It’s central to the role of the State in so-called liberal democratic capitalism. You have discussed at some length the issue of individuals in society, their role in social concerns and social change, in collective action to redress social or perhaps communal ills.
But you discount the role of the State in favor of an argument that relies on individual agency. And you note the erosion of individual agency as a function of growth in the State, resulting in an over-reliance on institutional power.
This is a classic libertarian-trending argument. It is neither new nor incisive. I assert the contrary: that in this age, the State’s role is to provide the social and economic context in which individuals in their agency, in social and collective endeavors, can act meaningfully—with lasting and concrete effect—on issues of concern.
This role for the State is to exert countervailing State power against corporate financial power that translates into heavily-funded and over-influential political power, aimed at subordinating all social ends to the ends of selling things, i.e., corporate money-making. In the face of multi-trillion dollar corporations, the absence of countervailing State power renders the individual into an ineffective and therefore meaningless entity.
Without State institutions that exert countervailing power in favor of organic, bottom-up, small-scale individual and collective social endeavor (e.g. trade unions, or more general associations of consumers, workers, tollway drivers, rate-payers, renters, users, etc.), individual and social endeavors take on a symbolic or merely performative character.
Me choosing to push the responsibility of the individual in this case doesn't automatically discount the role of the state. In the article I mark meaningful systemic change as the goal. To me, I just don't see how we push for that w/o the individuals and smaller communities stepping up. This doesn't mean we don't need the state, it simply means that we can't just rely on it to fix glaring issues. Systemic issues get solved when individuals step up and refuse to comply with an unjust system.
"And you note the erosion of individual agency as a function of growth in the State"- ovice-versa. People lose their individual agency and thus expect the state to step in, leading to it's growth.
Regarding your assertion the contrary- it argues against a claim I've never made (and I agree with you, so no reason to go there).
Maybe my writing wasn't clear, but I don't disagree with anything you say about the need for a state ensuring that people were not trampled by oligopolies. I have detailed articles on the need for Governmental Regulation in AI (I'm for this, just not in the way that a lot of clickbait merchants are), how we need institutions to change to address labor exploitation in tech (esp child labor) etc.
I simply believe that the most important ingredient for this is a powerful and active populace that's willing to fight to build, protect, and shape a benign state. Not a populace that passively sits back, and expects the state to move to fix it's own problems without any meaningful external pressure.
Lmk if that makes sense, or if I'm not addressing your points
As a European who moved to New York a few years ago, I was enthralled by this book when I read it! To think about what might not have changed in all these years within the mind of the European on first exposure to the new world 😊
My eperience has been wonderful despite moving to Brooklyn the same month as covid!. Having lived in many cities, my theory is you fall in love with a city when you have clocked sufficient hours walking around it's many neighborhoods, building a personal and embodied mental map of the place. So my rec, perhaps disappointingly intangible, is to walk... I've not yet calculated exactly how many steps it takes to fall in love with a place 😊. In any case, a very warm welcome to NYC.
DeToqueville was an interesting cat. Certainly made some acutely apposite observations about Anglo-American habits of mind in the antebellum period (early 19th century.) As was the case with DeToqueville, your focus is on sociology, patterns and tendencies of social behavior. But something you miss, and that DeToqueville missed, is the overall economic context in which these behaviors occur.
19th Century America was a slave society. DeToqueville took this as a given and disregarded it, to his everlasting discredit.
21st Century America is a society dominated almost completely by financial (e.g., stock market valuations) considerations that stem from a central motivation: to sell things. And make money off selling things. This desideratum is completely integrated into data science and AI endeavors.
It’s central to the role of the State in so-called liberal democratic capitalism. You have discussed at some length the issue of individuals in society, their role in social concerns and social change, in collective action to redress social or perhaps communal ills.
But you discount the role of the State in favor of an argument that relies on individual agency. And you note the erosion of individual agency as a function of growth in the State, resulting in an over-reliance on institutional power.
This is a classic libertarian-trending argument. It is neither new nor incisive. I assert the contrary: that in this age, the State’s role is to provide the social and economic context in which individuals in their agency, in social and collective endeavors, can act meaningfully—with lasting and concrete effect—on issues of concern.
This role for the State is to exert countervailing State power against corporate financial power that translates into heavily-funded and over-influential political power, aimed at subordinating all social ends to the ends of selling things, i.e., corporate money-making. In the face of multi-trillion dollar corporations, the absence of countervailing State power renders the individual into an ineffective and therefore meaningless entity.
Without State institutions that exert countervailing power in favor of organic, bottom-up, small-scale individual and collective social endeavor (e.g. trade unions, or more general associations of consumers, workers, tollway drivers, rate-payers, renters, users, etc.), individual and social endeavors take on a symbolic or merely performative character.
A few things-
Me choosing to push the responsibility of the individual in this case doesn't automatically discount the role of the state. In the article I mark meaningful systemic change as the goal. To me, I just don't see how we push for that w/o the individuals and smaller communities stepping up. This doesn't mean we don't need the state, it simply means that we can't just rely on it to fix glaring issues. Systemic issues get solved when individuals step up and refuse to comply with an unjust system.
"And you note the erosion of individual agency as a function of growth in the State"- ovice-versa. People lose their individual agency and thus expect the state to step in, leading to it's growth.
Regarding your assertion the contrary- it argues against a claim I've never made (and I agree with you, so no reason to go there).
Maybe my writing wasn't clear, but I don't disagree with anything you say about the need for a state ensuring that people were not trampled by oligopolies. I have detailed articles on the need for Governmental Regulation in AI (I'm for this, just not in the way that a lot of clickbait merchants are), how we need institutions to change to address labor exploitation in tech (esp child labor) etc.
I simply believe that the most important ingredient for this is a powerful and active populace that's willing to fight to build, protect, and shape a benign state. Not a populace that passively sits back, and expects the state to move to fix it's own problems without any meaningful external pressure.
Lmk if that makes sense, or if I'm not addressing your points
As a European who moved to New York a few years ago, I was enthralled by this book when I read it! To think about what might not have changed in all these years within the mind of the European on first exposure to the new world 😊
haha. How was your NY experience. I've moved there now. Any recs?
My eperience has been wonderful despite moving to Brooklyn the same month as covid!. Having lived in many cities, my theory is you fall in love with a city when you have clocked sufficient hours walking around it's many neighborhoods, building a personal and embodied mental map of the place. So my rec, perhaps disappointingly intangible, is to walk... I've not yet calculated exactly how many steps it takes to fall in love with a place 😊. In any case, a very warm welcome to NYC.
DeToqueville was an interesting cat. Certainly made some acutely apposite observations about Anglo-American habits of mind in the antebellum period (early 19th century.) As was the case with DeToqueville, your focus is on sociology, patterns and tendencies of social behavior. But something you miss, and that DeToqueville missed, is the overall economic context in which these behaviors occur.
19th Century America was a slave society. DeToqueville took this as a given and disregarded it, to his everlasting discredit.
21st Century America is a society dominated almost completely by financial (e.g., stock market valuations) considerations that stem from a central motivation: to sell things. And make money off selling things. This desideratum is completely integrated into data science and AI endeavors.
What would DeToqueville think of this?
That's very interesting. Can you tell me how that changes the points of the article?
That's very interesting. Can you tell me how that changes the points of the article?