Thread

I am often genuinely amazed by people who can think they can make the government better. I like their positive energy. I can't force myself doing it though. I've wasted years in talking to bureaucrats about Linux, open source, open standards, security, ... I've seen people want to change the system from the inside by forming political parties, in order to either have no impact at all, or worse - becoming the establishment, in many cases doing exactly the same thing they've been against. My stance is cynical, but practical. The state is there, like a bad weather. And my goal is to manage my exposure and risk. You don't change the weather, you change what you where, if you have shelter, or what climate you are in. Global warming? Turn on the AC (helps to make your own energy too). Hardcore winters? Change the hemisphere for the winter time. Raining? Get a raincoat. Now I look at people who spend time, endless meetings and good intentions as people who are trying to control weather. Yes, they can spend insane amounts of energy for short term weather management. But it won't change how it works. Manage the risk of state, don't try to manage the state. Central planning does not work even when done with good intentions. Maybe especially when done with good intentions.

Replies (4)

More than managing exposure and risk, distancing from it where possible would be a good idea. Can't rely on it to help with anything. If there's enough personal bandwidth for it, one can also spread ideas that would weaken its legitimacy.
↩ replying to smalltownrifle
Managing exposure means reducing exposure, i.e. distancing from it. Spreading ideas is good, but it has two big problems: 1. It works much less than we would like to. The ideas of the state (collectivism) also spread and they spread better. Even if they spread enough, we're often overestimating our influence. It's the same on the other side of the aisle. Influencers trying to convince people to vote for the right party. How many people will actually go and do it, differently than they would have otherwise? I think the number is something like 1 in 10,000. It's all more about signaling. You listen to people they confirm what you already think. 2. It's sadly less about the ideas and more about the values. And changing values is super hard, they're almost hardwired. We are and will stay a minority. Maybe double digits percent wise if we're successful, but we have to accept that most people don't share are values and thus will never be receptive about our ideas.