Locke is a fictional character in a work of fiction.
Stop pretending he did anything at all.
Forgive me for responding to what could be an obvious troll. But I've seen so much revisionist history repeated as fact I can't help but correct this statement about one of my personal heroes, John Locke.
Do they? I have only seen one study (Chicago) and they reduced the yellow duration. Can you cite a study where accidents went up and they definitely did NOT decrease the yellow?
Oh no! Bad news is that speeding cameras are increasing. Now we'll actually catch people who are breaking the law. What will they do. Those poor souls.
It's the speeding cameras that are breaking the law. They bypass all manner of due process, by eliminating the process service, and implement a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach. The fines are excessively punitive because of the fees added on - calling them "service fees" while claiming the "fine" is within reason is just a rhetorical trick, because you can't avoid the fees, which are often upwards of 70-80% of the punishment. The camera companies also typically refuse to release details about the operation of their cameras (claiming "trade secrets"), meaning you are denied the right to face your accuser.
It's one of the few 100% voluntary taxes.
I guess you didn't notice that the majority of the money collected is paid to a private corporation, usually an out of state company, or even one from outside the company (the largest market share for red light cameras in the US is Redflex, an Australian company.)
Perhaps worst of all, you're advocating a system that is plagued with corruption - if you don't like crime, you should really hate the camera ticketing systems.
The summery and article seems to claim there is evidence that in some cases red light cameras don't increase safety, so they are bad
If you install a red light camera AND you shorten the duration of the yellow light, accidents go up. To make the logical jump from that to "red light cameras cause accidents" is idiotic. Yet people accept the syllogism as valid, because they don't like getting tickets issued by a machine.
Actual studies show that accidents go up, it's not a "logical jump." If you look carefully at the marketing material claiming they reduce accidents, you'll notice they leave out some statistics or cherry-pick the type of accident or the specific location.
The state also has struggled with a ticketing system that requires people who ignore mailed violations to be personally served if the case is to proceed.
Why is ANY system allowed to bypass the service requirements long established in common law and from the Constitution? Postal mail is not service, and never has been, but somehow since there is a camera we throw out due process as too inconvenient? How asinine.
Are you sure you're thinking of the Surface Pro? There is no track pad or keyboard (other than the software keyboard).
Yes - mine came with the snap-on keyboard / case. They are not exactly cheap , but neither are the decent ones for the iPads.
I'm surprised you note the Surface's battery life, that's one of the weaker aspects in my opinion. My old iPad could pull a full day of active work off the charger. Not sure if I'd trust the SP2 after 4 hours off charger.
Well I'm comparing it to the 10" Nook HD+. If my day is full of meetings or I'm traveling, it barely lasts the day. The Surface lasts longer.
Also not sure on your dislike for the charger itself. I strongly prefer the 4-pin magnetic connector over micro USB or that god awful proprietary crap connector that Apple uses on the 4th gen iPads.
I just think the stick looks stupid. But the worst part is the brick. I have to have the brick no matter what. Sure, I can charge from a USB cable, but why can't I just use a USB cable without having to lug around the brick? That was the dumbest idea ever. Every other device I have or have seen just needs a light, thin cable, or I can bring a brick if I want to wall-charge. Surface? Must have brick. And, yes, it's a god awful proprietary connector, too. Just with a brick.
Driverless cars open up huge possibilities. Think of long distance trips, where the drive is eight hours.
Uhhh... no, these are NOT designed for long-distance trips. Their max speed is 25 MPH, so that eight hour trip would take more like 20 hours. And with the current 100 mile range, you would need to recharge four times for that trip, making it more like several days.
Think of driverless cars as not replacing real cars, but replacing the bicycle for when the weather is bad or when you don't have the physical fitness to pedal one for much distance.
For the driverless car system to truly work as desired, there would need to be more centralized control over our entire transportation system, from the roads and highways to the cars we're allowed to use, the speed we're allowed to travel and the places we're allowed to go.
And clearly this is what Google and its principle executives want, among other things. In fact they are creaming in their pants over the prospect of having this kind of control.
The article says nothing about tablets vs. pcs. it's only about tablets vs phones, as is the summary. The throwaway question at the end of the summary, "the onetime theory that they would one day cannibalize all PCs looks increasingly nebulous," is completely unsupported. If anything what we're seeing is the tablets are moving away from a phone replacement cycle and towards a PC replacement cycle, which is what you'd expect if the tablet replaces PCs. So the answer to your question is no, tablets and pcs will continue to merge, and this is a good thing.
