You calling me a fkn WORM? Man I was motivated until I saw this. Disgraceful!

Can't imagine losing Ramona Flowers.

I'm not familiar with his ex. It's not betrayel Olympics anyway.

Still feel for the guy she cheated on. They were together since high school, then she met Ewen.

Why do old Americans go east?

It was mother suspiriorum.

False dichotomy.

I mean, if you consciously decided to be a perpetual bachelor, why not focus on beauty?

Before the 1900s the US policy was "this land is yours...wait there's gold in them hills. You dead"

You can compress income so no one is living like an animal and also have the talented better off. Look at the Nordic model.

> Tyranny of the majority

As opposed to literally every other system which gives power to a smaller handful.

Since it's fundamental to a free society, It is (in my view) the main virtue.

> Musk

In more properly functioning democracies inequality isn't so egregious. I notice almost all criticisms of democracy are explained by a lack of actual democracy, which is encouraging as a democracy enthusiast.

It'd be a landmark moment if AI settled deontology vs consequentialism and solved ethics.

But who's on the court? Just philosophers?

In practice I doubt the AI could propose something we think is fucked up without us saying uhhhh no.

> it is just a popularity contest to see which king will be ruling over us.

Well yes but the cliche response is evergreen: any other system for nominating leaders is worse.

That just sounds like most democracies today. The public guide meta ethics and (theoretically) experts develop policy to further our community's choices.

I don't mean aesthetic values, I mean fundamental politics. I.e. hierarchy vs egalitarianism. The left and right can both make rational arguments for these opposing values. How do you decide if the experts should push left or right wing policy?

I would say democratically.

The rational / best solution is a matter of values, not intellect. I'd like you to take a stab at that problem.

And who exactly decides? What kind of person is worthy? Philosopher kings?

You're missing the inherent virtue of democracy: it provides the maximum dispersion of power throughout a population, which matters because in a free society everyone should have an equal voice, virtually by definition.

Your alternative is to say good decisions are better than popular decisions. Unfortunately you cite only hypotheticals of perfect AI and "impartial" courts to provide this.

How could we decide which cabal of intellectuals is granted tyranny over us? Right and wrong are quite orthogonal to politics unless you spell out your meta ethics first. I.e. there are rational defences of both left and right policies. The differences are in our values.

So, policy guided by reason doesn't tell us anything about how to organise ourselves.

So is this basically "we should do philosopher kings"?

Disagree. Happiness isn't real until shared.

Do it

I know. I'm just thinking how the same arguments play. Except everyone's mixed to different degrees, so it makes more sense than transgenderism. People identify with whatever ancestry for personal reasons

Transracial is the next frontier.

Why say you're black if you're mixed?

Yknow, the US is best friends with Saudi Arabia.

And were And is avoiding Chinese technology even though it'd help them, as a move against China