The next question is should corporations be even doing these sorts of things? I suspect we will disagree here since you seem like a capitalist and I'm not:)
The Microsoft case doesn't apply here since it seems to be some personal Gates foundation doing the donating and not Microsoft (although one can argue that they are the same since it deals with Microsoft technology: if you are truly charitable you should only donate to things you are not affliated with). In any case, let's look at corporations only (not personal non-profit organizations and foundations). Do you think corporations should be donating money in the first place? We all know that they only do it for one reason: image and PR. If it didn't help their image they wouldn't be doing much (after all, they are profit-maximizing enterprises). I don't know if you take what I said to be true (That corporations mainly do it for PR). If you do, then should they even be donating anything?
What do security experts say about systems? They say that open, heavily scrutinized systems are more secure. For instance, any decent encryption is open. Keeping them open actually improves the encryption's strength. Same thing with open voting systems...
The number of people who find and fix flaws will far outweight those with malicious intents. As a matter of fact, non-profit organizations and academic institutions can study the code for loop-holes/bugs/etc. Academia is good at coming up with theoretical solutions to problems and would be perfect here. They will be able to analyze the software for flaws far better than any private company can (except possibly large ones like IBM, Microsoft, etc). They will be able to do it from the specifications even (how do you know the specs are correct? )
...1) nobody makes any money as a result of people starving to death, and 2) the last two colonial empires in the world is China....
1. You CAN make money by starving people to death. In case you have forgetten, that's what slavery was all about. Granted, you can argue that the owners weren't trying to kill people but rather feed them the minimal but it's the same thing. Capitalism is no different. It is in the interest of the wealthy to keep the poor starving so they are dependent.
2. I don't think Communism can be considered as colonialism. Colonialism requires colonies. The states under Communism aren't exactly colonies.
The Chinese communists did (to their credit) succeed in pulling out of the Soviet orbit, so Mao did cast off outside interference. But it's not clear that their particular government was necessary or even useful in gaining independence. Taiwan is an example of how it could've been done differently, and at least as successfully.
China didn't need the Communists to throw out the Imperliasts or any other foreigners--you can do it without any revolutions or system changes. However, what you are saying is misleading to a large extent. Taiwan NEVER gained "independence". The govt that fled to Taiwan (and hence ruled it alone, with US help) was an ally of Japanese Imperialists. In essence, the Chinese govt that fled to Taiwan was the remnant of the Japanese govt that invaded China.
The reason Taiwain is democractic today has little to do with their original govt; the main reason Taiwain is democratic is because of USA. USA basically permitted and in some sense "forced" Taiwan to be democratic. USA had to do this to combat Communism. Whenever USA battled Communism, it has attempted to install plutocracy+capitalism (like itself). When USA carries out an action for imperialistic reasons, it usually installs some sort of authoratarian right-wing system, usually dictatorships (South America), or monarchies (Middle East).
Whatever sins the various colonial powers may have comitted in China, they never imposed a policy of deliberately starving millions of peasants.
Oh really... so all those Africans and Indias (in India) starving in the early 1900's weren't deliberate? How about purposely dividing up countries irrespective of ethnicities and cultures (particularly in the Middle East)?
Of course none of those deaths can be attributed to capitalism, colonialism and imperialism, right?
Maybe you should look at what USA is first... USA has done exactly the same thing for years. Look at all the US experiments (sick:( ) in South America...
Hate to break it to you but China is doing EXACTLY the same thing that USA does.
Yeah, fuck free trade... but first you need to realize that USA is the proponent of free trade. After all, what did you expect from the flag-bearer of capitalism?
I know I'm evangelizing here, but people need to know that one of North America's big trading partners uses techniques every bit as brutal and inhuman as Saddam Hussein's.
Is that Saddam Hussein with or without USA's help? Saddam Hussein probably killed more people with USA's help in the late 80's/early 90's than without USA's help. Granted, it just proves that Saddam is a brutal dictator... however, it shoots down your comparison...
What's to say that mechanical machines aren't faulty either? Theoretically, you can rig a mechanical machine too. Maybe alter it/force it/whatever so that it votes twice when you push the button once? Even if you have people spot-checking, the burden then shifts to these "guardians". What if these people have ulterior motives? Sure these people are "independent" but so are all the election monitors in all the poor countries where every election is rigged...
I think computer voting will actually make voting more fair and impartial. However, there has to be certain conditions that have to be met.
