Comments by "Zachary B" (@zacharyb2723) on "Why The Poor Support Inequality | Rousseau's Second Discourse Explained" video.

  1. This guy is so wrong on so many points I have to write a whole essay. If radical inequality is necessary for 'greatness', 'greatness' is overrated. The 'frenzy' might not be worth it. 'But how would we get to where we are???' - it doesn't matter. Maybe slavery was necessary at some point to 'advance' civilization. So what? We stand where we are, and can decide that inequality is no longer worth it. We keep the good, discard the bad. (Of course his whole thesis is dubious, since we have plenty of research about how inequality degrades and stagnates societies, rather than improving anything. He thinks vanity is the driving force of achievement, but lots of the 'achievers' he likes actually suck. Facebook and Palantir are the foundation of the American economy? wtf are you talking about man. Palantir is evil, the ambition that created it is not something we want in society. Real anthropologists don't agree with most of what he says, and we have overwhelming evidence that status and money are terrible for people and cause acquired narcisisstic tendencies. And that highly unequal societies have much more violence and other negative results he spends very little time on. Switzerland had 500 years of peace and brotherhood. If true, that's a BETTER ACHIEVEMENT than almost any other civilization. Then he counterpoints that with competition between states. Well, that's just a game theory trap - competition is bad after all! Oh and nevermind that Switzerland managed for centuries to mostly neutralize its competitors (those seeking 'greatness' at the cost of inequality). And totally And they invented complex machinery anyway. His counterpoints to this are really, really weak. He also casually states that American military might 'protects American and Canadian interests' - that's a HUGE claim. American military efforts have frequently destabilized the world in ways that probably harms America. He seems to be a fan of American militarism. I am not. I dislike even his use of 'greatness' in very vague terms without examining whether the things he talks about ARE ACTUALLY GREAT.
    16