Agreed. And the market doesn't really seem to be going the way the article claims, or you would see fire sale prices on the full-sized tablets, but the opposite is true. I've been shopping around for a couple of months for a Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 10.1" tablet myself. You can find deals on the smaller 7" tablets, but the prices on the 10 and 12" versions keep going UP.
I do know people that have Surface tablets and really like them, so it's possible the OP is not a shill. I tried to like them myself but gave up, they are really horrible devices IMHO. I use Windows most of the time myself, for productive work, and even helped write a book on Windows 8.1, which has some hiccups but is still a pretty capable operating system. But I hate the Surface. It tries to be a tablet and a laptop and frankly is not good at either one. It would be nice if the Surface really could replace my laptop and tablet, as I've been using separate devices for mobility / productivity for 2 years now, but it just does not fit the bill.
I guess if you've only ever used Windows and never tried a decent Android tablet or iPad, you would find a lot to like about the Surface. That seems to be the case with the folks I know that actually like them. To me, they are crap, and very expensive crap, too. Oh, and stop fscking asking me to sign on with a Microsoft Account.
I know several people that have the Surface Pro and like them. I hate the things with a passion. They have all the worst problems of both tablets and laptops and perform neither function well. The charger is asinine. The keyboard is horrible and the track pad is worse, and this is coming from someone that has been using a Nook HD+ with a $40 case / keyboard for a year. The only advantage the Surface has for me is better battery life. OfficeSuite Pro does everything I need, and OneNote works fine on the Android.
AT&T has a "Next" program, that's basically an installment plan for paying for your phone, with the monthly payment added to your service bill. There is no long term contract associated with it, just the cost of the device. You can still get a phone for "free" (or mostly paid for) by signing up / renewing a 2 year contract. But with that plan, you don't get the "bring your own phone" discount (which also applies to the Next program phones). So your plan is $25 - $40 more per month for 2 years.
We really got burned by that change. We were used to getting upgrades every 18 months to 2 years, but the last time we did that without checking all the fine print, we were blind-sided by the big increase in the bill. And of course by the time we realized what happened it was too late to take the phone back or swap to Next.
Let's see what they actually spent on lobbying... oh, about $940,000.
$120 million is expenditures, not revenues. I don't know how you arrived at the $940,000 figure, but EDF is a non-profit (a 501c3), so they have to limit the "lobbying" line item on their financial reports. Their major efforts are focused on "lobbying" judges (basically, they perform "friendly lawsuits" against the EPA. They do a lot of local lobbying, too, they just don't call it that, they call it "program support", because they've basically bribed a local government into enacting specific policies in order to get monetary support for it.
opensecrets.org can help you correct your numbers, if you actually care.
My numbers are accurate and referenced, AC, you should try it some time.
Wrong question. Why is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act no longer enforced? That's the question.
It is. That law was designed to encourage large companies to spend lots of money on Washington lobbyists, to provide plenty of private-money jobs for the insiders that like to slide between public positions and private ones. So it's working as designed. Microsoft went from spending the least amount of political influence money of any Fortune 500 company to spending pretty much the most.
I think they should be allowed to do it on their premises.
However they should be required to post signs in conspicuous places that alert the user to the blocking "ACHTUNG! We block personal wifi here, fetch your wallet bitch!" as well as on sales literature.
I guarantee you that if the FCC ignores their petition, they will be requiring all guests to sign an agreement allowing them block personal hotspots.
More or less. If you build a faraday cage around your house, that's legal. If you build a jammer, that is illegal.
So is that what Marriott's "Wi-Fi monitoring system" did? All the jammers I've heard of jam ALL the signals, not just selected ones. The article says it prevented "customers from connecting to the Internet through their personal Wi-Fi hotspots." Not sure what they were doing, there, it's not really explained. How would a jammer block a HotSpot without interfering with the hotel's Wi-Fi - it would be the same type of signal. It seems like they would have had to use something a little more focused - like detecting "unauthorized" SSIDs and somehow interfering with those connections.
You see, no mention about my own position on this. Just a chain of cause-and-effect elements.
Totally skewed by your own perceptions, which are incorrect.