First of all, to address you concerns, you may never know whether a piece of code does what it is supposed to but that doesnt' matter. All you need to do is to ensure that you use tools that are widely accepted and open. For instance, who knows if the gcc compiler inserts a backdoor into all the code that it compiles? How do you know that Visual Studio doesn't insert code to steal passwords from your application? You just don't. But as long as it is widely accepted and SCRUTINIZED, we can go with that. As long as you do your best, it should be fine.
I think there should be a few key conditions for the systems that are used (unfortunately none of these are satisfied right now:( ):
(i) Open-sourced code: The software must be open-source! This is a key requirement. By having code in the open, people can study and scrutinize it. This will result in improvements and catching nearly all exploits. As many security experts will tell you, the safest encryption systems are those that have published their mechanism. As long as code is closed, who knows what is going on? Unfortunately, none of the governments seem to care about this. Until the PUBLIC can look at hte source code or the description of the system functionality, these systems are bound to failure.
(ii) The system must be owned by the government or the public!!! I am not talking about the individual systems but rather EVERYTHING--source code, ideas, technologies, methods, etc. I am not a capitalist so I really don't like leaving key things with profit-maximizing institutions. The company that makes the system must hand over everything to the government or put it in public domain or make it free software or whatever. As long as software/hardware is commercial, profit-making incentives creep in. For example, there are many companies that purposely release semi-functional products so that they can recoup money on service contracts (several specialized software firms are like this). There are others who don't provide proper documentation because they want you to purchase books/documents/etc, hence resulting in them making more money. I don't want any of this junk. Making the system public domain will eliminate most of these problems. If capitalists get mad at this, it isn't a big deal. After all, there are many govt contracts which follow a similar process (eg. private consortium builds a highway or building and owns it for 50 years and then it gives everything back to the govt; weapons manufacturers often sign agreements to give up everything to the military; etc).
(iii) The system must be funded or developed by non-partisian body, preferably a non-profit organization. The government can come up with the specs, requirements, etc but some third party should develop the system (i.e. put the requirements into more concrete terms for vendors). If it is left up to the govt (as is the case now), those in power have an incentive to further their goals, and/or maintain status quo. This is unacceptable to me.
(iv) The system must be able to produce results with minimal human interaction. What I mean is that the system should be able to transfer the votes, count itself, etc. The more humans interacting with it, the more prone to exploitation. Every person that touches the system will have their own personal agendas. It would be preferable for the system to do everything itself. This isn't as danger
I can't believe you justify the caste system but that is to be expected...
Anyway, the reason the caste system is horrible (far worse than the class system practiced in Western countries) is because a person has NO CHOICE under a caste system. You are basically what you were born into! A Western system, as classist as it might be, does not have that limitation. Some dude off the street could be the next Bill Gates. Sure the probability is very low but he has the choice. A caste system does not allow that.
I hate class systems but I hate caste systems 1000x more. It's sad that you don't realize it... but then again, if you are benefitting from it, you probably would have that opinion...
I don't think they will sue for the code. Instead, they will probably come up with some vague claim that Linux is derived from UNIX or some such thing.
Such a case may go to court because some people consider Linux to be a version of UNIX. In fact, I'm reading some old Linux book (circa 2000??) and it actually refers to Linux as a UNIX (and not as a UNIX-like OS)...
None of this really proves anything or advances the issue in any direction. IBM has simply rehashed the FSF argument. I still think there is a big battle ahead.
The article from MozillaQuest is more of an op-ed piece than anything else. Sure, they quote stuff here and there but there is nothing concrete--either way.
This whole SCO thing started out as an attack on IBM, and a money-making scheme. Now it looks like it is going to test the GPL and many of the FSF principles. I don't know if this is exactly the test we wanted for the GPL but we are getting something.
In other news, SCO claims that they will sue Linus Torvalds. Depending on the day of the week, and how the stars are aligned, this may be true or simply be a threat. If SCO does sue Linus, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
A lot of the open-source, free software, and Linux stuff haven't had much challenge in the courts. We'll find out how the US government and its proxy, the US courts, view all this. It wouldn't surprise if some 3rd parties even got involved. This SCO situation will be ground-breaking.
Of course, what I have said is with the assumption that SCO will actually take all these parties to court. For all I know, they may not.
Class warfare creates civil wars as well, and in a plutocracy, class warfare is eventually created.
My prediction all along has been that capitalism will fail within my lifetime. There are two potential reasons for that. One of them is due to class wars. Marx said that capitalism will collapse due to class wars. It hasn't happened yet but I think it will...
we are ignorant, if our species could handle power we would cease to have wars and wouldnt need to build nuclear weapons.
