there is no reason to believe that consciousness or experience falls out of machines,
A brain is a machine with consciousness and experience. So we're trying to construct in a different way, a machine to do something for which we already have an existence proof.
that means 2/3 of the risk of cancer is unaffected by efforts to avoid it.
Depends on the efforts. penguinoid already mentioned how you can make it worse. If on the other hand, you have nanoscale machinery in your body actively hunting down and destroying pre-cancerous growths, it's going to be a lot lower.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
Here, self-defense uses are probably understated by many orders of magnitude. I can't take an assertion like this seriously, when there's such an obvious slant to it.
Let's stop being a dumbfuck for a moment and notice the obvious. Glossing over Facebook, Google, and Twitter as "media companies", completely ignores a really important thing. The actual content comes from the users of the system not the company.
The only thing we have from 75 years ago even remotely similar to Facebook and the like, are occasional published comments from the general public (such as letters to the Editor) or classified ads. Both are heavily policed anyway because almost all newspapers and magazines don't want the public embarrassment of Jew baiting on page 2.
In other words, there was nothing like Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc for most of the past 75 years. As I said. So we see that one important part of this "bullshit argument" is not bullshit.
So is Germany going to pay to cover these arbitrary costs they just heaped on Facebook, Google, and Twitter? Of course not. They don't give a shit how stupid their regulations are or how much they cost to enforce. One size fits all and who cares what the users, who are the ones actually generating this content, happen to say.
Moving on, this sort of bullshit kills important services that don't police the speech of their users. It's not for everyone, but there should always be places where people can say what they think, no matter how stupid that speech is.
IOW there is no censorship here: the comments were posted. and remained up for some time. Then somebody deletes them non-violently. You are worse than Facebook.
Since when has verbal speech "remained up". You are talking about entirely different communication mechanics for starters. Second, what censorship? Speech wasn't prevented. It wasn't "deleted". Some AC chooses to assault another because they said something nasty. All the other person has to do is stay out of arm's reach.
Suppose someone on Facebook says something nasty about our sensitive AC's mother. Thus enraged, the AC zooms on over to the offender's house and socks them one. The speech "remains up", Nursing a black eye hasn't forced our intrepid offender or Facebook to take anything down.
It's empirical bullshit that works. That makes it science.
If all knowledge of religion, economics, and the sciences were to be wiped off the face of the earth, only 1 of those would be look the same after re-discovery.
You really think that people wouldn't figure out again markets, money, or capital?
Looks like they also sneaked in a massive enlargement of H1-B from 66k to either 200k or 250k, depending on who you ask.
Well, when something must be kept going "at all costs", then the costs turn out to be high.
We also have here a strong argument for government reduction as well. The less crap government does, the less they can hold hostage when they want to pass something like CISA or an H1-B expansion.
The benefit here is more efficient use of other things than human labor.
The benefit is more efficient use of human labor.
No, you had it right the first time. Capital was being used to enable a new use or more efficient use of non-labor resources. It might even entail more extensive use of labor, since labor is not the only cost in a manufacturing process and it may be reasonable to trade off more labor against lower costs elsewhere. I think it's ironic that you are spending effort disagreeing with yourself.
Your niggling about is what's kept economics in the stone age. It's no wonder I can explain, with a consistent and unshifting unified theory, all accepted theories of economics, and explain why they fail when they're observed to fail, and why they work when they do work, and predict when they fail and when they work, consistently, without error: correct theories are easy to come up with when you're not a mindless git.
Words mean things. There's no point to your attempted redefinition of capitalism which contributes nothing to our understanding of economic systems. I think there's a particular irony in that the first person, Karl Marx to pedal the value of labor theory (which you rewarm here) also coined the term, capitalism and gave it its present meaning.
The point of this is communication, not one idiot telling another idiot how stupid they are.
Seriously. I describe movements of economics, and you whine about words. Someone defines a system in which people work to acquire a higher standard-of-living by acquiring control of assets, and you obsess over whether having effective control of an asset implies possession--as if that matters. Humans decrease the labor they apply to produce a good, and you see that a machine now does a task and go, "Oh, look, NO HUMAN LABOR!" without recognizing the labor in producing and operating the machine. Humans produce NOTHING, and you go, "Look, something was produced without human labor!" You see things and say, "Look! Capital! Capital value!" instead of recognizing a (limited) resource that allows production of some good with less labor (e.g. energy by mining oil, until the oil runs out and you have to use solar energy to produce oil from the air--which takes more human labor than just digging it out of the ground).