You see, under a free and global market there's no way you can avoid (some) corporations to grow to high level; then there's no way you can avoid them (because they are so big) bribing or lobbying government to pass laws in their favour, then rinse an repeat.
This is an assertion without foundation. You're dismissing any of the many corrective features of consumers and competition in the market. You're also assuming that there is no corrective mechanism for corruptions in your assumed democratically elected representative body. You have a lot of assumptions of elements in your model that are not necessary for free markets to exist and thrive. Indeed, history tells us that even huge and abusive corporations like Standard Oil cannot continue indefinitely. Look carefully at the history and you'll see that the "trust busting" activities of the Federal government during that episode was driven by corrupt ambitions of politicians, and the market was ALREADY CORRECTING. Standard Oil was losing market share, and competition, as well as blowback from high-level consumers, was working to bring things back into equilibrium.
Besides, we don't have anything better, or even as good, on a large scale.
No need for that. People that complain about capitalism never want to look at more than, at most, about 150 years of history. Look at a minimum of 800-1000 years if you want a significant sample size.
Please, first define capitalism
WTF? So you're going to ask a question like this as some sort of trap, where you pick apart everything I said. I guess you picked this up from Sean Hannity. Not taking the bait, sorry. Find your own definition. It's not hard. Keep in mind that in a free market (that's what I'm talking about, free market capitalism), the producers chase consumer resources. Consumers call the shots by voting for the best producers with their money. It requires enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud from having much of an impact. There's one of the issues with Somalia. It also requires limits on regulation to prevent THAT from having a significant impact on markets. Heavily regulated markets incentive producers to focus their efforts on influencing the regulating authority instead of serving consumer demands.
I'll tell you how cronyism/corporatism becomes unavoidable.
... in your twisted mind that values the well being of the collective more than the rights of individuals, I'm sure it is. Save it for someone that buys your idea that benevolent dictatorships can remain benevolent for any significant length of time.
But capitalism *is* the problem: current cronyism/corporatism/fascism seems to be an unavoidable outcome of capitalism
Why? Because you say so? Or because you've seen it *sometimes* happen? I can certainly see that it's happened, but claiming it's an "unavoidable outcome" is simply an assertion without support. In fact, it seems to be a false one, since capitalistic markets have existing in many places throughout history without those issues surfacing.
just as tiranny seems to be an unavoidable outcome of comunism.
Communism doesn't necessarily require an oppressive authority, that's just how it's usually implemented. In small groups, it works very well without a powerful leadership involved, but in large groups it becomes difficult to enforce the required contributions because of the complexity of the matrices of so many relationships. Communism should not require exchanging of tokens for resources, but "Communist" governments never seem to be able to eliminate it.
Maybe your "pure" capitalism is free of those problems, but then comunism is also problem-free... in theory.
Nothing is free of problems when it involves humans. Free market capitalism, however, has the best historical track record for improving living conditions. The biggest problem with it in the US today, IMHO, is the ability to buy and sell representatives and administrators. These people are not supposed be commodities, they are supposed to regulate the markets just enough to maintain a competitive environment in which consumers retain power over the producers. I don't think there is an easy answer to that problem, especially with such a large proportion of the population uninvolved and susceptible to marketing.
But for basically all history, wealth distribution has managed to work on a basis of a very short affluent/powerful class with a majority of peasants/slaves/outclassed. Maybe the 20th century has just been an exception along history and we are just returning to the standard trend.
Yes, exactly. People that forget history is doomed to repeat it. Functioning capitalist markets enabled the vibrant middle class, and now that the elites have fiddled with interventionist policies to the point where capitalism has been transformed into some sort of corporatism/fascism hybrid, they've convinced a lot of people that capitalism is the problem and should be done away with. Why they think it will be better than the dark ages before capitalism I don't know.
Why should I? I'm not among the soon-to-be displaced. By birth and by personal merit I belong to the upper tier of society: the one that cannot be replaced and that stands to gain the most from complete automation. We can finally have a true leisure society, for those who have managed to place themselves in the right circles of course. Too bad for you wage slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Locke is a fictional character in a work of fiction. Stop pretending he did anything at all.
Forgive me for responding to what could be an obvious troll. But I've seen so much revisionist history repeated as fact I can't help but correct this statement about one of my personal heroes, John Locke.
My all-time favorite is still Supremacy. It's like Risk for grown-ups.
