Some people try to make the world a better place by showing a better alternative. If they're wrong, the only people who suffer are them, and whoever follows them of their own free will.
Others use force. If they're wrong, everyone suffers (except, funnily enough, the people forcing their views on others).
Some people try to make the world a better place by showing a better alternative. If they're wrong, the only people who suffer are them, and whoever follows them of their own free will.
Others use force. If they're wrong, everyone suffers (except, funnily enough, the people forcing their views on others).
It's the latter that should be chucked overboard from any sane ship of state.
Heartily agree on the force part, and on the "we will do our thing and show you how much better it works" part.
What I had in mind, although didn't specify, was sort of like the EA people. The bailey of "if you are going to give money, give it to more effective causes" makes sense, but the motte curiously never seems to contain "use that money to start a business to sustainably employ poor people in a useful way" or "raise a small army and overthrow the shit kleptocracy government stopping you from starting that business in the poor country." Granted, ok, the second is a bit spicy (but logically consistent by their lights) but the former should be job 1. "I am going to make the world so much better people are going to pay me to do it and keep doing it," sounds highly likely to work; if you have to beg people to give you money to solve huge world problems, it seems like a strong sign the problem isn't relevant.
Ah. Well, in the case of EA, we're in telescopic philanthropy terroritory. The purpose isn't making the world a better place. It's self-aggrandizement via conspicuous altruism and the creation of dependents.
True, there is an important distinction between saying you want to make the world better and actually trying to do so. I think a lot of EA people, and people who donate to charities in general, do mean to do good for the world. Its just that it tends to go very badly, often by being coopted by those with no interest in good so much as control.
Maybe this is just a really roundabout way of saying altruism is bad, if only because it isn't real and very nasty things wear its representation as a mask.
Just to clarify, I mean "sustainably employ" in the sense that the goods or services produced by employing the people sell for enough to keep covering the worker's salaries, as opposed to having to beg for donations to pay them to do something no one values enough to pay them to do out of self interest.
I think of it this way.
Some people try to make the world a better place by showing a better alternative. If they're wrong, the only people who suffer are them, and whoever follows them of their own free will.
Others use force. If they're wrong, everyone suffers (except, funnily enough, the people forcing their views on others).
It's the latter that should be chucked overboard from any sane ship of state.
Heartily agree on the force part, and on the "we will do our thing and show you how much better it works" part.
What I had in mind, although didn't specify, was sort of like the EA people. The bailey of "if you are going to give money, give it to more effective causes" makes sense, but the motte curiously never seems to contain "use that money to start a business to sustainably employ poor people in a useful way" or "raise a small army and overthrow the shit kleptocracy government stopping you from starting that business in the poor country." Granted, ok, the second is a bit spicy (but logically consistent by their lights) but the former should be job 1. "I am going to make the world so much better people are going to pay me to do it and keep doing it," sounds highly likely to work; if you have to beg people to give you money to solve huge world problems, it seems like a strong sign the problem isn't relevant.
Ah. Well, in the case of EA, we're in telescopic philanthropy terroritory. The purpose isn't making the world a better place. It's self-aggrandizement via conspicuous altruism and the creation of dependents.
True, there is an important distinction between saying you want to make the world better and actually trying to do so. I think a lot of EA people, and people who donate to charities in general, do mean to do good for the world. Its just that it tends to go very badly, often by being coopted by those with no interest in good so much as control.
Maybe this is just a really roundabout way of saying altruism is bad, if only because it isn't real and very nasty things wear its representation as a mask.
Just to clarify, I mean "sustainably employ" in the sense that the goods or services produced by employing the people sell for enough to keep covering the worker's salaries, as opposed to having to beg for donations to pay them to do something no one values enough to pay them to do out of self interest.