I tend to be more worried about people lynching other persons than government turning against their own people.
Think about my country (Argentina), some people recently were upset about the government rising taxes on soy and other exportable goods. So they went out and interrupted transit in mayor routes for weeks, leaving cities with shortage of goods and fuel. Yesterday, they resisted a judicial order explicitly telling them to clear the route. And got to be dragged outside by the gendarmerie who went to the place without any firearm (only shields and sticks that they didn't use). (notice that the government isn't denying them their right to strike)
Now... imagine the same people, in a country with a strong gun culture.
People tend to be too impulsive, aggressive and ignorant. Notice how they didn't try to pursue their ends by legal means (strike, plain protest, suing the government, etc), they just went out and demanded what they wanted, taking whole cities hostage.
And the government could try to end this illegal activity without having to use lethal force only because there isn't a gun culture in our country. Had his people been there carrying guns the situation would have been worst.
As far as I remember, you need to put energy on water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen.
There is a whole branch of experimental battery development that works on this principle: you store energy by splitting water and retrieve the energy by converting it back to water.
I think that the reason the extrapolation is not that naive is that there is already existing intelligence (not just us, but also many species), so saying "one day we'll develop an artificial intelligence" is just saying one day we'll reproduce what is already existing.
If you use the Copernican principle (i.e. we are not special) it is easy to assume we, as species, are not specially intelligent nor specially stupid. So the statement that there could be AI more intelligent than us is not that hard to believe.
All this, of course, assuming you don't believe in the soul, god, ghosts and those things.
I was only attacking your statement that your money was "hard earned". I honestly don't think so. And it is not an attack to you, it is a comment on the fact that most people is getting payed more to do jobs that are easier to do. You are wrong in your points 1 and 2, what I'm actually saying is "1. Most 'rich' people isn't really working that hard 2. Most poor people is working hard and doing useful work". Most is probably the keyword here.
So, to answer the particular question you are asking now, without addressing the assumptions you made in your post:
If there is a law that says you must pay taxes then that's exactly the difference, the fact that in one case there is a law decided by a society. And the decision won't be made because somebody thinks "hey, if some evil government took money from me using a gun it would be totally cool".
The decision will be made by a more complicated process. Like, for example, asking if the money is needed for something. If money (you know, that abstract paper or number in a bank account) is a good measure of your right to have things, or if that only applies to some things but not to others (like health, education and food to say some)
That's a great discussion. And I can see your point. Believe me, it wouldn't be hard for me to believe that the money I earn is well deserved and that I should be spending in caviar the money that now goes to public health. I'm glad not to think that way. But don't think it is just altruism, it is also a little bit of egoism:
Why do I like to have a law that says the government can take money from me?
Well, I like the fact that I know that it doesn't matter if I "loose the game", I know my kids will be able to start over with free education just like the one I had even if I end up broke. I also like to be sure that if I get a disease I can't afford to cure in the future I will get the treatment anyway.
This is a very interesting and complex issue. But once you start making gross oversimplifications I'm not interested anymore.
There was a student on first year of the university that could calculate 3 digits multiplications, divisions and square roots in a second.
It was the third year she was attending to the same class, first year algebra. She couldn't pass that year either. (public school is like that in my country, you can remain there as long as you want)
You define value as the product of offer and demand, that's great, that's the capitalist definition. But it is just that, a definition.
I think it is a great (as in useful) definition once we passed the point of having a minimum life (roof, food, health for you and your children and probably some education). It is a great way to decide which one is going to get a PS3 this Christmas or who will be getting the best meal tonight.
But I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about how should we decide if a school teacher should get chemotherapy (to say something dramatic that will further my argument by the use of rhetorics like you do). My position is that she should get it even if that means we all have to pay it because she doesn't have the money.
I certainly think a job designing a building should be better payed than a job constructing the walls. But the only important implication of that is that the architect will be driving a better car, having better vacations and eating better meals. I don't care about setting arbitrary rules (the capitalist definition of value) to decide superficial things. Arbitrary rule, by the way, that was shown to work perfectly.
But there's a floor. Some things that society should guarantee to everyone given its current state of abundance.
And yes, even criminals should be treated like humans(my third rule was talking about everyone who is trying to make himself useful to society, I only mention criminals because you did).
I know you probably think that only people who has enough money is entitled to cancer treatment. Or to give their kids a place to live. That's the logical implication of using a simple definition for the words "value" and "money". But that's what happens when you simplify things too much, sometimes you get wrong implications.