I don't think we are necessarily ignorant. It's just that SOME people are elitist and want the world for themselves. Once these people dissapear, world would be fine.
Most of what you said is meaningless in so far as life is concerned. For instance, information is definitely easily communicated with others but what use is this if it isn't put to "good" use? You'll become nothing more than an information slave. Actually that's what is happening to people.
Similarly, consider education. It's cool and all that most people are more educated now than ever. But look at why that is. How many people go to universities for education, and how many go just to get a job? If employers did not require university degrees (only reason they ask is to cover themselves, and for competitive reasons) then how many people would go to universities? Not many IMO. So, I ask, is the current education really benefitial to humanity? At the rate that the world is going, pretty soon you need a university degree to even replace a lightbulb or to photocopy some documents. Just because the population is educated may or may not mean anything.
I still maintain my original point: humans are not harnessing technology properly. The vast majority of technology is not used properly, and simply benefits a select few...
Your logic is flawed. Totalitarianism is more than that. Simply controlling the economy isn't totalitarian. For instance, would you say that USA is more totalitarian than (pick your favourite country) say Brazil because the US govt controls its economy more (eg. US federal reserve, along with financial institutions like the stock markets, banks, etc have FAR greater control than any of those do in Brazil)?
To prove further, what happens under anarchism? Is that more totalitarian or less totalitarian?
Having said this, I agree with you that it is easier to convert a centrally planned economy to totalitarianism than other types of economies. However that is not a rule and is almost meaningless. Nazi Germany was totalitarian yet their economy was captialist and they relied on free markets. Similarly, religious fundamentalist countries (say Iran) can be thought of as quasi-totalitarian yet they rely on free markets and hardly anything is centrally controlled (at least on the economic side--political side is another story)...
Humanity will always find something to keep it busy, and quality of life will improve for everyone beyond your imagination.
You criticize the Luddites yet your vision hasn't come true either. Fifty years ago, people (in developed countries) said that the world will be so much better off. They had visions of environmentally clean cities, public trasit everywhere, high-tech houses that use solar power, easy life, less worries, and so on. If you looked at a sci-fi book or even scientific speculative articles, you would find what I described. For all intensive purposes, you could have been an author of those articles since your opinion is the same.
Yet none of the forecasts ever came true! People's lives did not get any easier, the world is nowhere near what it was expected to be and so on. For instance, a person works roughly the same amount as they did 20, 30, or 40 years ago (actually they work a LITTLE BIT LESS but it is negligible when you look at the full figures). A person works 9-5 just like they did 30 years ago, even though technology has significantly improved. Why didn't people's lives get easier? How come you aren't working 75% of what you would have 30 years ago? Or conversely, why hasn't your wage gone up by say 25% (while working the same # of hours) over the 30 years (after adjusting for inflation)?
The technology is there. But the (positive) impact on life isn't. Why? Think about it...
Your rosy predictions won't come true..and the predictions you made in your past life never came true either. Luddites may not be right but the truth is closer to them than you!
If you want to know my opinion... the problem isn't technology; it isn't the people either. So what is it? It's the system. The benefits of technology accrues to a small number of people. The rest of society does not benefit (the only time it does is via some side-effect tangential impact).
You are predicting a quality of life improvement via technology. Let me predict the opposite: people's lives won't improve that much in 20 years. You will be just as stressed out, working just as long, etc... Come back to me in 20 years. We'll see who is right...
Democracy is a concept more than a system. So I don't think the answer lies in that. My theory is that democracy also creates civil wars (yes, it creates them). For instance, the majority in may countries oppress the minorities (this is the cause of civil wars).
Thefore, the ideal system is anarchism. This way, power is shifted to the individual/community/whatever. People within a domain will be free to do whatever they want. You can still have democracy within those domains (eg. people within the neighbourhood might use democracy to make decisions).... I just dont' see democracy working out well on the larger scale...
Why does a communist or socialist govt have to be totalitarian?
As far as giving keys to the US economy, it has already been done... you probably don't realize who you gave the keys to... you'll find out soon enough;)
Germany had their own nuke program. a 2 year delay - I don't know, I don't have the stats, but would that have been enough time for the Germans to have obtained nukes? And they had their V2 rockets to pop them all over the place.
