Scott Alexander endorses Harris, Oliver, or Stein for the 2024 US presidential election, arguing against Trump's authoritarianism while acknowledging and countering arguments that Democrats may be more subtly authoritarian. Longer summary

Scott Alexander endorses Kamala Harris, Oliver, or Stein for the 2024 US presidential election, recommending Harris in swing states and Harris or a third-party candidate in safe states. He argues against Trump primarily on the grounds of authoritarianism, comparing the threat to Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Scott acknowledges the strongest counter-argument that Democrats may be more subtly authoritarian, but ultimately rejects it for four reasons: the importance of punishing clear norm violations, current political headwinds favoring the right, personal integrity, and Trump's own authoritarian tendencies. The post ends with a reflection on the psychological tendency to view elections as a two-character drama between oneself and the Democratic Party, urging readers to consider the full comparison between candidates. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews a book about Hugo Chavez, analyzing his rise to power, rule, and impact on Venezuela, while drawing parallels to other populist leaders. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Comandante', a book about Hugo Chavez's rise to power and rule in Venezuela. The review describes Chavez as a charismatic showman who used populist tactics, media control, and oil wealth to consolidate power, while implementing policies that ultimately damaged Venezuela's economy and institutions. Scott draws parallels between Chavez and other populist leaders, particularly Donald Trump, and reflects on the vulnerabilities of democratic systems to such figures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that misusing terms like 'democratic' and 'accountable' can inadvertently justify totalitarianism, and suggests more careful usage of these terms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the misuse of terms like 'democratic' and 'accountable', arguing that when taken to extremes, they can justify totalitarianism. He illustrates this through examples in religious freedom, charitable donations, and AI development, showing how demands for complete 'democracy' or 'accountability' in all aspects of life can lead to the erosion of personal freedoms. The post suggests that these terms should be used more carefully, with 'democratic' applied mainly to government structures and 'accountable' reserved for specific power dynamics, to avoid inadvertently promoting totalitarian ideas. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses various perspectives on self-determination, addressing issues like status quo bias, group rights, and the complexities of applying consistent principles to secession cases. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses various comments on his previous post about self-determination. He addresses issues such as the preference for status quo, the nature of group rights, the Confederate secession, international norms, historical investment, and the complexities of applying consistent principles to self-determination cases. Scott generally favors a nuanced approach that respects existing borders by default but allows for secession in cases of oppression or when it can be done peacefully, while acknowledging the difficulties in applying universal rules to such complex situations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses reader responses to his review of Viktor Orban's leadership in Hungary, exploring debates around authoritarianism, democracy, and effective governance. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to reader comments on his review of Viktor Orban's governance in Hungary. Key points include debates over whether Orban qualifies as a dictator, comparisons to other political leaders, analysis of Hungary's electoral system and immigration policies, and reflections on the tradeoffs between decisive governance and maintaining democratic safeguards. Shorter summary

A critical review of Rutger Bregman's 'Humankind', analyzing its argument that human nature is fundamentally good, while highlighting both flaws and valuable insights in the book. Longer summary

This review critiques Rutger Bregman's book 'Humankind', which argues that human nature is fundamentally good. The reviewer analyzes Bregman's arguments, pointing out logical inconsistencies and cherry-picked data, while also acknowledging some valuable insights. The book covers topics such as human behavior during crises, the nature of empathy and power, and alternative approaches to management and democracy. The review concludes that while Bregman's thesis has flaws, his core message about trusting and respecting others more has merit. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews a book on Erdogan's rise to power in Turkey, analyzing the factors that led to democratic backsliding and considering lessons for other democracies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews the book 'The New Sultan: Erdogan And The Crisis Of Modern Turkey', which details Recep Tayyip Erdogan's rise to power and Turkey's shift from a flawed democracy to a partial dictatorship. The review explores Turkey's unique historical context, Erdogan's political journey, and the strategies he used to consolidate power, drawing parallels and contrasts with other countries' experiences of democratic backsliding. Shorter summary

Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his technocracy essay, clarifying his position and defending his arguments while acknowledging some limitations. Longer summary

Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his essay on technocracy, clarifying his position and addressing several points of contention. Weyl acknowledges some limitations in his understanding of the rationalist community, provides context for his original piece, and defends his examples of technocratic failures. He argues for a more nuanced view of mechanism design and technology adoption, emphasizing the importance of public communication and collaboration in successful technological change. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander describes three fictional and slightly absurd systems of government: an acausal democracy, a constitutional mobocracy, and a meta-republic with representatives from various governing philosophies. Longer summary