Thank you for the spelling correction, I always make those kind of mistakes. But in my defense, I have more spelling mistakes in my native tongue than those I have in English. If you find more please tell me. I won't take any offense.
The grading argument is an interesting way of missing the point.
I didn't maintain an A average on school, but didn't need any effort to pass the tests with good grades. Even more, the higher the grade I had, the least effort I needed to get it. For example, I had an 10 (out of 10) on physics I with no effort, but a 7 on quantum physics. Those students who had to study hard were eventually left behind.
Same goes for high school, I cruised through high school without even giving it a thought. It was the rest of them (the ones who are now working at lousy jobs, with just enough money to live) the ones who had to work hard to end high school.
Now, I assume you are just making fun of me, because having a good grade isn't a matter of life or death. Health care is. Food is. And if it had been a matter of life or death I would have say, "give my good grades to someone who needs them! I can easily get more!"
Of course you have to make a big effort to be on top of your game (To be an Olympics athlete, or a chess genius). Again, we are not talking about that, most people who make much money aren't "on top of their game" and aren't even trying to. And many people who are working their hards out on what they do don't get that much money from that.
For example, colleague scientists who work all days of the week, wake early on the morning and sacrifice their lives to research and science to stay on top of their game... they are hard working AND smart, yet they aren't getting rich. They are upper middle class at most. I'm earning more now than what a researcher will ever earn working on research (I'm talking about physics).
I see you are comparing poor people with people who has mental/physical disabilities and rich people with athletes and geniuses. That's very nice of you. But it is not important, because I'm not talking about pushing yourself to the limits to achieve records... I'm talking about making a living, earning money. Few people can be considered "Money-making athletes". The rest of us are just people who is working and making money from it.
Only poor people has hard-earned money. Most middle to upper class people usually have to do some office job, sitting on a comfortable room with air conditioner or heating systems and then driving home in your own car. You may end your day with some headaches, but you don't end your day with actual bruises (like people working on fields, mines or construction sites).
The more money you have, the more pleasant is doing your job. As you get better payed jobs you also get the better office and better non-monetary retributions.
I agree that it is harder to GET better jobs, it is harder to GET to a place where you are payed more. But you don't end up doing HARDER work, you may work hard, but people that's under you is working hard too, only that in worst conditions.
So I think the rule is:
Poor people: hard-earned money Rich people: hard-earned jobs
But I understand your position, games are always fun when you are winning. I also have one of those hard-to-earn jobs... I work at home, with a laptop, usually from bed or sitting on a nice chair on my garden.... while my cleaning lady has to spend her day going from house to house cleaning other people's shit.
So, when what I'm saying is three things:
1. Don't loose perspective of the place you stand compared to other people. 2. Don't say poor people doesn't work, or works less than you do. 3. Everyone is needed in society, everyone deserves to be recognized.
I don't see how your comment is insightful. It is pretty obvious that if you are willing to accept any kind of hypothesis then you will never be safe. After all, evil hackers from the government could hack into your computer and plant a backdoor.
But on a basic level, if you want to have a greater amount of certainty that your conversation won't be "retained" in order to comply with your local (or with USA) legislations, don't use commercial software.
On a medium level, you can google every open source software you are using and do some research, communicate to developers and people from the community to have a better idea on what are you dealing with.
As your paranoia increases, you'll need more resources to make sure you aren't "being watched". But the level of certainty you can achieve with open source software is far greater than the level of certainty you can achieve with closed source software.
Again, open source isn't a guarantee of anything. But what is anyway?
I created this account just to answer this article.
Offshoring and outsourcing is the other side of the coin. We, in the third world, have been buying the stuff you make since decades now.
We have McDonalds, Coca Cola, Blockbusters, Intel, Microsoft, etc.
It is often argued that we are loosing jobs by buying those products, that we should have our own industry. The general rule was to study here and go trying luck in the US. We have been relegated to agriculture and basic goods exportation, and because of the international value of those goods the local market value is increasing.
Now you are facing a similar problem. Should you "buy" our jobs?
To be honest, I think this is not in your best interests, those with jobs that are being offshoring will be left unemployed. But I also think it can't be avoided, that's the price you have to pay for being one of the richest countries in the world. What I would advice you is to adapt, move to another country. I know it is not an option for some of you, but those who can, should.
But I think in the long run it will be the best for everyone. Better salaries will in time make things better and increase the cost of living in third world countries, and offshoring will decrease the cost of living in your country.
You are just starting to feel the negative consequences of globalization...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and the USA fought because they gave a damn about Europe's freedom.
You are also fighting now because you care about Middle East's freedom, aren't you?