I don't know much about WWII (it's not my interest)... but from what I understand, Germany gave up their nuke program years earlier. I'm not 100% sure on this but I think I read that somewhere.
what if Germany *had* won the war? I remember reading about this scene where the protagonist in the story had to queue up in some kind of hall to have his papers checked for his racial designation (or something like that).
What would have happened IMO is probably the creation of an elitist society--far more elitist than the present day capitalist one. You would have the "Aryans" at the top controlling and benefitting from everything. Then you would have other classes (essentially races, ethnicities, etc) further down the chain, basically working as slaves. It would be similar to slave-run colonialism, except you have "Aryans" insead of monarchs (ie. limited by race/ethnicity, not blood/family).
My personal opinion is that Nazism wouldn't have taken over the WHOLE planet. It would have been next to impossible to control the populations of Africa and Asia. I think the result would be more of a region based structure, with possibly Europe being 'whites only' and run by "Aryans" while other parts of the world will simply be harvesting grounds for slaves.
The Chinese military and Chinese industry are really the same entity.
I agree but a lot of countries are like that. Even USA is like that to a large extent. For instance, many US weapons manufacturers are considered "independent" and private but they are anything but. They are basically controlled by the military. Only difference is that in USA some private person or entity can get rich off the military whereas in China that isn't the case.
In addition, most countries just steal technology from civilian firms if they need it. The CIA for instance would steal tech from US companies if the US military needed it.
That's why, in my opinion, anything the US does that helps China economically is stupid when you look at it long term.
You already know what it is like that. It's because of capitalism. All that matters under capitalism is money. If someone can make money, that's all they care. They don't care about their country, their workers, the environment, etc. This is why USA (as well as other countries) are hypocritical. Cuba is apparently a country run by evil Communists while China isn't. If anything, Cuba poses far less of a threat than China. But it doesn't matter. All that matters is money. If USA couldn't make money off China, they wouldn't do what they are doing now...
I have to wonder how anyone smart enough to get elected to high office is that fucking stupid.
You may like to think you are living in a democracy but nothing is further from the truth. USA is nothing more than a plutocracy. Whatever big business says gets done. Right now, big business is highly in favour of trade with China...
Slashdot Mirror
The next question is should corporations be even doing these sorts of things? I suspect we will disagree here since you seem like a capitalist and I'm not :)
The Microsoft case doesn't apply here since it seems to be some personal Gates foundation doing the donating and not Microsoft (although one can argue that they are the same since it deals with Microsoft technology: if you are truly charitable you should only donate to things you are not affliated with). In any case, let's look at corporations only (not personal non-profit organizations and foundations). Do you think corporations should be donating money in the first place? We all know that they only do it for one reason: image and PR. If it didn't help their image they wouldn't be doing much (after all, they are profit-maximizing enterprises). I don't know if you take what I said to be true (That corporations mainly do it for PR). If you do, then should they even be donating anything?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What do security experts say about systems? They say that open, heavily scrutinized systems are more secure. For instance, any decent encryption is open. Keeping them open actually improves the encryption's strength. Same thing with open voting systems...
The number of people who find and fix flaws will far outweight those with malicious intents. As a matter of fact, non-profit organizations and academic institutions can study the code for loop-holes/bugs/etc. Academia is good at coming up with theoretical solutions to problems and would be perfect here. They will be able to analyze the software for flaws far better than any private company can (except possibly large ones like IBM, Microsoft, etc). They will be able to do it from the specifications even (how do you know the specs are correct? )
KoalaBear33
...1) nobody makes any money as a result of people starving to death, and 2) the last two colonial empires in the world is China....
1. You CAN make money by starving people to death. In case you have forgetten, that's what slavery was all about. Granted, you can argue that the owners weren't trying to kill people but rather feed them the minimal but it's the same thing. Capitalism is no different. It is in the interest of the wealthy to keep the poor starving so they are dependent.
2. I don't think Communism can be considered as colonialism. Colonialism requires colonies. The states under Communism aren't exactly colonies.
KoalaBear33
The Chinese communists did (to their credit) succeed in pulling out of the Soviet orbit, so Mao did cast off outside interference. But it's not clear that their particular government was necessary or even useful in gaining independence. Taiwan is an example of how it could've been done differently, and at least as successfully.
China didn't need the Communists to throw out the Imperliasts or any other foreigners--you can do it without any revolutions or system changes. However, what you are saying is misleading to a large extent. Taiwan NEVER gained "independence". The govt that fled to Taiwan (and hence ruled it alone, with US help) was an ally of Japanese Imperialists. In essence, the Chinese govt that fled to Taiwan was the remnant of the Japanese govt that invaded China.