Actual studies show that accidents go up
Do they? I have only seen one study (Chicago) and they reduced the yellow duration. Can you cite a study where accidents went up and they definitely did NOT decrease the yellow?
Pfft - that was easy.
Oh no! Bad news is that speeding cameras are increasing. Now we'll actually catch people who are breaking the law. What will they do. Those poor souls.
It's the speeding cameras that are breaking the law. They bypass all manner of due process, by eliminating the process service, and implement a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach. The fines are excessively punitive because of the fees added on - calling them "service fees" while claiming the "fine" is within reason is just a rhetorical trick, because you can't avoid the fees, which are often upwards of 70-80% of the punishment. The camera companies also typically refuse to release details about the operation of their cameras (claiming "trade secrets"), meaning you are denied the right to face your accuser.
It's one of the few 100% voluntary taxes.
I guess you didn't notice that the majority of the money collected is paid to a private corporation, usually an out of state company, or even one from outside the company (the largest market share for red light cameras in the US is Redflex, an Australian company.)
Perhaps worst of all, you're advocating a system that is plagued with corruption - if you don't like crime, you should really hate the camera ticketing systems.
The summery and article seems to claim there is evidence that in some cases red light cameras don't increase safety, so they are bad
If you install a red light camera AND you shorten the duration of the yellow light, accidents go up. To make the logical jump from that to "red light cameras cause accidents" is idiotic. Yet people accept the syllogism as valid, because they don't like getting tickets issued by a machine.
Actual studies show that accidents go up, it's not a "logical jump." If you look carefully at the marketing material claiming they reduce accidents, you'll notice they leave out some statistics or cherry-pick the type of accident or the specific location.
The state also has struggled with a ticketing system that requires people who ignore mailed violations to be personally served if the case is to proceed.
Why is ANY system allowed to bypass the service requirements long established in common law and from the Constitution? Postal mail is not service, and never has been, but somehow since there is a camera we throw out due process as too inconvenient? How asinine.
Are you sure you're thinking of the Surface Pro? There is no track pad or keyboard (other than the software keyboard).
Yes - mine came with the snap-on keyboard / case. They are not exactly cheap , but neither are the decent ones for the iPads.
I'm surprised you note the Surface's battery life, that's one of the weaker aspects in my opinion. My old iPad could pull a full day of active work off the charger. Not sure if I'd trust the SP2 after 4 hours off charger.
Well I'm comparing it to the 10" Nook HD+. If my day is full of meetings or I'm traveling, it barely lasts the day. The Surface lasts longer.
Also not sure on your dislike for the charger itself. I strongly prefer the 4-pin magnetic connector over micro USB or that god awful proprietary crap connector that Apple uses on the 4th gen iPads.
I just think the stick looks stupid. But the worst part is the brick. I have to have the brick no matter what. Sure, I can charge from a USB cable, but why can't I just use a USB cable without having to lug around the brick? That was the dumbest idea ever. Every other device I have or have seen just needs a light, thin cable, or I can bring a brick if I want to wall-charge. Surface? Must have brick. And, yes, it's a god awful proprietary connector, too. Just with a brick.
Driverless cars open up huge possibilities. Think of long distance trips, where the drive is eight hours.
Uhhh... no, these are NOT designed for long-distance trips. Their max speed is 25 MPH, so that eight hour trip would take more like 20 hours. And with the current 100 mile range, you would need to recharge four times for that trip, making it more like several days.
Think of driverless cars as not replacing real cars, but replacing the bicycle for when the weather is bad or when you don't have the physical fitness to pedal one for much distance.
For the driverless car system to truly work as desired, there would need to be more centralized control over our entire transportation system, from the roads and highways to the cars we're allowed to use, the speed we're allowed to travel and the places we're allowed to go.
And clearly this is what Google and its principle executives want, among other things. In fact they are creaming in their pants over the prospect of having this kind of control.
They're playing the long con.
The article says nothing about tablets vs. pcs. it's only about tablets vs phones, as is the summary. The throwaway question at the end of the summary, "the onetime theory that they would one day cannibalize all PCs looks increasingly nebulous," is completely unsupported. If anything what we're seeing is the tablets are moving away from a phone replacement cycle and towards a PC replacement cycle, which is what you'd expect if the tablet replaces PCs. So the answer to your question is no, tablets and pcs will continue to merge, and this is a good thing.
