Hello, I would like to sya that I love your Book Jennifer Government and NationStates. I started playing it maybe a month ago, and I’m doing pretty well. But I have made a mistake with one of my issues and now I have Socialism. So my question is. Do you have any advice for me on how I can fix it? Thanks for your time. Have a great day!
A Guy named Oliver
This is a common problem. Often you’re happily going about with a free market and individual rights and then someone’s like, “Should we maybe do something about how poor kids are getting a worse education, thus entrenching disadvantage across generations?” and, whoops, socialism.
The important thing is not to panic. Just because you have socialism, that doesn’t mean you’ll always have socialism. There is a cure. However, socialism is a very serious condition, and I’d advise you to avoid contact with other countries so they don’t catch it from you.
This can happen more easily than you think: There are a lot of transmission vectors, such as citizens of your country posting online about how they were taken to the emergency room and yet their financial lives have not been reduced to a smoking ruin, and if citizens of other countries hear this and believe it, that country can get socialism, too.
It’s also important to remember that any amount of socialism is dangerous. You can’t be half-pregnant with socialism. You either have it or you don’t. The only solution is to completely flush it out of your system. There’s no point in curing socialism in one area only for it to fester somewhere else. And you may be surprised by the places socialism can develop, if left untreated; for example, do you have a public fire service? A lot of countries do and don’t realize it. Unless your fire service is charging market rates and refusing service to non-paying customers, then unfortunately, you still have socialism.
Similarly, you may have a lot of public roads and parks, left over from a time when people didn’t fully understand the risks of socialism: You need to hand these over to fee-charging corporations as quickly as possible. Schools, clinics, and public transportation, obviously. Get rid of those. Welfare. Pensions. Also, and I know you don’t want to hear this, but the military. If your national defense is funded by forcibly taxing your citizens, you probably have socialism. This can be hard to see directly, so keep an eye out for signs of parasites, such as a wider network of supposedly-private defense contractors guzzling down those tax dollars.
The good news, though, is that with sufficient dedication, you can be cured! In time, you can become completely socialism-free, and enjoy a Utopian libertarian existence with no welfare, taxation, or empathy of any kind. Good luck.
Do you think the world is doomed in the near future?
Only in the sense that it will be a nightmarish hellhole by our standards.
I’m sure it’ll be fine to the people who live in it. I base this on
how young people seem happy all the time while old people complain that the
world has gone to hell.
In fifty years, the world could be a desert scorched by permanent war
between rival corporate city-states and people would still be like,
“I would hate to live in 2017, when people got colds and just had to live
with male pattern baldness.” You value the stuff you have and don’t
miss what you don’t have, is what I’m getting at.
Also ethics are super malleable. I feel they misled us about this in
school. Back then, I definitely had the idea that the future would be
filled with difficult ethical decisions about which technologies we would
pursue and which we would reject in favor of human decency and dignity.
But in practice, what’s happened is anything gets to exist if it works and people like it.
Like Uber. Before Uber, cities had all these rules about
who could drive a cab and how, and for the most part they were eminently reasonable
attempts to keep people safe and not ripped off. Then Uber came along like, “What if we
DON’T have those rules,” and people liked it, so now we have that.
So the world is doomed in that way. But also full of promise, in that
it will have things that I will personally dislike and not
understand but which would have defined my life if they’d been invented
when I was eight years old.
I’m optimistic that we will avoid destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons
or runaway artificial intelligence. Not for any good reason. Logically,
I can totally see that happening. But I have a good feeling.
What’s your opinion on net neutrality?
I’m against it. I just think it’s hypocritical to say we should live in a world
where corporations are free to shape laws and pay no tax but not screw the internet.
That seems unfair to me.
Don’t get me wrong: You definitely want to keep ISPs’ hands off the net as much
as you can. ISPs are like water utilities that realized they should come right into
your home and decide what kind of showers you can have, since it’s their water.
You don’t want a bunch of water engineers trying to sell you eight-minute shower
bundles. No-one wants that.
But I’m not comfortable with the portrayal of Net Neutrality as a fight between
good companies and bad companies. That dynamic always gives me the heebie-jeebies.
There’s just something about people praising the kindness and decency of an
amoral profit-making machine that doesn’t sit well with me. I mean,
I’m glad some companies are better than others. I appreciate that
they’re not all dumping oil in the oceans and poisoning children and telling employees
they’re family right before they fire them. It’s definitely a good thing that
companies who get financially punished if they have a bad public image are
compelled to act nicer than ones who don’t.
I just don’t like pretending they’re champions of freedom. Last
time I checked, Apple and Google and Facebook and Netflix and all the rest
were super-interested in sealing everybody into their own sections of the internet
for money. Well, not so much Google. Google is still pretty great. But as a rule,
they are big fans of the principle of removing user choice in exchange for cash.
