Don’t judge me. I got kids to feed.
Septimaeus
joined 2 years ago
First, props for backing a bonafide unpopular opinion so unflinchingly. (A) discusses your argument. (B) challenges it.
A. I liked your direct approach to this position, and think you raise some important points. In particular…
- It’s important to acknowledge that we all serve this machine in some capacity by our engagement with the free market. But why?
- Economists call these markets efficient (i.e., pareto efficient) because of how quickly they achieve equilibrium/zero-sum states in response to change.
- That efficiency is the curse no participant can outrun, because anything short of complete absence from the market necessarily furthers its result, which always includes violence. In other words, no one’s hands are clean.
- Appearing closer to acts of violence often has little to do with magnitude of influence or actual violence produced. How so?
- Suppose we define violence quotient (VQ) for the roles of market participants, some formula to rate the lockheed engineers and steel workers of small arms manufacture, etc.
- We could measure VQ in lots of ways — e.g., by the count of people hurt, the severity of suffering, the degrees of causal separation between the violent act and the role behind it, etc.
- For each case, it seems we can always find a role further from the violence with higher VQ — a much greater hand in the violence — to the extent that we have old tropes contrasting the direct-but-limited violence of the simple-minded goon and the detached yet far-reaching avarice of the ruthless kingpin.
- So it’s true that working on a small piece of an incremental improvement to some military technology isn’t technically going to be easily traced to much bloodshed, comparatively.
B. But each of these observations correspond to a problem with the idea that the roles we choose don’t matter…
- While the principle of efficiency makes all of us morally culpable — again, because we drive the market onward by merely living in it — by the same token this machine tells us what it wants most, and does so quite unambiguously: by naming a price.
- Concretely, for any two roles considered, you can bet that whichever offers greater personal benefit is the choice that further maximizes overall productivity, accumulation of capital, and ultimately violence.
- This heuristic is mostly useless to the individual (since a strategy of deliberately minimizing personal benefit is like trying to use your body to slow a speeding train… you’ll only slow it down about one human’s-worth).
- But when many individuals coordinate to decommission machines like ours by agreeing to make small survivable sacrifices, they achieve collective action, which has halted many a train.
- What delays collective action, however, is choosing instead to look out for number one, to defect against the social contract.
- And that is the social problem OP describes. So one might then ask why is it a breach of the social contract?
- Ultimately it’s the symbolic value of the choice that’s so disappointing.
- It’s obviously not the “VQ” of your military-industrial job, how close to the violence you work, or any such utilitarian metric.
- It’s not even the individual intent. Most Americans still at least pay lip service to the individual “pursuit of happiness” idea.
- In the end, it’s simply that a person chose the money in spite of everyone’s misgivings about what these contractors represent and purvey in our world, because each defection, however minor, makes the victory of collective action feel just a bit further away than they once hoped.
I’ve found it’s easy to do this anyway because the tricks they use to obfuscate the job description tend to be predictable. The original job posting can usually be found within a minute. That’s also without using AI search tools, which might be faster.
I’m the got-damn pater familias!
Piracy: Hey everyone, they made a thing! Here’s a copy I made [without permission].
Memes: You made this? [minor change] I made this.
Copyright septimus 2025 all rights reserved
OK doomer. There’s still a lot more of us than these crooks, and just one was necessary to scare them.
“The Dems” is only a party label, which has and will mean something different to different times. The most difficult task ahead is re-earning governmental legitimacy and global trust, which can only happen if we fix everything in our system of government recently demonstrated to be dangerously outdated, broken, or useless. I’m fairly certain that’s the only way back. That scale of reform will require a public mandate and will leave no party label intact. AOC could lead that charge, and may not need to run as a democrat ever again. We may not even have a two-party system by the end of it.
But getting anywhere requires first steps. The easiest way to not see reform is for those who would fight to give up hope. I know it’s easy to get discouraged in dark times. It is OK to feel discouraged, but spreading that despair among allies when it’s time to fight is not. That is selfish wallowing that only serves the enemy.
Slammed! Also cool metaphor.
Too much effort. This administration is populated first and foremost by unobservant and intellectually stunted pragmatists and yes-men.
That sort of psychological warfare is effectively outsourced and you interact with it every day.
Is this $10k for high fantasy or low reality?