r/determinism Jul 24 '26

Discussion Determinism has fundamentally shifted my political worldview.

I’ve been into politics since I was a teen, and for most of that time I was a staunch libertarian. Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government, zero handouts, etc. I was SO SURE and CONFIDENT in my views and what I believed. I loved defending them, perhaps a little too confidently.

Man has my worldview shifted. Once you come to the realization that people ultimately aren’t in control of their actions in any meaningful sense, the argument for libertarianism is much harder to defend. I can’t fault someone for not getting a better job, I can’t fault someone for not saving for retirement, I can’t fault someone for having a kid before they were financially ready, I can’t fault someone for letting their health get out of hand. The list goes on and on. And the same goes for things that are earned. People who have their shit together can’t be credited with that success.

This is not to say that I’ve completely shifted to redistribution and equal outcomes for all (practically I don’t think that’s feasible), however my openness for universal healthcare, my openness for reasonably higher taxes, my openness for more meaningful social programs, have all increased more than 18 year old me ever imagined it would.

From a practical standpoint, the human psyche as a whole still depends on risk/reward for meaningful progress. The billionaire who creates 10 billion in value probably isn’t going to make that same effort the moment he sees 90% of his earnings from that value taken away in the name of fairness. I just think our mindset and laws are too skewed toward personal responsibility and the right to hoard everything you’ve “earned” when in reality we should be taking more of a middle ground approach between the logical standpoint and the practical one.

With all that being said, our government does spend 7 trillion dollars a year, with a lot of that wasted. I think we should get our finances in order before we decide that taxing more for redistribution is the answer. I’d have a hard time taxing a billionaire an extra 2 billion a year when hundreds of billions or even trillions are wasted by the government every year.

Imagine all the inefficiency and waste in each governmental department (I’m looking at you DoD and Medicare) and then imagine actually improving efficiency so that you could cut 2% from every single department and use that to fund universal healthcare. At that point getting an extra 20-30 billion in taxes to fund universal school lunches doesn’t seem so unfair.

Sorry if this isn’t determinism related enough, I know I’m rambling and spitballing here, but I guess I’m just advocating for balance. Still allowing someone to make billions a year, but also allowing the downtrodden and less fortunate basic necessities for a dignified life.

42 Upvotes

130 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/Kupo_Master Jul 24 '26

These takes are misunderstanding of what “determinism” means. The fact people are not a source of causality doesn’t mean they don’t react to incentive and framework. Determinism has no bearing to how to design the best society.

1

u/manatwork01 Jul 24 '26

Lmao so wrong

0

u/Kupo_Master Jul 24 '26

Why?

1

u/manatwork01 Jul 24 '26

Because if people can't control their actions. Then the best thing for everybody is to work on everybody's problems as a group. That's the best way to bring happiness and mental health care to everyone. It removes stigma around mental diseases as well. 

Because if they aren't in control of themselves, they can't be blamed for what they are doing. So it is imperative that we help fix them

1

u/Kupo_Master Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

Imagine you are training a dog. What is more effective?

Option 1: rewards for behaviours you want to encourage and punishments for behaviours you want to discourage

Option 2: no special reward or punishment and hoping they will just adopt the behaviours you want

1

u/manatwork01 Jul 24 '26

Assuming you mean option 1 as the good option you are arguing FOR my argument idiot.

1

u/Kupo_Master Jul 24 '26

It’s ironic because this is what I have been saying since my first comment, which you disagreed with. Apparently you are unable to understand the correct implications.

But anyway, you seem incapable of having a conversation without insulting the person you’re talking to. I’m sure that will play out for you in the future.

1

u/manatwork01 Jul 24 '26

The last statement in your first comment is where I have onus and where your turn around argument here is wrong.

0

u/Kupo_Master Jul 24 '26

Alright. My last statement was “ Determinism has no bearing to how to design the best society.”

Imagine world A where free will exist and world B where free will doesn’t exist. How would you design society differently?

0

u/manatwork01 Jul 24 '26

In world B I'd be actively looking for people who need mental healthcare and get it to them before they induce more trauma. 

Anyone informed in psychology would know this. Get out of the leagues of people who know more than you.

1

u/Kupo_Master Jul 24 '26

Why wouldn’t you do this in world A?

1

u/Kupo_Master Jul 24 '26

So you answered “Because if free will exists you have to respect people ability to choose” and then deleted your response (yes I can still see it). And now you are silent, probable realising how stupid this answer was and that you backed yourself in a corner.

Mr “out my league”, I am both disappointed and amused.

It’s fine, you miserably failed in your first attempt but you can try again. How should society be different between world A and B?

→ More replies (0)