I hear this sentiment all the time--about what's really important and what our priorities should be, etc.
But, there is something disingenuous about it. We have engineered a society wherein our very survival depends upon these "games" to which Mr. Buchheit has alluded. And, in his case he has the luxury of considering his economic endeavors to be games.
It's certainly not his fault. I'm saying that we choose the society we want, and we have collectively decided that we will continue to allocate the world's resources--and, hence, our very subsistence--according to our successful participation in these "games". Well, enough (not really), but then, is it genuine to remind people that eating isn't as important as relationships?
If we really believe that our economy diminishes our most important human needs and priorities, then shouldn't we instead be advocating for a new economy?
Every society makes choices about what it values most. Values prized in Anglo-Saxon economy is freedom and individualism. Asians see it differently. Nordic and Mediterranean societies value social welfare.
Take universal health care; what some see as 'communism' is to others the perfectly obvious logic that every human being deserves health care by virtue of being a human being, and not based on the size of their wallet.
"The vote" isn't of much help in a single-party election.
Nor does "the vote" imply the underlying voting system meets a threshold of efficiency, that externalities do not undermine the efficacy of "the vote", or that many policies are even subject to "the vote" to begin with.
This idiotic grade school idea of "democracy" as a warm and fuzzy godlike essence helps no one and only poisons discussions.
Democracy should be much warmer and fuzzier. The greatest impediment to this is the "externalities" that undermine it.
So, rather than attack the "grade school idea" of democracy, perhaps we should be considering why our execution has failed to live up to the ideal. Because, to the extent that we allowed it to happen, we've also done so by choice. You might even say democratic choice.
You're clearly so invested in this ideal that you even retroactively shoehorn acts against or apathetic to it in the same framework. This isn't worth discussing because the conception of democracy you're operating under is simplistic and incorrect.
I agree that it's the current state. But, I don't believe that it must be this way by some natural law. Maybe that's where we depart.
>so invested in this ideal
I'm invested in the notion that somewhere between where we are now and the ideal state is possible, and that we'd be far better off reaching for it. What alternative are you proposing?
>retroactively shoehorn acts against or apathetic to it in the same framework
I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're merely pointing out that there are people and even systems that work against the democratic ideal and that apathy among the populace does the same, then there's no revelation there. You're simply stating an endemic problem of which most semi-conscious people are aware. But, what's your conclusion?
>* the conception of democracy you're operating under is simplistic and incorrect*
It's more likely that your conception of my conception is simplistic and incorrect.
I'm invested in the notion that somewhere between where we are now and the ideal state is possible, and that we'd be far better off reaching for it.
This I can agree with. Even if the ideal state cannot be attained, we're really far from even an approximation of it.
You're simply stating an endemic problem of which most semi-conscious people are aware. But, what's your conclusion?
I'm trying to say that democracy should not be revered as much as it is, but that more importantly people tend to be ignorant of its machinations. They completely set aside hugely important details like voting systems (such that FPTP guarantees party dichotomy as per Duverger's law), externalities, fraud, gerrymandered districts, and the idea that we should vote on people instead of policies.
The latter is ass-backwards by all measures. Vote policies and have the people fill in the demand for their execution. Instead you have a system that incentivizes deceptive and bombastic political campaigns with an extremely narrow ideological set. When you refuse to participate, you're told you can't complain. When you do participate and your candidate turns out to be a total actor, then again it's your fault for electing them, but remember, folks - democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. Which is why the way we do democracy is absolutely infallibly correct.
It's more likely that your conception of my conception is simplistic and incorrect.
Perhaps, but your original comments were quite rude in the way you shoehorned life into a primitive idea of "voting". There's something about democracy that it has become a secular icon which shuts off people's ability to reason, and makes them refuse to improve their axioms.
On balance, we agree. I think there are some who overly romanticize our current implementation and we are all certainly encouraged to do so. Still, I think most people see the flaws, but participate because it's the best (and currently only) game in town. That is, they agree with you more than you're allowing.
But, there are also many thinking people who are as aware and passionate as you and I about how broken it is and how far from the ideal we are. So, you could say that we have a special responsibility here. The question then becomes what are we going to do about it? It's easy to make statements and paint those we feel are "less-enlightened" with a broad brush. But, it doesn't move us any closer to the ideal. In fact, those people must be led.
>but your original comments were quite rude in the way you shoehorned life into a primitive idea of "voting"
Actually, if you kook carefully, you'll find that I didn't introduce the idea of voting. I think you're a little too eager to paint everyone with the same brush.
In any case, my original post was simply saying that it's not enough to go around with these platitudes about work/life priorities when our very survival currently depends upon work.
So, if we really believe what we espouse regarding what's important, then we should be working (via whatever means, including "fixing democracy") to make our society reflect that. Otherwise, we should stop pretending that it doesn't.
Voting is the collective result of individual's votes. There's no sense in which it reflects an individual's choice. Nor is it like there's a singular "we" that has made a choice.
We collectively like to say that what's really important is not work or "the game", but relationships, friends, family, etc. It's repeated so often that it's cliche, and if a person were to say that work was more important than family, we'd nearly unanimously frown upon it.
And, we collectively vote and make other choices about our society. Broken as our democracy is, there is a significant portion of the electorate that expresses a will that seems incompatible with our supposed human priorities.
BTW, we also decide, individually, what we will allow. The cost of our choices may be "high" (e.g. Snowden), but we choose nonetheless.
That's why more and more people are pushing towards things like basic income and achieving self-sustaining technology levels. Because when basic sustenance is free to everyone and required maintenance work is minimized, one is free to focus on "truly important things in life" and do meaningful work, instead of engaging in bullshit jobs and "games" to earn the bread for oneself and their family.
I agree with your comments, including your assertion that basic income is an implementation of this sentiment. But, we aren't nearly there yet, even while we as a society nearly unanimously espouse that people are more important than work, etc. This is part of what I find to be disingenuous.
And, many of those who argue against a BI would also agree with the notion that friends and family are more important than work.
In any case, the current state of affairs is that we must eat to work (and feed those we love). In this context, admonishing people to prioritize people over work is disingenuous nearly cruel.
But, there is something disingenuous about it. We have engineered a society wherein our very survival depends upon these "games" to which Mr. Buchheit has alluded. And, in his case he has the luxury of considering his economic endeavors to be games.
It's certainly not his fault. I'm saying that we choose the society we want, and we have collectively decided that we will continue to allocate the world's resources--and, hence, our very subsistence--according to our successful participation in these "games". Well, enough (not really), but then, is it genuine to remind people that eating isn't as important as relationships?
If we really believe that our economy diminishes our most important human needs and priorities, then shouldn't we instead be advocating for a new economy?