Yet another person mistakes a viewpoint for universal truth. I could use iron, thermodynamic work, or snake venom in place of human labor and come up with similar theories. Human labor is just another resource. A point of view based on it will be flawed and incomplete, though perhaps not as much as one based on rattlesnake venom.
That last one should be particularly obvious, but nobody notices that somehow "capital" doesn't have so much value if you move it over a few feet--you know, into solid rock or a muck pile where you have to expend ten times as much labor digging it out and filtering it, ultimately increasing the cost and decreasing the supposed "value" of the "capital".
I think this falls under completely irrelevant to our discussion. It isn't particularly hard to destroy or inconvenience human labor either. I don't see that observation contributing either. Capital needs priors to operate well. So does labor. We already know that.
In a communist society with state ownership of all capital, people will seek to get themselves into power positions which provide them greater rights over more of the state's capital. They won't "own" it, yet they'll somehow behave exactly as if they do: they'll be able to eat caviar while others eat bread, and fly private jets while others ride the bus. They don't "own" any of this, yet they work to put themselves in a position where it is at their disposal--where more things are at their disposal than at the disposal of others. They work to increase their personal, private access to capital.
If you're down to arguing over the definition of "it," you've already lost.
Nope, I made a point. Even you refer to the bill as a single thing even though it "changes". There are plenty of things like legislative bills that evolve over time yet maintain a clear identity.
And given that the eventual Obamacare bill was a pile of nasty crap, concern over what was in the bill turned out to be warranted.
"Obamacare" passed, and is popular.
No. Don't buy it. Sure, small parts of it are probably popular with small groups of people with a good payout from the law, particularly those with preexisting conditions. who want their employers to pay for expensive birth control options, or who own a significant share of an insurance company. I'm sure that once things settle down, people will find the computerized record keeping requirements to be not terrible.
But who finds the clusterfuck of the health insurance markets rollout or the individual mandate to be popular? Who finds the continuing delay of the employer mandate or working multiple, conflicting part time jobs to be popular? Or the substantial subsidies of insurance companies to take on excessive risk and costs (or the likely consequences of bankruptcy that would follow once the subsidies go away). Half these problems are one time and half will continue as long as the law remains unfixed.
And there does seem to be a fair number of people who don't appreciate losing their employer-paid insurance or watching their insurance degrade in quality (particularly, increased deductibles) for the same cost, or watching the falling quality of Medicaid, which among other things has significantly reduced the amount paid per member while simultaneously increasing the number of people on Medicaid.
Point is, I hear these claims of the "popularity" of the law to be ridiculous. I doubt most of the people who even find the law to be popular know of the many things it does. Nor are the repercussions of this law fully understood yet. I believe for example, we will see a net increase in uninsured over time, both as health insurance subsidies are withdrawn and as Medicaid continues to degrade. And as a result, I don't see the supposed popularity of this law surviving that.
This brings up an obvious discernment problem. I readily observe a number of serious problems with this law (I haven't even gone over the constitutional problems with the law of which it has a surprising number). Meanwhile you can only say that you thinksit is "popular" and that "doom" hasn't yet happened. That's pretty weak.
Facebook, Google, and Twitter weren't around 75 years ago. Germany wasn't ordering foreign media businesses to police speech of their customers back then.
You may disagree, but if you think there was any original research in what I said then you do not yet even know if you agree or disagree, because you've never looked into these issues.
Well, was there any original research in what you said, or were you just echoing more talking points?
If you want to disagree with not only the mainstream analysis, but with the next dozen opinions too, fine. But it is on you to know what the basic beliefs about the field of study are before deciding that your own personal idea is better.
How dare I disagree with the completely imaginary mainstream analysis here. And a dozen more opinions! That's a lot, right? Note that neither the hypothetical mainstream analysis or the next dozen opinions were ever mentioned in this thread, it was just your musings.
I call your bluff; I say you don't really have any idea about the subject. You talk about laws and regulations, but avoid the budget, which requires annual laws authorizing the government to spend money. Explain how you are right, by getting specific about what you claim I am wrong about. Don't just wave your hands and say there will be less bad laws; how will you cause the necessary budgets to get passed with his proposed system of voting "no" on anything that hadn't been static for 2 weeks on a non-negotiable basis. If you get enough of Congress to vote your way, but there are still other Americans whose reps vote differently, how are you going to negotiate and pass a budget?
It's worth noting that there are 52 weeks in a year. There is plenty of time for a two week waiting period in that. If the legislature can't do that, then halt non-essential functions of the federal government until they get their act together or a new group gets voted in, whichever comes first. It's a solved problem.
