Re:The Anthropologist in an Economist World
by jbay808 on Thursday September 17, 2020 @08:19PM
(#24511562)
> Not always -- e.g. wanting to make slavery illegal is an idea that ought to make everyone uncomfortable, but has no legitimate place in today's world.
I had a hard time parsing this. Did you mean legal?
Re:The Anthropologist in an Economist World
by pmiller2 on Friday September 18, 2020 @12:16AM
(#24512948)
Yes. Autocorrect strikes again.
Re:The Anthropologist in an Economist World
by rch on Thursday September 17, 2020 @09:34PM
(#24512029)
Is there a term for the tension that occurs when objectively optimal policy falls outside the window?
I'm not proposing that it's possible to identify a truly optimal policy mix, only that there might be (at least) one and I'm curious about what happens to society when it falls far outside what's acceptable to discuss.
Re:The Anthropologist in an Economist World
by Ericson2314 on Thursday September 17, 2020 @10:30PM
(#24512342)
"Overton Defenestration" would be doing that policy anyways.
Re:The Anthropologist in an Economist World
by 082349872349872 on Friday September 18, 2020 @12:01AM
(#24512863)
The Overton window in nineteenth century US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667409
Unfortunately, since he's far, far outside the Overton window, to the left, Americans, by and large, have a rather extreme reaction to those ideas. That's bad, because ideas that make us uncomfortable can sometimes be the ones that allow us to make truly revolutionary leaps in our thinking. Not always -- e.g. wanting to make slavery illegal is an idea that ought to make everyone uncomfortable, but has no legitimate place in today's world. But, definitely sometimes, and I believe Graeber's ideas are the type that could take us forward, rather than backward.