Comment on Kratsios: NIST needs ‘to go back to basics’ on standards for AI, not safety evaluation
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks agoThe theory of liberaterianism sounds good on paper, but it does not reflect reality.
It’s not a theory of how economics work, libertarians rely upon different schools for that. It’s a theory of moral substantiation of any social order. That is, how to minimize the amount of “I’m threatening you with a stick, so you admit that I make law, and then we pretend this moment didn’t happen and that law existed always and nobody’s rights were violated”. As is clear, violence and servitude are not accepted by libertarians, while rights are accepted. So it’s basically still development of the French revolutionary ideas.
By theory you seem to mean a set of ready instructions. It’s not a set of ready instructions like with Stalinist model (and like Khmer Rouge example shows, those too could go far worse than the bloody and inefficient, but supposedly predictable expected result).
The reality is that it is an oligarch ideology aimed at providing polemical cover to corruption and criminality.
No it’s not and it isn’t. Very easy to call it that now, when the oligarchs themselves “confirm” it, but 10 years ago oligarchs themselves just loved liberal democracies with left traits, because those made laws convenient for them. Your memory seems a bit short.
Perfect freedom of association does not exist in reality. There are informational asymmetries, externalities, natural monopolies (makes no sense two build two set of water pipes to a house) and whole host of other issues.
Yes, it doesn’t, but the closer the better usually. Nobody claims it does. Nobody relies upon that.
From my perspective, it’s the same with libertarianism. Lots of pompous musing about freedom, but when it comes down it, it’s just a type of brand of polemics favoured by the American oligarch regime.
I agree with the comparison between Soviet official communism and what some Americans call libertarianism.
The Cato institute solved the problems of externalities? Wow, this is news to me! How did they do it?
I think you might be having hallucinations. I said that they are not trying to do things they are not intended to do. Just work with the model they have and the problems they see.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Violence and historical conceptions of servitude aren’t the only way to violate rights. Rejection of externalities does not require violence or servitude; yet it is arguably a fundamental aspect of libertarianism.
I don’t mean specific instructions, I am talking about philosophical perspectives too. Perfect freedom of association does not exist in a universe (reality) with externalities.
I would disagree, be it in the American context or in other countries. In other countries, oligarchs don’t bother since libertarian polemics aren’t the best tool for the job. I lived in the US under Bush and Obama, I can’t say that US oligarchs from the time “just loved liberal democracies with left traits”.
Some other examples come to mind (no web searches, just going from memory).
While on a general level, I agree that “the closer the better”, individuals who associate with libertarianism almost universally reject personal responsibility by leveraging polemics about “free” association.
Even casually opening the Cato website (did it as an experiment), reveals a clear disregard for reality and tons of open corporate propaganda. Demagoguery; undeniably pre-meditated dishonesty.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Call it word salad, mashed potatoes or Peruvian causa, makes no difference to me.
The fact remains that libertarianism is an American oligarch polemical strategy aimed at enabling corruption and keeping local plebs in line (because Americans respond particularly well to certain keywords and copytext).
Denying that doesn’t give you much credibility! Just think for a second how it makes you look!
I saw all I needed by clicking a random article on the Cato’s frontpage. It’s is clear that they are demagogues and malicious.
And I am willing to bet if we look at their funding, it is all run by oligarch/criminal groups.
I am not going to deny basic facts about life “follow the money” based on some half assed rehortic.
We good?
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
No, it’s not, this is factually incorrect.
You seem to be in denial that some ideologies start from a desired society to imagining whatever criteria will fit to practical means, like yours, and some, like libertarian ones, start from a set of desired criteria to imagining different possible desired societies and value sets and practical means fitting them. You seem pretend instead that libertarianism is too like the former ideologies, but with something you don’t like as the desired point.
Also even typical ancap doesn’t ignore externalia. Air pollution, for example, is considered. You might just not know what the flying fuck you are talking about, thinking it’s “something-something absolute property rights”.
In rhetoric of course they did, just like in rhetoric they like libertarianism now. I don’t need anything more, because you haven’t provided anything more.
Facebook and Google and Apple and Microsoft are the oligarchies I was thinking about.
This is a word salad. The whole point of libertarianism is that responsibility can’t be delegated. It’s just that to demand some things from others is not in your right, but that’s not about their responsibility, that’s about you making weird demands.
What is this intended to say?
I said it’s a good institution because it still does what it’s intended to do - provides libertarian perspective on events without drift.
I didn’t say you’ll find things you won’t call these cliches. Their purpose is not in being liked by you or in any way delivering upon your desires what they should and shouldn’t say.
I’ve just visited their site and read their articles on a few random popular questions - surveillance, “hate speech”, “AI”.
I frankly felt much better from their sober tone. This (cato.org/…/misleading-panic-over-misinformation) article is perfect , it explains patiently and in non-agitated terms what I sometimes try to say about how some problems should be resolved.
(It, eh, doesn’t touch upon some bigger threats like Google and others not really intending to ever further compete, but that has happened in the past and many of those companies are no longer around.)