Hanania's plutocracy idea is extraordinarily bad under the best reading. I think the best case he's arguing is that entrepreneurs should be in charge
> "Someone who builds rocket ships, or founds PayPal, or gets oil out of the ground is likely to have better ideas on how to run society than someone who..."
Set aside for the moment the large number of plutocrats who probably just got lucky (not all of them, but some), and still the whole point of governmental institutions is to make something enduring and stable. Entrepreneurs become plutocrats because they find profit by upsetting existing orders.
And entrepreneurs stay plutocrats by maintaining the existing order they've created. And the heirs of plutocrats typically have even less interest in such innovation and more interest in preserving their plutocracy.
In short, a first generation plutocracy run by dynamic entrepreneurs will almost of necessity give way to a later generation plutocracy run by statists who are hostile to dynamic entrepreneurs.
Freddie would likely strongly agree with Gabriel (often a man's name), who notes at the end of her fine, short piece:
"Whereas all I used to see were people’s superficial identity markers, I had now begun to see individuals defined by their character, words, and actions, and I actively sought to keep seeing them that way. I started making friends with people I had once cast aside because they didn’t identify with the same labels I did, and I often found we had more in common than not. Those I had once thought were “intolerant” because they held views different from mine were actually more welcoming than those I had originally identified with. I also lost friends because they couldn’t understand why I would want to strip myself of labels or engage with others who weren't like “us.” It was often difficult, but it was growth, and it was worth it."
Martin well notes: "Can a person born a human male become a female? Only approximately, but yes. It involves self-mutilation and medication for life. The same is true in the other direction. The process is irreversible, regardless of regrets. Those desperate enough to attempt it deserve our compassion and understanding."
I think he's wrong a bit, here. A male may reject being a "man", but even with mutilation never becomes a real "woman". I felt compassion for Walter becoming Wendy Carlos (Switched On Bach), but we need new pronouns for such male-to-female trans folks. Q'she has rejected being male, but never has q'her "time of month", because q'she's a quasi-woman, a q'woman, not a real woman.
Lia Thomas should not be competing against real women. States should get rid of "male" sports, and replace them with open sports to allow women, q'women, and q'men, along with men, to compete equally. In most cases only men will become professionals in such open sports.
Women's sports should be for XX females who are women.
Another great Gurri quote: "Once you’re worried about the splendor of your titles, liberty, equality and fraternity get chucked out the window."
I didn't have an hour to read Scott Alexander's whole piece but the first thing that came to mind from that excerpt was now do food and diet, but that wouldn't be as titillating.
Hanania's plutocracy idea is extraordinarily bad under the best reading. I think the best case he's arguing is that entrepreneurs should be in charge
> "Someone who builds rocket ships, or founds PayPal, or gets oil out of the ground is likely to have better ideas on how to run society than someone who..."
Set aside for the moment the large number of plutocrats who probably just got lucky (not all of them, but some), and still the whole point of governmental institutions is to make something enduring and stable. Entrepreneurs become plutocrats because they find profit by upsetting existing orders.
And entrepreneurs stay plutocrats by maintaining the existing order they've created. And the heirs of plutocrats typically have even less interest in such innovation and more interest in preserving their plutocracy.
In short, a first generation plutocracy run by dynamic entrepreneurs will almost of necessity give way to a later generation plutocracy run by statists who are hostile to dynamic entrepreneurs.
Freddie would likely strongly agree with Gabriel (often a man's name), who notes at the end of her fine, short piece:
"Whereas all I used to see were people’s superficial identity markers, I had now begun to see individuals defined by their character, words, and actions, and I actively sought to keep seeing them that way. I started making friends with people I had once cast aside because they didn’t identify with the same labels I did, and I often found we had more in common than not. Those I had once thought were “intolerant” because they held views different from mine were actually more welcoming than those I had originally identified with. I also lost friends because they couldn’t understand why I would want to strip myself of labels or engage with others who weren't like “us.” It was often difficult, but it was growth, and it was worth it."
Martin well notes: "Can a person born a human male become a female? Only approximately, but yes. It involves self-mutilation and medication for life. The same is true in the other direction. The process is irreversible, regardless of regrets. Those desperate enough to attempt it deserve our compassion and understanding."
I think he's wrong a bit, here. A male may reject being a "man", but even with mutilation never becomes a real "woman". I felt compassion for Walter becoming Wendy Carlos (Switched On Bach), but we need new pronouns for such male-to-female trans folks. Q'she has rejected being male, but never has q'her "time of month", because q'she's a quasi-woman, a q'woman, not a real woman.
Lia Thomas should not be competing against real women. States should get rid of "male" sports, and replace them with open sports to allow women, q'women, and q'men, along with men, to compete equally. In most cases only men will become professionals in such open sports.
Women's sports should be for XX females who are women.
Another great Gurri quote: "Once you’re worried about the splendor of your titles, liberty, equality and fraternity get chucked out the window."
I didn't have an hour to read Scott Alexander's whole piece but the first thing that came to mind from that excerpt was now do food and diet, but that wouldn't be as titillating.
You can say No two alike