Agreed. And the market doesn't really seem to be going the way the article claims, or you would see fire sale prices on the full-sized tablets, but the opposite is true. I've been shopping around for a couple of months for a Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 10.1" tablet myself. You can find deals on the smaller 7" tablets, but the prices on the 10 and 12" versions keep going UP.
I do know people that have Surface tablets and really like them, so it's possible the OP is not a shill. I tried to like them myself but gave up, they are really horrible devices IMHO. I use Windows most of the time myself, for productive work, and even helped write a book on Windows 8.1, which has some hiccups but is still a pretty capable operating system. But I hate the Surface. It tries to be a tablet and a laptop and frankly is not good at either one. It would be nice if the Surface really could replace my laptop and tablet, as I've been using separate devices for mobility / productivity for 2 years now, but it just does not fit the bill.
I guess if you've only ever used Windows and never tried a decent Android tablet or iPad, you would find a lot to like about the Surface. That seems to be the case with the folks I know that actually like them. To me, they are crap, and very expensive crap, too. Oh, and stop fscking asking me to sign on with a Microsoft Account.
I know several people that have the Surface Pro and like them. I hate the things with a passion. They have all the worst problems of both tablets and laptops and perform neither function well. The charger is asinine. The keyboard is horrible and the track pad is worse, and this is coming from someone that has been using a Nook HD+ with a $40 case / keyboard for a year. The only advantage the Surface has for me is better battery life. OfficeSuite Pro does everything I need, and OneNote works fine on the Android.
AT&T has a "Next" program, that's basically an installment plan for paying for your phone, with the monthly payment added to your service bill. There is no long term contract associated with it, just the cost of the device. You can still get a phone for "free" (or mostly paid for) by signing up / renewing a 2 year contract. But with that plan, you don't get the "bring your own phone" discount (which also applies to the Next program phones). So your plan is $25 - $40 more per month for 2 years.
We really got burned by that change. We were used to getting upgrades every 18 months to 2 years, but the last time we did that without checking all the fine print, we were blind-sided by the big increase in the bill. And of course by the time we realized what happened it was too late to take the phone back or swap to Next.
Let's see what they actually spent on lobbying... oh, about $940,000.
$120 million is expenditures, not revenues. I don't know how you arrived at the $940,000 figure, but EDF is a non-profit (a 501c3), so they have to limit the "lobbying" line item on their financial reports. Their major efforts are focused on "lobbying" judges (basically, they perform "friendly lawsuits" against the EPA. They do a lot of local lobbying, too, they just don't call it that, they call it "program support", because they've basically bribed a local government into enacting specific policies in order to get monetary support for it.
opensecrets.org can help you correct your numbers, if you actually care.
My numbers are accurate and referenced, AC, you should try it some time.
If the greenies and those making billions off of CO2 hysteria, like Gore,
1) Citation needed.
Well, let's see. You could start by comparing the expenditures of a single "green" lobbying group, the "Environmental Defense Fund" of $120 million with the TOTAL lobbying dollars for all of the oil industry, which came in at about $71 million. Of course, we've left out all the big ones like the Sierra Club, SELC, Greenpeace, etc. To see what it's really like here is a handy chart for you.
Won't someone please think of the children? Plant a tree today!
Wrong question. Why is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act no longer enforced? That's the question.
It is. That law was designed to encourage large companies to spend lots of money on Washington lobbyists, to provide plenty of private-money jobs for the insiders that like to slide between public positions and private ones. So it's working as designed. Microsoft went from spending the least amount of political influence money of any Fortune 500 company to spending pretty much the most.
I think they should be allowed to do it on their premises.
However they should be required to post signs in conspicuous places that alert the user to the blocking "ACHTUNG! We block personal wifi here, fetch your wallet bitch!" as well as on sales literature.
I guarantee you that if the FCC ignores their petition, they will be requiring all guests to sign an agreement allowing them block personal hotspots.
More or less. If you build a faraday cage around your house, that's legal. If you build a jammer, that is illegal.
So is that what Marriott's "Wi-Fi monitoring system" did? All the jammers I've heard of jam ALL the signals, not just selected ones. The article says it prevented "customers from connecting to the Internet through their personal Wi-Fi hotspots." Not sure what they were doing, there, it's not really explained. How would a jammer block a HotSpot without interfering with the hotel's Wi-Fi - it would be the same type of signal. It seems like they would have had to use something a little more focused - like detecting "unauthorized" SSIDs and somehow interfering with those connections.