In this particular case, abolishing Net Neutrality means they might have to pay
cash to ISPs, so they’re against that. But they’re all still busy working on their own
forms of user lock-in.
The other thing is that this keeps happening. How many times has the battle for Net
Neutrality been won? Four times? And each time the ISPs go away and sulk
with their paid-for politicians and wait for everyone to stop cheering about
how they saved the internet, and then they return with a new version that tries
to do the same thing. So I would like to dispel the illusion that
we’re actually accomplishing anything substantial here, and instead take a look
at the system that allows a thousand things like this to pass a year, only more
quietly because they’re not opposed by major corporations, steadily entrenching
inequality, selling out the future for the short-term gain of a powerful few.
But since we’re not doing that, Net Neutrality is okay, I guess.
Do you like chocolate?
I’m glad you asked. I feel I get misrepresented on chocolate. My position is that chocolate is fine. It tastes good. I don’t mind chocolate at all. But many other people are all CHOCOLATE NOM NOM NOM WHY YOU NO EAT MORE and then they start making out like I’m some kind of chocolate hater. Like I’m a chocolate bigot, just because I only like it a bit. I’m not. I promise you, I’m no chocolate bigot. I’m pro-chocolate, like I said. I’m just not, you know, insanely, off-the-charts, everyone-should-eat-as-much-chocolate-as-possible, let’s-round-up-people-who-don’t-want-to-marry-chocolate-and-put-them-in-camps kind of pro-chocolate. This is the trouble with moderate positions.
Like me, you may be feeling a combination of shock, distress, and terror
at the news that Donald J. Trump will become the next leader of the world’s
largest military and economic superpower.
But it’s all right! It’s all right. It won’t be that bad. I mean, it
will be pretty bad. That’s for sure. But we can get through this. To help
you through this difficult adjustment period, here are some comfort thoughts:
Many Trump policies range from mutually contradictory to the physically
impossible so they can’t all be implemented.
Writers of satire or absurdist comedy need never again be told that their
work is too far-fetched.
Reagan was a TV actor with fantastical economic ideas and latent Alzheimer’s
and the US came out of that pretty okay.
Exposure of electoral system that weights votes of residents of North Dakota
and Wyoming 3-4X greater than those in California and New York, holds
elections on a working Tuesday, and uses plurality voting, may prompt actual
change, perhaps to “Best Out Of Three” system, or drawing straws.
He is pretty funny, for a President.
Inevitable war with foreign power and subsequent nuclear winter may offer
effective solution to global warming.
Nation avoids messy spectre of four years of depressing gridlock where bitter
Republicans hold White House hostage and nothing gets done.
Small children can be told that anything is possible with a straight face.
Nation will undergo a great strengthening, in “what doesn’t kill me
makes me stronger” sense.
Shocking the hell out of the ruling class is necessary from time to time in
order to avoid a build-up of complacency and corruption, so why not now.
And election campaigns are all about demonizing opponents but only rarely
are they actual demons.
Also the UK voted to Brexit, so, you know, sucks to be those guys.
I was thinking about how unfair it is that reality has evil right-wing corporate overlords
named the Koch Brothers while if I wrote that in a novel people would call me shallow
and juvenile. I mean, it would be true. But also unfair. You’re supposed to have more creative
license in fiction, not less. Then there’s Trump, who does things on a daily basis
that no satirical character could get away with. It makes you wonder where there is left to go.
But then people have been complaining that satire is dead forever. Satire has died a
thousand times, apparently, at the hands of JFK, George W. Bush, in fact probably every
US President since about 1960. Before then I’m not sure. But I imagine a long line of
despairing intellectuals stretching back through the centuries.
So it’s probably just a failure of imagination. We have a set of societal standards, and
when someone veers close to the line, we can satirize them by portraying what it would be
like if they crossed right on over. Oh, you think taxes should be lower? WHAT IF THERE WERE
NONE AT ALL. That kind of thing.
But when someone does cross the line, and stays there, like Trump, it’s a problem.
It feels like there’s no way to satirize it because the only step farther
is pure ridiculousness. Still, on reflection, I think you have to consider that
the line has moved. It moves a little every year, in one direction or another, and this time
it’s moving very pro-clown. Many US Presidents have been a little clownish—Reagan, Clinton,
George W.—and in fact now I think about it, more Presidents than also-rans. It has been
an asset to be clownish. No wonder we wound up here. But my point is that
it’s probably fair to imagine a very clownish
President in the future, and elections contested between clowns.
This time, crossing the line hurts Trump. And that does indeed put him beyond satire, as
well as making him unelectable*. But he also moves the line, and nothing is as shocking
the second time, so the next clown will seem more reasonable. The next clown will be
more reasonable, having observed the hits and misses of Trump. They will keep all
the goofy style over substance and just pare off the awkward Hitler parallels. So get ready for that.
Maybe not next election.
You wouldn’t run a second clown against Hillary if your first clown got obliterated.
But after that. I see 2024, two clowns.