ok here’s one. i ran your capitalism means policing big companies essay through the harness.
it flagged two things:
1. the essay’s policy claim is that government should police companies more vigorously. but the explanatory claim is that the root problem is human irrationality. you write:
“The people who run big companies are similar to the people who run the government. They aren’t significantly better people.”
“Most people are pretty bad. The main types of badness I have in mind are irrationality and dishonesty.”
if the government is staffed by the same irrational, dishonest people who run the companies, what makes the government capable of policing them effectively? the essay says the fix is education via your philosophy work, but that means the policy proposal has a precondition that doesn’t exist yet. is the harness missing a mechanism you had in mind, or is the actual claim “more policing would be good if we first fixed the people problem”?
2. you argue that creative adversaries with enough resources will generally find a way to beat any fixed set of rules. and then you say the solution requires “creative judges and law-makers on an ongoing basis” because companies will find loopholes. but a government that must constantly adapt its rules to outmaneuver well-resourced corporate adversaries is running an open-ended regulatory arms race. you call this a minarchy earlier in the essay, but a state that needs to constantly outmaneuver billionaire-funded corporate adversaries doesn’t seem minimal. your own premise (creative adversaries beat fixed rules) seems to undermine your own proposed solution (minarchist rules enforced better).
did the models hallucinate these, or are they real contradictions you’ve thought about since writing it?