Why should somebody who doesn't like to read about regulations be able to read them all and know what they are? Is human knowledge in general sized so that you can know all the human knowledge and systems and rules for different situations in other fields?
The obvious problem here is that how can you be in compliance with the law when regulation and law grow so rapidly? There aren't little business niches and little church niches and little taxpayer niches. This is a sloppy, ever growing mess with plenty of hidden connections, loopholes, and weird situations that you need specialized experts in the field to dig out.
And you need to be in compliance with a lot of regulation and law, if you want to run a business, hire people, do anything non trivial with a piece of property, or pay taxes on anything more complicated than personal income. Every year those tasks get harder and harder.
Don't care to read about wetland or employer health insurance regulation? Too bad. It doesn't matter if you "don't like" to read regulations that affect you directly. They still affect you directly.
Again, you have yet to give a Trump example of this. We have instead an idiot who deliberately provoked violence. And nobody liked him as a result. Now, if you can show that Trump staged the thing to stoke the violent behavior and inclinations of his audience, that would be pretty strong evidence for some degree of fascism.
But since you at least tried, I'll point out the Trayvon Martin shooting by George Zimmerman as a counterexample. It was idiot on idiot violence yet Obama felt the need not only to cast Martin as the son he never had, but also to order a three year investigation of what at best was clearly a state not federal crime.
In other words, Obama completely and uncritically supported as a symbol, someone who assaulted another person with apparent intent to kill, to the point that he harassed for several years the victim of the assault.
Actually, there's no such thing as a non-capitalist system.
And then started to speak about human labor.
The whole point of inventing new things--such as AI--is to create a new way to produce with less human labor. Less labor means less cost; we simply represent that cost with a universal commodity, like money. Essentially, everything requires human labor: if you have 60 labor-hours to work, you need 20 labor-hours to produce food for your family, and you spend 45 labor-hours building shelter, your family is going to starve (eventually) because they're only getting 75% as much food as they need.
As you cut back the human labor requirements to produce food, shelter, clothing, and whatever else you're currently consuming, you become capable of producing new things, as well as producing existing things in great quantity with little resource investment. Humans often take shortcuts by digging things like coal or gold out of the ground until they run out of that resource, and then do something more labor-intensive to get that resource (or preemptively invent a less-intensive method to obtain the same resource, thus saving themselves the labor involved in fetching it from a giant hole).
The rattlesnake producing in the economic sense its own venom is instructive for several reasons. First, it demonstrates that human labor is not needed. The rattlesnake has economic preferences even if it doesn't exhibit clear intent and it produces some things (such as venom and more rattlesnakes). Sure, we can discuss a model of work for some sort of positive outcome. Here, if all goes well for our rattlesnake, soon there will be more rattlesnakes descended from the original one. There is a measure of profit even though the snake may not have intent to do so.
But note your original sentence about "inventing new things". Clearly, the rattlesnake doesn't do that, except perhaps unintentionally as a result of evolution. On the other extreme, AI and machines might be able to transform themselves at a rate so rapid and complex that it would be impossible for humans to keep up. Invention while not necessarily human-based is an activity based on human scales of time and knowledge.
While this demonstrates once again the somewhat flawed human-centric orientation of your arguments while trying to make a more general argument, the arguments of this thread do illustrate several key observations about capital.
First, it is possible to have a crude economic system where there is no capital at all. The rattlesnake has itself, the occasional member of the opposite sex, prey, and some convenient features of the local terrain such as brush to hide in or rocks to sun on. There is no capital for it to create and it lives and reproduces without doing so. But it labors on with a clear sense of profit - creating successful progeny.
This is a case where something is laboring for profit without having a hint of capital involved.
Meanwhile, if we look carefully at your touted benefits of invention, we see the following claim:
you become capable of producing new things, as well as producing existing things in great quantity with little resource investment
The benefit here is more efficient use of other things than human labor. This brings up my next point, human labor is just another resource from the point of view of capitalism. We could have spoken of more efficient usage of iron, thermodynamic work, or rattlesnake venom instead. Human labor is no more or less optimized for than those are (at least in the situations where they are used). Even if you assert that human labor is first and foremost among resources, you still have thermodynamic work as an even more fundamental resource.
To continue, there's even a category of product, luxury goods where excessive use of human labor conveys greater value. If we really were optimizing for human labor,
Society can't have downtime. It is a bunch of heavily patched legacy spaghetti code on a production machine that must keep going at all costs. The accrual of bureaucratic crap is unavoidable.