Is anyone familiar with this system?
And does it use systemd?
You see, no mention about my own position on this. Just a chain of cause-and-effect elements.
Totally skewed by your own perceptions, which are incorrect.
You see, under a free and global market there's no way you can avoid (some) corporations to grow to high level; then there's no way you can avoid them (because they are so big) bribing or lobbying government to pass laws in their favour, then rinse an repeat.
This is an assertion without foundation. You're dismissing any of the many corrective features of consumers and competition in the market. You're also assuming that there is no corrective mechanism for corruptions in your assumed democratically elected representative body. You have a lot of assumptions of elements in your model that are not necessary for free markets to exist and thrive. Indeed, history tells us that even huge and abusive corporations like Standard Oil cannot continue indefinitely. Look carefully at the history and you'll see that the "trust busting" activities of the Federal government during that episode was driven by corrupt ambitions of politicians, and the market was ALREADY CORRECTING. Standard Oil was losing market share, and competition, as well as blowback from high-level consumers, was working to bring things back into equilibrium.
Besides, we don't have anything better, or even as good, on a large scale.
Only when you cherrypick your examples.
No need for that. People that complain about capitalism never want to look at more than, at most, about 150 years of history. Look at a minimum of 800-1000 years if you want a significant sample size.
Please, first define capitalism
WTF? So you're going to ask a question like this as some sort of trap, where you pick apart everything I said. I guess you picked this up from Sean Hannity. Not taking the bait, sorry. Find your own definition. It's not hard. Keep in mind that in a free market (that's what I'm talking about, free market capitalism), the producers chase consumer resources. Consumers call the shots by voting for the best producers with their money. It requires enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud from having much of an impact. There's one of the issues with Somalia. It also requires limits on regulation to prevent THAT from having a significant impact on markets. Heavily regulated markets incentive producers to focus their efforts on influencing the regulating authority instead of serving consumer demands.
I'll tell you how cronyism/corporatism becomes unavoidable.
... in your twisted mind that values the well being of the collective more than the rights of individuals, I'm sure it is. Save it for someone that buys your idea that benevolent dictatorships can remain benevolent for any significant length of time.
But capitalism *is* the problem: current cronyism/corporatism/fascism seems to be an unavoidable outcome of capitalism
Why? Because you say so? Or because you've seen it *sometimes* happen? I can certainly see that it's happened, but claiming it's an "unavoidable outcome" is simply an assertion without support. In fact, it seems to be a false one, since capitalistic markets have existing in many places throughout history without those issues surfacing.
just as tiranny seems to be an unavoidable outcome of comunism.
Communism doesn't necessarily require an oppressive authority, that's just how it's usually implemented. In small groups, it works very well without a powerful leadership involved, but in large groups it becomes difficult to enforce the required contributions because of the complexity of the matrices of so many relationships. Communism should not require exchanging of tokens for resources, but "Communist" governments never seem to be able to eliminate it.
Maybe your "pure" capitalism is free of those problems, but then comunism is also problem-free... in theory.
Nothing is free of problems when it involves humans. Free market capitalism, however, has the best historical track record for improving living conditions. The biggest problem with it in the US today, IMHO, is the ability to buy and sell representatives and administrators. These people are not supposed be commodities, they are supposed to regulate the markets just enough to maintain a competitive environment in which consumers retain power over the producers. I don't think there is an easy answer to that problem, especially with such a large proportion of the population uninvolved and susceptible to marketing.
But for basically all history, wealth distribution has managed to work on a basis of a very short affluent/powerful class with a majority of peasants/slaves/outclassed. Maybe the 20th century has just been an exception along history and we are just returning to the standard trend.
Yes, exactly. People that forget history is doomed to repeat it. Functioning capitalist markets enabled the vibrant middle class, and now that the elites have fiddled with interventionist policies to the point where capitalism has been transformed into some sort of corporatism/fascism hybrid, they've convinced a lot of people that capitalism is the problem and should be done away with. Why they think it will be better than the dark ages before capitalism I don't know.
Why should I? I'm not among the soon-to-be displaced. By birth and by personal merit I belong to the upper tier of society: the one that cannot be replaced and that stands to gain the most from complete automation. We can finally have a true leisure society, for those who have managed to place themselves in the right circles of course. Too bad for you wage slaves.
This is why we need a wealth tax.