If I understand it correctly, then the study you mention is scheduled to end in August 2022, this year: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02965768 (backup) It contains only 30 participants, but still better than nothing.
I don't think most people outside left-anarchism would equate "state" with the existence of any unjust hierarchies. Indeed, defining a state in that way seems to be begging the question with regard to anarchy's desirability and feasibility.
I don't see where anonea2021 has made that claim. Did you mean to write "property" instead of "state" in this paragraph? (genuine question) Either way, I'm having trouble following what you want to say with this paragraph.
What anonea2021 states:
From the perspective of every other lineage of anarchists, private property is one of the things that enforces injust hierarchies.
I can confirm that this indeed the view of every other lineage of anarchists that I'm aware of. The anarchist's goal is to minimize unjust hierarchies. And given that private property (esp. of the means of production) is seen as one of the main causes of unjust hierarchies in today's world, it is plausible that a movement that tries create a society which structures itself completely along the lines of private property, is seen as utterly missing the point of anarchism. Thus "anarcho-"capitalism.
Very true. One of the things that makes good delegation hard is its increasing potential for corruption. While I don't worry much about corruption inside EA for now, this seems to be a significant problem for society at large? I wonder if there are culture-independent patterns for what low-corruption societies look like 🤔
If I try to inquire myself for why I donate directly to GiveDirectly instead of donating to an EA Fund, something that comes up is a desire for "control" and "defensibility". In an imaginary conversation, I can justify why I give large sums of money to GiveDirectly and why it is a Good Thing To Do to efficiently give money to the very poor. OTOH, giving money to an EA Fund feels much more amorphous and much harder to explain and justify what is happening with it and why it is a good idea.
Can you say more about this?
Somehow, that givinggladly.com link is broken for me. Here is an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20220412232153/http://www.givinggladly.com/2013/06/cheerfully.html
The first link seems to be dead by now, the second one moved. Here are the most recent (archived) versions that I could find:
If I understand it correctly, then the study you mention is scheduled to end in August 2022, this year: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02965768 (backup)
It contains only 30 participants, but still better than nothing.
I don't see where anonea2021 has made that claim. Did you mean to write "property" instead of "state" in this paragraph? (genuine question)
Either way, I'm having trouble following what you want to say with this paragraph.
What anonea2021 states:
I can confirm that this indeed the view of every other lineage of anarchists that I'm aware of.
The anarchist's goal is to minimize unjust hierarchies. And given that private property (esp. of the means of production) is seen as one of the main causes of unjust hierarchies in today's world, it is plausible that a movement that tries create a society which structures itself completely along the lines of private property, is seen as utterly missing the point of anarchism. Thus "anarcho-"capitalism.
Very true. One of the things that makes good delegation hard is its increasing potential for corruption.
While I don't worry much about corruption inside EA for now, this seems to be a significant problem for society at large? I wonder if there are culture-independent patterns for what low-corruption societies look like 🤔
If I try to inquire myself for why I donate directly to GiveDirectly instead of donating to an EA Fund, something that comes up is a desire for "control" and "defensibility". In an imaginary conversation, I can justify why I give large sums of money to GiveDirectly and why it is a Good Thing To Do to efficiently give money to the very poor. OTOH, giving money to an EA Fund feels much more amorphous and much harder to explain and justify what is happening with it and why it is a good idea.