As I already mentioned, I don't buy that this is happening. Instead, I believe the opposite is happening with huge amounts of untested, spaghetti code dumped on production machines - faster than people can read it. The fact that society still moves indicates to me that it isn't as dependent on legislatures doing something as you assert.
OK then, for the encyclopedic answer instead of the quick summary try something a little more than a dictionary.
What brought on all the bile over such a simple suggestion expressed politely?
Let's look at the "polite" suggestion:
Try looking at the Italian example instead of the dumbed down short description.
What was dumbed down about the dictionary definition? Sounds more to me like a condescending insult.
I notice this a lot with any discussion involving fascism. Someone has to intrude with their own peculiar definition because it allows them to tar and paper some target they don't like as a fascist or other word with negative connotation. You could, for example, do the same with Obama, who has a loopy cult of personalty, weird, content-free sloganeering ("Hope and change", "Yes, we can"), and a pro-authoritarian policy. If you squint just right, it's fascism, trust me.
Then there's this ludicrous comparison of Bernie Sanders to Nazism. Namely, because he supports immigration reform, he's nationalist. And because he supports labor unions, he's socialist. National + Socialist => Nazi sympathizer, I guess. If he starts goose-stepping through the White House with his brutal lukewarm immigration position and labor union sympathies, don't say someone didn't warn you!
At some point, you have to use actual definitions such as given by actual dictionaries and lay the craziness of pre-Second World War politics to rest.
They are a group of people becoming increasingly militant.
You let me know when it's OK to call them a "militant group".
I have to agree with the grownups here. Trump followers don't seem any more militant than most Obama followers (to give another US group which gets casually accused of fascism).
They always creep in scope until they include criticizing the rulers.
No they don't.
Maybe you are right about some case in the past. But the grandparent presents a compelling case that this is happening now with German hate speech law.
Anything you say against rulers is "protected by free speech" as the topics both cover are mutual exclusive, there is no jewish ruler attacked by "burn all jews!" hate speech (yet). And if he was attacked like that, it clearly was hate speech, and not an attack on the government. You are free to call the jewish ruler what ever you want as long as you can cope with slander, libel and other laws.
Unless, of course, the law then expands to rule out that speech.
No idea why you americans can't grasp the concept. You are free to phrase your opinion, you are not free to agitate other people into committing crimes. Some "other people" have a little higher level of protection, e.g. ethnic or religious groups are extra protected, again: why you can not cope with that is beyond me.
Because we're apparently not quite as idiotic as Germans are on this subject. There's no reason to grant certain groups additional protection. And I agree with the grandparent that once you start granting exceptions, eventually the powers-that-be will be included among the groups with special additional protection.
So you're willing to commit violence to prevent some speech
The speech wasn't prevented. The violence is in response to the speech.
but also commit it against attempts at censorship?
AC, you may be legion, but I doubt you're a government. Here, we have a person enforcing at the extent of their fist their ideas of allowable speech. But to paraphrase Herodotus, government's might is greater than human, and their arms are very long.
And before you say, "Well, they shouldn't be passing all this stuff anyway," just keep in mind that for every page of nefarious weird stuff stuck into some random bill, there are probably a dozen pages of random bureaucratic crap that need to go through just to keep everything functioning. You have to wade through all of that bureaucratic crap (which often is just fundamental basic stuff to keep things going in a reasonable fashion, and which you just need to trust your committee members and advisors to look over) in order to get to the controversial stuff.
No, I don't buy this. Bureaucratic crap is not like energy. You don't need a certain amount of it to turn a wheel. And CISA is a pretty nasty and sizable bit to hide.
You would vote "no" on everything, government would shut down if other voted the same way, and eventually after a few years of not funding any military Mexico would invade.
Sounds like we ought to call your bluff on that. Personally, I would love the obstruction of bad and unaccountable law that this would create. When the US creates laws and regulations that each grow faster than someone can read and understand those, then something needs to be done to slow the process down.
The idea that there is "a bill" before it is voted on is silly, because it is changing from one minute to the next.
And yet you called it "it". Plenty of things change from minute to minute (such as people) yet we don't have any trouble hanging names on them either. This is just bad philosophical reasoning to support a thoughtless, callous insult.
And given that the eventual Obamacare bill was a pile of nasty crap, concern over what was in the bill turned out to be warranted.
Slashdot Mirror
there is no reason to believe that consciousness or experience falls out of machines,
A brain is a machine with consciousness and experience. So we're trying to construct in a different way, a machine to do something for which we already have an existence proof.
So? They can put up a sign. "Premises under video surveillance."
