Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Economy

Yeah, and that allegory from a power dynamics perspective was great, since it frames the pro-government ones as trauma-bonded victims who have yet to discover how better they can do without the abuse.

People who are on the receiving end of that will be shocked.
It can go under under their skin, and make them lose concentration to debate effectively.

You also framed it as a "we", to take some of the edge off.
That way, you are not saying "you" have been raped all your life and you don't even realize, but you said "we" might, which makes it far more acceptable and palatable for the receiver.

If you used "you", that would have been far more aggressive and you'd lose persuasion power towards the people you're debating with.

However, the undecided audience LOVES hard-hitting power moves, so you could have gained personal power with a less collegial approach.
That's the stuff that gets remembered for ever, independently of the merit of the idea -in this case the merits are actually good-.

A good middle ground not to come across as overly-aggressive and also gain more "wisdom points" could have been to say "some people".

Like for example:

You: Sometimes some people remind of abuse victim...

It's implied you are referring to the pro-government folks, but you avoid coming across as overly aggressive.

A new power-move definition?

We might even come up with a name for this debating technique.

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Thank you for making more explicit what I ended doing there, some of it was just semi-concious.

"you" have been raped all your life and you don't even realize

I will not say that since I have lived all my life under governmnet, I pay taxes as anyone, and only recently after reading some books I have started to play with the idea of government not being an actual necessity. (and not being afraid of sounding gay: who will not like a stronger than us guy to protect us)

Sometimes some people remind of abuse victim...

Yes, and also to avoid generalizations.

A New Power-Move Definition

I dont have any name for this one, the acussation of being trauma-bonded can be a nasty one, cause it is expected for most trauma-bonded people to deny and/or be in denial that they are trauma-bonded,

so it is a hard to "falsify" accusation.

In retrospect I did something like a "empathetic violent reframing", empathetic cause by including myself I am saying "I know how it feels since I am also a victim and not superior" and violent reframing as it is a radical new label: from pro-government to pro-self abuse.

Now I am doing the pull part giving the nuances of my position and trying to sound conciliatory, after you call me on that too agresive push.

And now we should reframe it as a win -win as we can all learn from those deabate outbursts, lol ūüôā

 

Quick notes and thoughts after reading Lucio's review of Anatomy of the State

The government is not necessarily oppressive and does not have that much power.

Especially now that the world is increasingly globalised, the government has an incentive to not oppress the people too much.
Oppressing the people would result in brain drain and businesses shifting out to other countries.

For example, from the news, Elon Musk moved to Texas from California to reduce his personal income tax.
Similarly, we can move abroad to countries with lower taxes and more preferable state policies.

I would argue that businesses are more likely to be oppressive.
Some multinational corporations negotiate hard with governments to take their business into the country.
From what I heard, they also manage to negotiate a lower corporate tax rate.

Without governments, the CEOs of MNCs and billionaires of the world will most likely be dictators in some sense in some areas.
And CEOs are not the most altruistic people in the world.

In my opinion, governments are too slow in keeping up with technological changes.
The huge bureaucracy also creates lots of inefficiencies, and we have to pay taxes to service these inefficiencies.
They should look at how to explore agile approaches or lean methodologies on a large scale.

From a power perspective, it could bring more power to be the leader of a large inefficient bureaucracy rather than a lean organisation.
You can also ascribe an increase in taxes due to the large organisations that you run as the leader of the government.

Transitioned has reacted to this post.
Transitioned

Got a personal example on the power bureaucracy .  Mate got me in to interview for an analyst job creating a shared service in a large govt dept.  Because he knew I'm agile, lean, digital and know service design and management.  Together with his inside knowledge we would have saved the dept a lot of money.

Last minute his boss gave him 'urgent' task and one of his political rivals was suddenly interviewing me.  Pure political animal no idea of the work.  I walked in with an entire plan on how to do it focused on stakeholders and buy-in coz that's what gov is 80% about.  Of course I didn't get it and her mate did (even though she had never worked as an analyst)

My mate who's delivered a number of projects for them, was so annoyed he changed programs and after burning about  2.5 M over 9 months the whole thing was canned.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood

I watched this video. He's lying. Hollywood, the democrats, etc. are not families. They can be corrupt, but their essence is not corruption like the Mafia is. When he says the RICO law was made for him, he's right. He includes blacks and hispanics (WTF?) to use the victim frame to cover him. Yes, this law is made against criminal organizations who steal from people. Mafia people are not heroes nor models, they're criminals. Their job is value-taking. They wake up to take value and they go to bed after having taking value. They're the "bandits" in Cipolla's terminology. They might look and sound cool, but please don't be fooled.

Some years ago, I researched the Mafia. If you want a good book on the Mafias, I recommend you this book. The guy is a specialist on the topic. He explains what is a Mafia and it's not pretty.

