagine how any political debate down in the United States would go if every rhetorical comment and argument was shot down with articles like this, on both sides. In fact, there ought to be a repository for scientific findings that have immediate political and sociological consequences.

I approve of the government considering and honestly stating the repercussions of their actions rather than acting only on principle and disregarding what their principles do, or considering the repercussions of their actions and then lying about them for political gain.

When that occurs and when I've tried to pick through to the actual repercussions of the government policy when it far more often doesn't, then I tend to pick the government representative or policy whose repercussions I like better, bearing in mind the overall trustworthiness from the previous assessment.

This is similar to "I approve of government doing what is good" except that there is an obvious counter argument to that "What if the government doing what is good has bad reprecussions?" and I think this formulation attempts to address that.

non-exclusive enforcement of contracts
non-exclusive protection of private property
national defense
sensible redistribution which would never actually happen so I'm agin it
most importantly, none of these should be open to the democratic process

Somehow I was more surprised by the lack of "conservative," and "liberal"!

lol. Should I edit those, and if so, how?

I would say sub- 5% given a low prior for rich, well-governed nations fighting all out wars, Japan being relatively demilitarized still (and war being technically illegal), and the US having a defense commitment there.

Wait a little while and then check here.

Good question. I would say the probability is low, but the event has high expected impact (i.e. high expected number of deaths and economic losses).

I am just reciting Taleb's philosophy of history here, but it seems likely that history is dominated by events with this character (= low probability but high expected impact).

A difficult but important problem would be to rank events by expected impact.