And why would that count as permission to use said video for any purpose? It's just not true.
that means 2/3 of the risk of cancer is unaffected by efforts to avoid it.
Depends on the efforts. penguinoid already mentioned how you can make it worse. If on the other hand, you have nanoscale machinery in your body actively hunting down and destroying pre-cancerous growths, it's going to be a lot lower.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
Here, self-defense uses are probably understated by many orders of magnitude. I can't take an assertion like this seriously, when there's such an obvious slant to it.
Let's stop being a dumbfuck for a moment and notice the obvious. Glossing over Facebook, Google, and Twitter as "media companies", completely ignores a really important thing. The actual content comes from the users of the system not the company.
The only thing we have from 75 years ago even remotely similar to Facebook and the like, are occasional published comments from the general public (such as letters to the Editor) or classified ads. Both are heavily policed anyway because almost all newspapers and magazines don't want the public embarrassment of Jew baiting on page 2.
In other words, there was nothing like Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc for most of the past 75 years. As I said. So we see that one important part of this "bullshit argument" is not bullshit.
So is Germany going to pay to cover these arbitrary costs they just heaped on Facebook, Google, and Twitter? Of course not. They don't give a shit how stupid their regulations are or how much they cost to enforce. One size fits all and who cares what the users, who are the ones actually generating this content, happen to say.
Moving on, this sort of bullshit kills important services that don't police the speech of their users. It's not for everyone, but there should always be places where people can say what they think, no matter how stupid that speech is.
IOW there is no censorship here: the comments were posted. and remained up for some time. Then somebody deletes them non-violently. You are worse than Facebook.
Since when has verbal speech "remained up". You are talking about entirely different communication mechanics for starters. Second, what censorship? Speech wasn't prevented. It wasn't "deleted". Some AC chooses to assault another because they said something nasty. All the other person has to do is stay out of arm's reach.
Suppose someone on Facebook says something nasty about our sensitive AC's mother. Thus enraged, the AC zooms on over to the offender's house and socks them one. The speech "remains up", Nursing a black eye hasn't forced our intrepid offender or Facebook to take anything down.
If all knowledge of religion, economics, and the sciences were to be wiped off the face of the earth, only 1 of those would be look the same after re-discovery.
You really think that people wouldn't figure out again markets, money, or capital?
Looks like they also sneaked in a massive enlargement of H1-B from 66k to either 200k or 250k, depending on who you ask.
Well, when something must be kept going "at all costs", then the costs turn out to be high.
We also have here a strong argument for government reduction as well. The less crap government does, the less they can hold hostage when they want to pass something like CISA or an H1-B expansion.
The benefit here is more efficient use of other things than human labor.
The benefit is more efficient use of human labor.
No, you had it right the first time. Capital was being used to enable a new use or more efficient use of non-labor resources. It might even entail more extensive use of labor, since labor is not the only cost in a manufacturing process and it may be reasonable to trade off more labor against lower costs elsewhere. I think it's ironic that you are spending effort disagreeing with yourself.
Your niggling about is what's kept economics in the stone age. It's no wonder I can explain, with a consistent and unshifting unified theory, all accepted theories of economics, and explain why they fail when they're observed to fail, and why they work when they do work, and predict when they fail and when they work, consistently, without error: correct theories are easy to come up with when you're not a mindless git.
Words mean things. There's no point to your attempted redefinition of capitalism which contributes nothing to our understanding of economic systems. I think there's a particular irony in that the first person, Karl Marx to pedal the value of labor theory (which you rewarm here) also coined the term, capitalism and gave it its present meaning.
The point of this is communication, not one idiot telling another idiot how stupid they are.
Seriously. I describe movements of economics, and you whine about words. Someone defines a system in which people work to acquire a higher standard-of-living by acquiring control of assets, and you obsess over whether having effective control of an asset implies possession--as if that matters. Humans decrease the labor they apply to produce a good, and you see that a machine now does a task and go, "Oh, look, NO HUMAN LABOR!" without recognizing the labor in producing and operating the machine. Humans produce NOTHING, and you go, "Look, something was produced without human labor!" You see things and say, "Look! Capital! Capital value!" instead of recognizing a (limited) resource that allows production of some good with less labor (e.g. energy by mining oil, until the oil runs out and you have to use solar energy to produce oil from the air--which takes more human labor than just digging it out of the ground).
Yet another person mistakes a viewpoint for universal truth. I could use iron, thermodynamic work, or snake venom in place of human labor and come up with similar theories. Human labor is just another resource. A point of view based on it will be flawed and incomplete, though perhaps not as much as one based on rattlesnake venom.