I tend to be more worried about people lynching other persons than government turning against their own people.
Think about my country (Argentina), some people recently were upset about the government rising taxes on soy and other exportable goods. So they went out and interrupted transit in mayor routes for weeks, leaving cities with shortage of goods and fuel. Yesterday, they resisted a judicial order explicitly telling them to clear the route. And got to be dragged outside by the gendarmerie who went to the place without any firearm (only shields and sticks that they didn't use). (notice that the government isn't denying them their right to strike)
Now... imagine the same people, in a country with a strong gun culture.
People tend to be too impulsive, aggressive and ignorant. Notice how they didn't try to pursue their ends by legal means (strike, plain protest, suing the government, etc), they just went out and demanded what they wanted, taking whole cities hostage.
And the government could try to end this illegal activity without having to use lethal force only because there isn't a gun culture in our country. Had his people been there carrying guns the situation would have been worst.
As far as I remember, you need to put energy on water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen.
There is a whole branch of experimental battery development that works on this principle: you store energy by splitting water and retrieve the energy by converting it back to water.
I think that the reason the extrapolation is not that naive is that there is already existing intelligence (not just us, but also many species), so saying "one day we'll develop an artificial intelligence" is just saying one day we'll reproduce what is already existing.
If you use the Copernican principle (i.e. we are not special) it is easy to assume we, as species, are not specially intelligent nor specially stupid. So the statement that there could be AI more intelligent than us is not that hard to believe.
All this, of course, assuming you don't believe in the soul, god, ghosts and those things.
I was only attacking your statement that your money was "hard earned". I honestly don't think so. And it is not an attack to you, it is a comment on the fact that most people is getting payed more to do jobs that are easier to do. You are wrong in your points 1 and 2, what I'm actually saying is "1. Most 'rich' people isn't really working that hard 2. Most poor people is working hard and doing useful work". Most is probably the keyword here.
So, to answer the particular question you are asking now, without addressing the assumptions you made in your post:
If there is a law that says you must pay taxes then that's exactly the difference, the fact that in one case there is a law decided by a society. And the decision won't be made because somebody thinks "hey, if some evil government took money from me using a gun it would be totally cool".
The decision will be made by a more complicated process. Like, for example, asking if the money is needed for something. If money (you know, that abstract paper or number in a bank account) is a good measure of your right to have things, or if that only applies to some things but not to others (like health, education and food to say some)
That's a great discussion. And I can see your point. Believe me, it wouldn't be hard for me to believe that the money I earn is well deserved and that I should be spending in caviar the money that now goes to public health. I'm glad not to think that way. But don't think it is just altruism, it is also a little bit of egoism:
Why do I like to have a law that says the government can take money from me?
Well, I like the fact that I know that it doesn't matter if I "loose the game", I know my kids will be able to start over with free education just like the one I had even if I end up broke. I also like to be sure that if I get a disease I can't afford to cure in the future I will get the treatment anyway.
This is a very interesting and complex issue. But once you start making gross oversimplifications I'm not interested anymore.
There was a student on first year of the university that could calculate 3 digits multiplications, divisions and square roots in a second.
It was the third year she was attending to the same class, first year algebra. She couldn't pass that year either. (public school is like that in my country, you can remain there as long as you want)
What you say is correct, yet so wrong.
You define value as the product of offer and demand, that's great, that's the capitalist definition. But it is just that, a definition.
I think it is a great (as in useful) definition once we passed the point of having a minimum life (roof, food, health for you and your children and probably some education). It is a great way to decide which one is going to get a PS3 this Christmas or who will be getting the best meal tonight.
But I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about how should we decide if a school teacher should get chemotherapy (to say something dramatic that will further my argument by the use of rhetorics like you do). My position is that she should get it even if that means we all have to pay it because she doesn't have the money.
I certainly think a job designing a building should be better payed than a job constructing the walls. But the only important implication of that is that the architect will be driving a better car, having better vacations and eating better meals. I don't care about setting arbitrary rules (the capitalist definition of value) to decide superficial things. Arbitrary rule, by the way, that was shown to work perfectly.
But there's a floor. Some things that society should guarantee to everyone given its current state of abundance.
And yes, even criminals should be treated like humans(my third rule was talking about everyone who is trying to make himself useful to society, I only mention criminals because you did).
I know you probably think that only people who has enough money is entitled to cancer treatment. Or to give their kids a place to live. That's the logical implication of using a simple definition for the words "value" and "money". But that's what happens when you simplify things too much, sometimes you get wrong implications.