Of course, the government can be corrupt. But the essence of the government is not value taking.

This once again, there are corrupt cops, but the essence of cops is not to be corrupt.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 3, 2021, 12:59 am

Quick notes and thoughts after reading Lucio's review of Anatomy of the State

The government is not necessarily oppressive and does not have that much power.

Especially now that the world is increasingly globalised, the government has an incentive to not oppress the people too much.
Oppressing the people would result in brain drain and businesses shifting out to other countries.

For example, from the news, Elon Musk moved to Texas from California to reduce his personal income tax.
Similarly, we can move abroad to countries with lower taxes and more preferable state policies.

I would argue that businesses are more likely to be oppressive.
Some multinational corporations negotiate hard with governments to take their business into the country.
From what I heard, they also manage to negotiate a lower corporate tax rate.

Without governments, the CEOs of MNCs and billionaires of the world will most likely be dictators in some sense in some areas.
And CEOs are not the most altruistic people in the world.

In my opinion, governments are too slow in keeping up with technological changes.
The huge bureaucracy also creates lots of inefficiencies, and we have to pay taxes to service these inefficiencies.
They should look at how to explore agile approaches or lean methodologies on a large scale.

From a power perspective, it could bring more power to be the leader of a large inefficient bureaucracy rather than a lean organisation.
You can also ascribe an increase in taxes due to the large organisations that you run as the leader of the government.

Great post, Matthew.

I agree with you.
From a power perspective, at the end of the day, the government/state is just another power-player in a big and messy world (a very powerful player, for sure, but not endlessly powerful).

And how much power it wields over people -or over you-, also depends on the environment and the resourcefulness of those people.

Governments are wasteful, of course, but they are not endlessly wasteful, and they do provide at least some services.

Some the most critical authors of the government fall for this black and white thinking that "the government wastes 100%, the private sector is 100% efficient". But there is plenty of sub-standard products and services in the private world. The private enterprise also has its reasons and incentives for manipulating and taking people's money.

 

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

And what do you think about my statement?

Quote from John Freeman on January 3, 2021, 9:27 am

I watched this video. He's lying. Hollywood, the democrats, etc. are not families. They can be corrupt, but their essence is not corruption like the Mafia is. When he says the RICO law was made for him, he's right. He includes blacks and hispanics (WTF?) to use the victim frame to cover him. Yes, this law is made against criminal organizations who steal from people.

I agree with you, John, but his point does have some merits.

It's worth listening to these extreme points of view with an open mind.
Some of them might be 80% wrong, but they can add a lot of value with the 20% they're not totally wrong -and I'm also referring to Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists, as well as to de Mesquita who in short says that "the goal of any elected politician is to increase his power, and remain in power"-.

I personally wouldn't be surprised at all if prosecutors are warier to use the RICO law -or the law in general- against top government officials even when there seem to be good reasons to suspect wrongdoing.
It's normal power dynamics: it's more difficult from a psychological and sociological perspective to prosecute those above you in your same hierarchy (different case to prosecute people in different hierarchies).

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I admit I don't know all the details about this law. Of course, as a student of human nature like you, I observed all the wrongdoings of governments and official authorities.

However, I noticed that the criminals in Mafia organizations are portrayed as people with honour, etc. However, this is just not the reality. That is my point. My point is to be aware of the image these groups want to be portrayed of them. And the image they don't want to (see Gomorra, haven't seen/read it). As I said, as I studied them and I found them to be quite negative influence on the World to say the least. Especially in Italy by the way. They infiltrated so many parts of the local and state governments that now it is almost impossible to prevent them from influencing the country.

I don't want to convince you. I'm quite adamant about this because of all the harm these groups do on a daily basis. That is one of the main reason police exist: to control these extreme groups. I do know that what they provide appeal to our human nature in some ways. This is another topic. I'm saying that they are not portrayed the way they are.

I think there are some exceptions, like Mr. Franzese, which I kind of understand his life path. He got out of it, which certainly is a proof of his good will. I'm going to watch some of his interviews to have a more enlightened opinion on him.

About learning from them, of course! What I mean is to be careful not to learn ethics from the unethical. I made the mistake in the past to learn dating from manipulative people and it backfired. I did it in good faith, but it still backfired.

My opinion about Mafia applies to secret operations like the CIA. I also studied them and they really do nasty stuff to the World. It's another conversation, though.

OFF-TOPIC

I agree with you John, the learning from mobsters and ethics from the unethical an important topic, and probably deserves its own thread both as a warning and for further fleshing out the details (feel free to open one if you wish).

And I'd also be curious about this one:

I made the mistake in the past to learn dating from manipulative people and it backfired. I did it in good faith, but it still backfired.

If you wish to share that story one day, I'd love to hear.

OFF-TOPIC

Matthew Whitewood and John Freeman have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodJohn Freeman
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Processing...