That last one should be particularly obvious, but nobody notices that somehow "capital" doesn't have so much value if you move it over a few feet--you know, into solid rock or a muck pile where you have to expend ten times as much labor digging it out and filtering it, ultimately increasing the cost and decreasing the supposed "value" of the "capital".
I think this falls under completely irrelevant to our discussion. It isn't particularly hard to destroy or inconvenience human labor either. I don't see that observation contributing either. Capital needs priors to operate well. So does labor. We already know that.
In a communist society with state ownership of all capital, people will seek to get themselves into power positions which provide them greater rights over more of the state's capital. They won't "own" it, yet they'll somehow behave exactly as if they do: they'll be able to eat caviar while others eat bread, and fly private jets while others ride the bus. They don't "own" any of this, yet they work to put themselves in a position where it is at their disposal--where more things are at their disposal than at the disposal of others. They work to increase their personal, private access to capital.
If you're down to arguing over the definition of "it," you've already lost.
Nope, I made a point. Even you refer to the bill as a single thing even though it "changes". There are plenty of things like legislative bills that evolve over time yet maintain a clear identity.
And given that the eventual Obamacare bill was a pile of nasty crap, concern over what was in the bill turned out to be warranted.
"Obamacare" passed, and is popular.
No. Don't buy it. Sure, small parts of it are probably popular with small groups of people with a good payout from the law, particularly those with preexisting conditions. who want their employers to pay for expensive birth control options, or who own a significant share of an insurance company. I'm sure that once things settle down, people will find the computerized record keeping requirements to be not terrible.
But who finds the clusterfuck of the health insurance markets rollout or the individual mandate to be popular? Who finds the continuing delay of the employer mandate or working multiple, conflicting part time jobs to be popular? Or the substantial subsidies of insurance companies to take on excessive risk and costs (or the likely consequences of bankruptcy that would follow once the subsidies go away). Half these problems are one time and half will continue as long as the law remains unfixed.
And there does seem to be a fair number of people who don't appreciate losing their employer-paid insurance or watching their insurance degrade in quality (particularly, increased deductibles) for the same cost, or watching the falling quality of Medicaid, which among other things has significantly reduced the amount paid per member while simultaneously increasing the number of people on Medicaid.
Point is, I hear these claims of the "popularity" of the law to be ridiculous. I doubt most of the people who even find the law to be popular know of the many things it does. Nor are the repercussions of this law fully understood yet. I believe for example, we will see a net increase in uninsured over time, both as health insurance subsidies are withdrawn and as Medicaid continues to degrade. And as a result, I don't see the supposed popularity of this law surviving that.
This brings up an obvious discernment problem. I readily observe a number of serious problems with this law (I haven't even gone over the constitutional problems with the law of which it has a surprising number). Meanwhile you can only say that you thinksit is "popular" and that "doom" hasn't yet happened. That's pretty weak.
There is not any change in laws since 75 years.
Facebook, Google, and Twitter weren't around 75 years ago. Germany wasn't ordering foreign media businesses to police speech of their customers back then.
You may disagree, but if you think there was any original research in what I said then you do not yet even know if you agree or disagree, because you've never looked into these issues.
Well, was there any original research in what you said, or were you just echoing more talking points?
If you want to disagree with not only the mainstream analysis, but with the next dozen opinions too, fine. But it is on you to know what the basic beliefs about the field of study are before deciding that your own personal idea is better.
How dare I disagree with the completely imaginary mainstream analysis here. And a dozen more opinions! That's a lot, right? Note that neither the hypothetical mainstream analysis or the next dozen opinions were ever mentioned in this thread, it was just your musings.
I call your bluff; I say you don't really have any idea about the subject. You talk about laws and regulations, but avoid the budget, which requires annual laws authorizing the government to spend money. Explain how you are right, by getting specific about what you claim I am wrong about. Don't just wave your hands and say there will be less bad laws; how will you cause the necessary budgets to get passed with his proposed system of voting "no" on anything that hadn't been static for 2 weeks on a non-negotiable basis. If you get enough of Congress to vote your way, but there are still other Americans whose reps vote differently, how are you going to negotiate and pass a budget?
It's worth noting that there are 52 weeks in a year. There is plenty of time for a two week waiting period in that. If the legislature can't do that, then halt non-essential functions of the federal government until they get their act together or a new group gets voted in, whichever comes first. It's a solved problem.
Why should somebody who doesn't like to read about regulations be able to read them all and know what they are? Is human knowledge in general sized so that you can know all the human knowledge and systems and rules for different situations in other fields?
