pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 7 Jun \ on: What's the main strength of your antagonist? AskSN
At the core of free markets and democracy is the contest of ideas.
It is a beautiful thing when it can function.
But it is a fragile thing too...easily disrupted and fractured by fear, greed and insecurity.
If we close down the contest of ideas with personal attacks and abuse instead of responding to an adversary with a reasoned retort we expose our own weakness.
Adversaries give us the opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of our contrary viewpoint.
Many of our views are based upon the bias of our past experience and cultural location so adversaries views can be useful in gaining new perspectives.
Here on SNs the Libertarian viewpoint is perhaps the loudest but there are a range of views and sometimes some decent reasoned debate- certainly more than occurs on most social media.
The Libertarian view has the strength of being simple and uncomplicated- it is pro market and anti government.
It champions individual liberty and freedom(good things) , ignoring that to some extend our individual freedoms depend upon the strength and security of the nation state we are citizens of.
I have been called a Chinese bot, statist and government agent, because I do not agree free enterprise is the only factor in a strong and prosperous economy- I contend that government is to some degree an inescapable consequence of human nature and our need to work collectively to some extent to provide the best framework free enterprise and society in general to prosper, while protecting our wealth from others who would seize it given the opportunity,- ie I advocate a mixed economy and one where government is seen as essential, but also one where government must be regulated by an active and involved population who fight against the eternal tendency for vested interests to lobby and infiltrate government to advance their interests over those of the wider population.
The name-calling isn't cool. Kudos to you for sticking around despite it - I mean that. Flip-side: if people go through the trouble of doing that to you, at least you're doing something right, but probably not everything ;-)
I'll admit though: I don't read every single comment of yours because they feel a bit repetitive sometimes. I often stop reading those where you start with "USA already failed" or "China already won". I don't mind hearing and thinking about your perspective at all, but I know that this is your analysis for a while now so it doesn't add much new perspective when you repeat it.
But also, one of the - what I believe to be - underlying principles that you raise regarding China confirms one of the issues I still have with the "Bitcoin standard" narrative today: when facing a powerful outside collective - be it a nation or a huge corporation- defending that standard can potentially be very costly. I'm since 2.5 years reading as many biographies from government leaders around the world from 1950-1970, to try and get a glimpse of their thoughts and actions around the gold standard (as that's the closest comparison I can think of) and thus far it looks like the combination of printing "alt coins" and ever shrinking fractional reserves of the USD is what killed it - but I'm not done yet because finding translations is hard, so my opinion is premature.
I did think that the discussions in #997414 and #998112 were going pretty well - when ignoring the ad hominem and other attacks that weren't based on the actual text your wrote - because that triggered more diverse viewpoints than I expected there would be (though the median is still "it'll be sorted out" by my count.) That was a great contribution and it was awesome that 0285 picked it up that way.
It helps when the topic is non-ideological, I think, because you can't really argue someone into your views when it comes to ideology. People adopt ideologies mostly from experience, bad experience in particular. I also believe that this is why politicians always fud, lie and overpromise.
reply
I feel fortunate to have been raised in a fairly open minded family where it was ok, even encouraged to consider discuss and debate different viewpoints. My parents would constantly consider, question and sometimes change their religious, political and cultural views. It was fascinating and interesting to observe and participate.
So I learned that it was safe to engage in a contest of ideas and challenge/question others on their ideology, but have learned in life that not everyone had the same childhood experience and that for many people to engage in debate over ideologies is a dangerous scary thing to do. We can think of not just families but entire nations where to question the orthodoxy is to risk your own safety if not life.
But I still enjoy debate and the contest of ideas and probably to some extent inevitably provoke some hostility and personal attacks- and while they are disappointing can understand they are often about a respondents limited ability to feel safe in engaging in a reasoned way. The more we can examine and question the various points of view we hold and the different viewpoints others have I suggest the closer we can approach to the truth, even if it is a destination we can never arrive at, it is a journey that gives life meaning, purpose and hope.
reply