This post presents three fictional systems of government in a satirical and creative manner. The first, Clamzoria, is an acausal democracy where elections are held at the end of a term and prediction markets determine who takes office. The second, Cognito, is a constitutional mobocracy where protests serve as the legislature. The third, Yyphrostikoth, is a meta-republic with representatives from various forms of government, including some absurd positions. Each system is described with its unique features, advantages, and eventual downfalls or quirks. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Just Giving' by Rob Reich, criticizing its arguments against philanthropy by showing how they could also be used to condemn book-writing. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Rob Reich's book 'Just Giving', which critically examines philanthropy's role in democracy. Scott finds the book's arguments troubling, as they could be applied to condemn any productive activity. He demonstrates this by rewriting sections of the book, replacing 'charity' with 'books', showing how the same logic could make book-writing seem undemocratic and problematic. While Scott agrees with some of Reich's points, he finds the overall tone and implications concerning. The review highlights the book's data on charitable giving patterns and its conclusion that philanthropy can diversify represented interests and allow for social policy experimentation. However, Scott criticizes the book's tendency to 'darkly hint' at philanthropy being bad, even while ultimately concluding it can serve a useful purpose. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on billionaire philanthropy, addressing criticisms while ultimately defending its net positive impact and arguing to protect the most effective charitable efforts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about billionaire philanthropy. He addresses criticisms and counterarguments, providing further analysis on topics like the scale of billionaire donations compared to political spending, the democratic nature of philanthropy, tax deductibility, and potential downsides. While acknowledging some valid concerns, Scott ultimately defends the net positive impact of billionaire philanthropy, especially highlighting examples like the Gates Foundation's global health work. He argues that even if some billionaire philanthropy is problematic, the most effective charitable efforts are so valuable that they should be protected and encouraged. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against criticism of billionaire philanthropy, citing its efficiency, positive impact, and ability to support important causes that governments often neglect. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against criticizing billionaire philanthropy, presenting several points: 1) Criticizing philanthropy more than luxury spending incentivizes the wrong behavior. 2) The potential good done by philanthropy outweighs concerns about inequality. 3) Billionaire donations often receive more scrutiny than praise. 4) Government spending is often less efficient and focused on important causes than private philanthropy. 5) Philanthropy can support pluralism and fund important work the government won't. 6) Centralized government control risks a single point of failure. He concludes that the immense good done by philanthropic efforts, such as saving millions of lives, outweighs concerns about democratic accountability or inequality. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains a reactionary philosophy model distinguishing between culturally evolved (right-wing) and memetically evolved (left-wing) policies, exploring its implications and potential applications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a key insight into reactionary philosophy, proposing a model where right-wing policies are those selected by cultural evolution, while left-wing policies are selected by memetic evolution or the marketplace of ideas. He explores the implications of this model, including how it categorizes various political movements and the challenges democracies face in balancing these forces. The post then examines the reactionary idea of a system of small dictatorships as a way to facilitate cultural evolution, discussing its potential benefits and drawbacks. Scott concludes by reflecting on the increasing speed of memetic evolution in modern times and the need to understand and possibly strengthen the role of cultural evolution as a counterbalance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents multiple satirical scenarios of 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner' to critique various aspects of democracy and political behavior. Longer summary

This post is a satirical take on democracy using the metaphor of 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner'. Scott Alexander presents multiple variations of this scenario, each highlighting different aspects of democratic systems, political behavior, and societal issues. The scenarios touch on topics such as the electoral college, political pandering, deficit spending, voting against self-interest, special interests, fact-checking, immigration, compromise, foreign interference, Brexit-like situations, and coalition politics. The tone is humorous and ironic, using the wolf-sheep dynamic to illustrate various critiques of democratic processes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics, reflecting on his own mistake theory bias and considering the merits of conflict theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics and governance. Mistake theorists view political issues as problems to be solved through debate and expertise, while conflict theorists see politics as a struggle between opposing groups. The post explores how these perspectives differ in their approach to free speech, racism, democracy, and revolution. Scott reflects on his own tendency towards mistake theory and considers the merits of conflict theory, especially in light of current political realities. He concludes that while he still leans towards mistake theory, he recognizes the need to engage more seriously with conflict theory perspectives. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the relationship between economic development, social changes, and happiness, concluding that happiness levels can change over time but are more influenced by intangible factors than by economic growth. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the relationship between economic development, social changes, and happiness levels across different countries and groups. He explores Scott Sumner's question of whether anything matters for happiness, given that many countries show no increase in happiness despite significant improvements. Alexander examines data on African-Americans, women, and various countries, finding that happiness levels do change in response to social trends, even over decades. He notes that economic growth may increase happiness, but other factors like freedom and democracy seem more influential. The post concludes that happiness can change, but intangible factors are likely more important than money, even when lifting countries out of poverty. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the Reactionary concept of 'left singularity', arguing that reigns of terror typically follow repressive right-wing regimes rather than gradual leftward shifts in democracies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the Reactionary concept of 'left singularity', which posits that leftist movements become increasingly extreme until they collapse. He argues this theory is flawed, using an analogy to forest fires to show how it misinterprets causation. Scott contends that reigns of terror typically follow repressive right-wing regimes, not gradual leftward shifts in democracies. He proposes an alternative model where repressive monarchies build up pressure leading to revolution, which may be hijacked by extremists. Scott argues that moderate leftist democracies are stable and less prone to violent upheaval than far-right regimes, challenging core Reactionary claims. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses historical data to refute the Reactionary claim that modern society increases war, showing instead that violence has decreased significantly in progressive eras. Longer summary

Scott Alexander rebuts the Reactionary claim that modern society causes increased war and instability. He presents statistical evidence showing that wars and violence have significantly decreased in modern times, especially since World War II. The post examines historical data on war casualties, finding that the most progressive periods in history are also the most peaceful, while periods favored by Reactionaries (like the 1600s) were among the deadliest. Scott argues that even accounting for technological advances in warfare, the past was generally more violent. He also points out that in recent times, wars are mostly limited to less progressive countries. The post concludes that as the world has become more progressive over the past 70 years, conflicts and deaths from conflict have dropped precipitously. Shorter summary