The obvious problem here is that how can you be in compliance with the law when regulation and law grow so rapidly? There aren't little business niches and little church niches and little taxpayer niches. This is a sloppy, ever growing mess with plenty of hidden connections, loopholes, and weird situations that you need specialized experts in the field to dig out.
And you need to be in compliance with a lot of regulation and law, if you want to run a business, hire people, do anything non trivial with a piece of property, or pay taxes on anything more complicated than personal income. Every year those tasks get harder and harder.
Don't care to read about wetland or employer health insurance regulation? Too bad. It doesn't matter if you "don't like" to read regulations that affect you directly. They still affect you directly.
Again, you have yet to give a Trump example of this. We have instead an idiot who deliberately provoked violence. And nobody liked him as a result. Now, if you can show that Trump staged the thing to stoke the violent behavior and inclinations of his audience, that would be pretty strong evidence for some degree of fascism.
But since you at least tried, I'll point out the Trayvon Martin shooting by George Zimmerman as a counterexample. It was idiot on idiot violence yet Obama felt the need not only to cast Martin as the son he never had, but also to order a three year investigation of what at best was clearly a state not federal crime.
In other words, Obama completely and uncritically supported as a symbol, someone who assaulted another person with apparent intent to kill, to the point that he harassed for several years the victim of the assault.
Actually, there's no such thing as a non-capitalist system.
And then started to speak about human labor.
The whole point of inventing new things--such as AI--is to create a new way to produce with less human labor. Less labor means less cost; we simply represent that cost with a universal commodity, like money. Essentially, everything requires human labor: if you have 60 labor-hours to work, you need 20 labor-hours to produce food for your family, and you spend 45 labor-hours building shelter, your family is going to starve (eventually) because they're only getting 75% as much food as they need.
As you cut back the human labor requirements to produce food, shelter, clothing, and whatever else you're currently consuming, you become capable of producing new things, as well as producing existing things in great quantity with little resource investment. Humans often take shortcuts by digging things like coal or gold out of the ground until they run out of that resource, and then do something more labor-intensive to get that resource (or preemptively invent a less-intensive method to obtain the same resource, thus saving themselves the labor involved in fetching it from a giant hole).
The rattlesnake producing in the economic sense its own venom is instructive for several reasons. First, it demonstrates that human labor is not needed. The rattlesnake has economic preferences even if it doesn't exhibit clear intent and it produces some things (such as venom and more rattlesnakes). Sure, we can discuss a model of work for some sort of positive outcome. Here, if all goes well for our rattlesnake, soon there will be more rattlesnakes descended from the original one. There is a measure of profit even though the snake may not have intent to do so.
But note your original sentence about "inventing new things". Clearly, the rattlesnake doesn't do that, except perhaps unintentionally as a result of evolution. On the other extreme, AI and machines might be able to transform themselves at a rate so rapid and complex that it would be impossible for humans to keep up. Invention while not necessarily human-based is an activity based on human scales of time and knowledge.
While this demonstrates once again the somewhat flawed human-centric orientation of your arguments while trying to make a more general argument, the arguments of this thread do illustrate several key observations about capital.
First, it is possible to have a crude economic system where there is no capital at all. The rattlesnake has itself, the occasional member of the opposite sex, prey, and some convenient features of the local terrain such as brush to hide in or rocks to sun on. There is no capital for it to create and it lives and reproduces without doing so. But it labors on with a clear sense of profit - creating successful progeny.
This is a case where something is laboring for profit without having a hint of capital involved.
Meanwhile, if we look carefully at your touted benefits of invention, we see the following claim:
you become capable of producing new things, as well as producing existing things in great quantity with little resource investment
The benefit here is more efficient use of other things than human labor. This brings up my next point, human labor is just another resource from the point of view of capitalism. We could have spoken of more efficient usage of iron, thermodynamic work, or rattlesnake venom instead. Human labor is no more or less optimized for than those are (at least in the situations where they are used). Even if you assert that human labor is first and foremost among resources, you still have thermodynamic work as an even more fundamental resource.
To continue, there's even a category of product, luxury goods where excessive use of human labor conveys greater value. If we really were optimizing for human labor,
Please find an example of Obama inciting violence or approving violence at a rally and there actually being violence at the same rally
You have yet to give a Trump example of that so I don't see the need.
Society can't have downtime. It is a bunch of heavily patched legacy spaghetti code on a production machine that must keep going at all costs. The accrual of bureaucratic crap is unavoidable.