Thank you for the spelling correction, I always make those kind of mistakes. But in my defense, I have more spelling mistakes in my native tongue than those I have in English. If you find more please tell me. I won't take any offense.
The grading argument is an interesting way of missing the point.
I didn't maintain an A average on school, but didn't need any effort to pass the tests with good grades. Even more, the higher the grade I had, the least effort I needed to get it. For example, I had an 10 (out of 10) on physics I with no effort, but a 7 on quantum physics. Those students who had to study hard were eventually left behind.
Same goes for high school, I cruised through high school without even giving it a thought. It was the rest of them (the ones who are now working at lousy jobs, with just enough money to live) the ones who had to work hard to end high school.
Now, I assume you are just making fun of me, because having a good grade isn't a matter of life or death. Health care is. Food is. And if it had been a matter of life or death I would have say, "give my good grades to someone who needs them! I can easily get more!"
Of course you have to make a big effort to be on top of your game (To be an Olympics athlete, or a chess genius). Again, we are not talking about that, most people who make much money aren't "on top of their game" and aren't even trying to. And many people who are working their hards out on what they do don't get that much money from that.
For example, colleague scientists who work all days of the week, wake early on the morning and sacrifice their lives to research and science to stay on top of their game... they are hard working AND smart, yet they aren't getting rich. They are upper middle class at most. I'm earning more now than what a researcher will ever earn working on research (I'm talking about physics).
I see you are comparing poor people with people who has mental/physical disabilities and rich people with athletes and geniuses. That's very nice of you. But it is not important, because I'm not talking about pushing yourself to the limits to achieve records... I'm talking about making a living, earning money. Few people can be considered "Money-making athletes". The rest of us are just people who is working and making money from it.
Only poor people has hard-earned money. Most middle to upper class people usually have to do some office job, sitting on a comfortable room with air conditioner or heating systems and then driving home in your own car. You may end your day with some headaches, but you don't end your day with actual bruises (like people working on fields, mines or construction sites).
The more money you have, the more pleasant is doing your job. As you get better payed jobs you also get the better office and better non-monetary retributions.
I agree that it is harder to GET better jobs, it is harder to GET to a place where you are payed more. But you don't end up doing HARDER work, you may work hard, but people that's under you is working hard too, only that in worst conditions.
So I think the rule is:
Poor people: hard-earned money
Rich people: hard-earned jobs
But I understand your position, games are always fun when you are winning. I also have one of those hard-to-earn jobs... I work at home, with a laptop, usually from bed or sitting on a nice chair on my garden.... while my cleaning lady has to spend her day going from house to house cleaning other people's shit.
So, when what I'm saying is three things:
1. Don't loose perspective of the place you stand compared to other people.
2. Don't say poor people doesn't work, or works less than you do.
3. Everyone is needed in society, everyone deserves to be recognized.
--
We are all Anonymous Cowards when online.
Or you can avoid giving the government the control. They only have to go to your house.
I don't see how your comment is insightful. It is pretty obvious that if you are willing to accept any kind of hypothesis then you will never be safe. After all, evil hackers from the government could hack into your computer and plant a backdoor. But on a basic level, if you want to have a greater amount of certainty that your conversation won't be "retained" in order to comply with your local (or with USA) legislations, don't use commercial software. On a medium level, you can google every open source software you are using and do some research, communicate to developers and people from the community to have a better idea on what are you dealing with. As your paranoia increases, you'll need more resources to make sure you aren't "being watched". But the level of certainty you can achieve with open source software is far greater than the level of certainty you can achieve with closed source software. Again, open source isn't a guarantee of anything. But what is anyway?
I created this account just to answer this article.
Offshoring and outsourcing is the other side of the coin.
We, in the third world, have been buying the stuff you make since decades now.
We have McDonalds, Coca Cola, Blockbusters, Intel, Microsoft, etc.
It is often argued that we are loosing jobs by buying those products, that we should have our own industry. The general rule was to study here and go trying luck in the US. We have been relegated to agriculture and basic goods exportation, and because of the international value of those goods the local market value is increasing.
Now you are facing a similar problem. Should you "buy" our jobs?
To be honest, I think this is not in your best interests, those with jobs that are being offshoring will be left unemployed. But I also think it can't be avoided, that's the price you have to pay for being one of the richest countries in the world. What I would advice you is to adapt, move to another country. I know it is not an option for some of you, but those who can, should.
But I think in the long run it will be the best for everyone. Better salaries will in time make things better and increase the cost of living in third world countries, and offshoring will decrease the cost of living in your country.
You are just starting to feel the negative consequences of globalization...