BLUE
Login
PostsUsersHashtags
TZthomaszimmer.bsky.social

This distinction is key: The modern conservative movement was founded in opposition to egalitarian pluralism - something conservatives derided as “relativism” and an assault on the “natural” order. The question has always been: If society moved away from their vision, would they embrace extremism?

SCsethcotlar.bsky.social

Modern democracies will always have parties of the right. When such parties become hostile to religiously and culturally pluralistic democracy, rule of law, and free and fair elections, they cross the boundary from center-right to far right…and from democratic to fascistic.

2
Llibertyfp.bsky.social

But yeah, if we make it and do go back to being an egalitarian world I believe we'll acknowledge the existence of spirits again. Both because spirits ultimately exist in some subjective realities but because we will interpret what we call hallucinations differently in the future.

0
Llibertyfp.bsky.social

I term the political and economic system of egalitarian hunting and gathering bands "egalitarianism". I term the revival of this political and economic system neo-egalitarianism.

0
Llibertyfp.bsky.social

I can't wait 🥰 Today's the day I likely finish historical pluralism and can finally move on to establishing the Egalitarian Society and start working on energy and the Free People again.

0
TZthomaszimmer.bsky.social

Cheney’s “traditionalist” vision is incompatible with egalitarian, multiracial pluralism. But there is *some* line she’s not willing to cross to impose it on the country. That matters. A devastating indictment of today’s Right that this actually distinguishes her. Wrote about this here:

1
JSjaynesheridan.bsky.social

Neurodivergent as Malvolio: ‘angry’ politics, and comprehensive education is moving towards egalitarian lives and economics.

0
DMdrewmca.dev

the section i attempted to summarize, in full for anyone curious

A unifying perspective The book is thus motivated by a concern with economic forces on the one hand and with politics on the other. In clarifying the manner in which it seeks to blend the two, it is useful to dwell on one of the canonical texts in contemporary social science: the Coase Theorem. 23 Coase bases his argument on an example in which a railway runs through a valley populated by farmers. The allocational issue is the number of trains that should operate each day. Transportation is valuable and operating trains produces profits for the railway; but transportation is also costly, for soot and sparks from the passing trains damage the crops of farmers. Acting purely out of a regard for corporate profits, the
railway is likely to run too many trains. The costs inflicted upon the farmers by the last several trains may exceed the profits earned by the railway, and society could be made better off by running fewer trains. Coase argues that a system of property rights could yield the socially efficient outcome: the number of trains that maximizes the sum of the returns to the railway and to the farmers. He also demonstrates that from the point of view of economic efficiency, the precise form of property rights is irrelevant. Equally important, he stresses that this conclusion holds only if there are no transaction costs. It is this last argument that renders Coase's article a contribution to the political economy. For in a world of positive transaction costs, institutions matter. They determine what bargains can be made, what agreements enforced, and therefore what outcomes are attainable through voluntary exchange. They also determine who pays, and who receives payment, when resources are …
Politics also matter in Coase's argument because they influence the distribution of economic benefits. Under the system of corporate rights, efficiency requires a flow of payments from the multitude of farmers to the owners of the railway. Historically, the ownership of railways has been tightly held, and the result of this system would therefore be the creation of a wealthy minority. Under the system of farmers' rights, efficiency requires the flow of payments from the railway to the farmer. As assumed in Coase's argument and as commonly seen in the developing areas, farming tends to be a broad-based industry, with a multitude of small-scale practitioners. This system of property rights is therefore likely to yield a more egalitarian income distribution. The distribution of income is therefore significantly shaped by whether it is the railways or the farmers who dominate the political system and who thereby achieve the power legally to privilege their interests.
The two systems of property rights may thus both produce efficient outcomes. But they will yield different distributions of income, and ones that would result in major differences in the structure of demand, the composition of industries, and the kinds of jobs and skills that are socially rewarded.? While equivalent in terms of the degrees of economic effi-ciency, the two institutional bases thus yield radically different developmental outcomes. Which group organizes politically and thereby seizes the power to define the system of property rights thus matters. This book seeks to bring to the study of development insights generated by the work of Coase, Williamson, Alchian, Demsetz, Klein, Crawford, and others who have explored the significance of institutions. * It explores their political as well as economic features. It thereby attempts to create a way of integrating the political with the economic in the study of development.
0
LMlizamazel.bsky.social

I do wonder though whether NYT hasn't pretty much always been like this. For damn sure much of journalism was, for a while, more egalitarian. But the Ol' Grey Lady? I bet you could go back 80 years and find the equivalent of taking your picky child to Paris to learn to eat eggs there too.

0
Llibertyfp.bsky.social

I'd argue Kamala is not our savior and is on the enemy side and a part of the problem. The true savior needs to be us to where we save ourselves and establish a radically egalitarian world.

1
Llibertyfp.bsky.social

I agree but he'd be against the kind of revolution we need. He's not at all egalitarian and libertarian enough and is anti-woke, an islamophobe, etc.

0
HomePopularExplore