As I already mentioned, I don't buy that this is happening. Instead, I believe the opposite is happening with huge amounts of untested, spaghetti code dumped on production machines - faster than people can read it. The fact that society still moves indicates to me that it isn't as dependent on legislatures doing something as you assert.
OK then, for the encyclopedic answer instead of the quick summary try something a little more than a dictionary. What brought on all the bile over such a simple suggestion expressed politely?
Let's look at the "polite" suggestion:
Try looking at the Italian example instead of the dumbed down short description.
What was dumbed down about the dictionary definition? Sounds more to me like a condescending insult.
I notice this a lot with any discussion involving fascism. Someone has to intrude with their own peculiar definition because it allows them to tar and paper some target they don't like as a fascist or other word with negative connotation. You could, for example, do the same with Obama, who has a loopy cult of personalty, weird, content-free sloganeering ("Hope and change", "Yes, we can"), and a pro-authoritarian policy. If you squint just right, it's fascism, trust me.
Then there's this ludicrous comparison of Bernie Sanders to Nazism. Namely, because he supports immigration reform, he's nationalist. And because he supports labor unions, he's socialist. National + Socialist => Nazi sympathizer, I guess. If he starts goose-stepping through the White House with his brutal lukewarm immigration position and labor union sympathies, don't say someone didn't warn you!
At some point, you have to use actual definitions such as given by actual dictionaries and lay the craziness of pre-Second World War politics to rest.
They are a group of people becoming increasingly militant.
You let me know when it's OK to call them a "militant group".
I have to agree with the grownups here. Trump followers don't seem any more militant than most Obama followers (to give another US group which gets casually accused of fascism).
They always creep in scope until they include criticizing the rulers.
No they don't.
Maybe you are right about some case in the past. But the grandparent presents a compelling case that this is happening now with German hate speech law.
Anything you say against rulers is "protected by free speech" as the topics both cover are mutual exclusive, there is no jewish ruler attacked by "burn all jews!" hate speech (yet). And if he was attacked like that, it clearly was hate speech, and not an attack on the government. You are free to call the jewish ruler what ever you want as long as you can cope with slander, libel and other laws.
Unless, of course, the law then expands to rule out that speech.
No idea why you americans can't grasp the concept. You are free to phrase your opinion, you are not free to agitate other people into committing crimes. Some "other people" have a little higher level of protection, e.g. ethnic or religious groups are extra protected, again: why you can not cope with that is beyond me.
Because we're apparently not quite as idiotic as Germans are on this subject. There's no reason to grant certain groups additional protection. And I agree with the grandparent that once you start granting exceptions, eventually the powers-that-be will be included among the groups with special additional protection.
So you're willing to commit violence to prevent some speech
The speech wasn't prevented. The violence is in response to the speech.
but also commit it against attempts at censorship?
AC, you may be legion, but I doubt you're a government. Here, we have a person enforcing at the extent of their fist their ideas of allowable speech. But to paraphrase Herodotus, government's might is greater than human, and their arms are very long.
And before you say, "Well, they shouldn't be passing all this stuff anyway," just keep in mind that for every page of nefarious weird stuff stuck into some random bill, there are probably a dozen pages of random bureaucratic crap that need to go through just to keep everything functioning. You have to wade through all of that bureaucratic crap (which often is just fundamental basic stuff to keep things going in a reasonable fashion, and which you just need to trust your committee members and advisors to look over) in order to get to the controversial stuff.
No, I don't buy this. Bureaucratic crap is not like energy. You don't need a certain amount of it to turn a wheel. And CISA is a pretty nasty and sizable bit to hide.
You would vote "no" on everything, government would shut down if other voted the same way, and eventually after a few years of not funding any military Mexico would invade.
Sounds like we ought to call your bluff on that. Personally, I would love the obstruction of bad and unaccountable law that this would create. When the US creates laws and regulations that each grow faster than someone can read and understand those, then something needs to be done to slow the process down.
The idea that there is "a bill" before it is voted on is silly, because it is changing from one minute to the next.
And yet you called it "it". Plenty of things change from minute to minute (such as people) yet we don't have any trouble hanging names on them either. This is just bad philosophical reasoning to support a thoughtless, callous insult.
And given that the eventual Obamacare bill was a pile of nasty crap, concern over what was in the bill turned out to be warranted.
Others would call the practice of charging well above market equilibrium, "price gouging."
Others would be idiots. "Storage" here is pumped hydro which only can be done in the western part of the state.
Tell it to the Venezuelans.
They won't believe that they are surrounded by more capitalist societies?