The reason Taiwain is democractic today has little to do with their original govt; the main reason Taiwain is democratic is because of USA. USA basically permitted and in some sense "forced" Taiwan to be democratic. USA had to do this to combat Communism. Whenever USA battled Communism, it has attempted to install plutocracy+capitalism (like itself). When USA carries out an action for imperialistic reasons, it usually installs some sort of authoratarian right-wing system, usually dictatorships (South America), or monarchies (Middle East).
KoalaBear33
Whatever sins the various colonial powers may have comitted in China, they never imposed a policy of deliberately starving millions of peasants.
Oh really... so all those Africans and Indias (in India) starving in the early 1900's weren't deliberate? How about purposely dividing up countries irrespective of ethnicities and cultures (particularly in the Middle East)?
Of course none of those deaths can be attributed to capitalism, colonialism and imperialism, right?
KoalaBear33
Only North Korea and Burma make my skin crawl more.
:(
hmm... how about USA and its buddies, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Colombia, et al? I guess you are happy with what's happening there eh?
KoalaBear33
Where does American Imperialism enter into all this? Or do still not consider US actions to be imperialistic?
KoalaBear33
China is run by authoratarian leaders... so I'm sure there will be equivalent pro-censorship mandates...
KoalaBear33
Maybe you should look at what USA is first... USA has done exactly the same thing for years. Look at all the US experiments (sick :( ) in South America...
KoalaBear33
Hate to break it to you but China is doing EXACTLY the same thing that USA does.
Yeah, fuck free trade... but first you need to realize that USA is the proponent of free trade. After all, what did you expect from the flag-bearer of capitalism?
KoalaBear33
I know I'm evangelizing here, but people need to know that one of North America's big trading partners uses techniques every bit as brutal and inhuman as Saddam Hussein's.
Is that Saddam Hussein with or without USA's help? Saddam Hussein probably killed more people with USA's help in the late 80's/early 90's than without USA's help. Granted, it just proves that Saddam is a brutal dictator... however, it shoots down your comparison...
KoalaBear33
What's to say that mechanical machines aren't faulty either? Theoretically, you can rig a mechanical machine too. Maybe alter it/force it/whatever so that it votes twice when you push the button once? Even if you have people spot-checking, the burden then shifts to these "guardians". What if these people have ulterior motives? Sure these people are "independent" but so are all the election monitors in all the poor countries where every election is rigged...
:( ):
I think computer voting will actually make voting more fair and impartial. However, there has to be certain conditions that have to be met.
First of all, to address you concerns, you may never know whether a piece of code does what it is supposed to but that doesnt' matter. All you need to do is to ensure that you use tools that are widely accepted and open. For instance, who knows if the gcc compiler inserts a backdoor into all the code that it compiles? How do you know that Visual Studio doesn't insert code to steal passwords from your application? You just don't. But as long as it is widely accepted and SCRUTINIZED, we can go with that. As long as you do your best, it should be fine.
I think there should be a few key conditions for the systems that are used (unfortunately none of these are satisfied right now
(i) Open-sourced code: The software must be open-source! This is a key requirement. By having code in the open, people can study and scrutinize it. This will result in improvements and catching nearly all exploits. As many security experts will tell you, the safest encryption systems are those that have published their mechanism. As long as code is closed, who knows what is going on? Unfortunately, none of the governments seem to care about this. Until the PUBLIC can look at hte source code or the description of the system functionality, these systems are bound to failure.
(ii) The system must be owned by the government or the public!!! I am not talking about the individual systems but rather EVERYTHING--source code, ideas, technologies, methods, etc. I am not a capitalist so I really don't like leaving key things with profit-maximizing institutions. The company that makes the system must hand over everything to the government or put it in public domain or make it free software or whatever. As long as software/hardware is commercial, profit-making incentives creep in. For example, there are many companies that purposely release semi-functional products so that they can recoup money on service contracts (several specialized software firms are like this). There are others who don't provide proper documentation because they want you to purchase books/documents/etc, hence resulting in them making more money. I don't want any of this junk. Making the system public domain will eliminate most of these problems. If capitalists get mad at this, it isn't a big deal. After all, there are many govt contracts which follow a similar process (eg. private consortium builds a highway or building and owns it for 50 years and then it gives everything back to the govt; weapons manufacturers often sign agreements to give up everything to the military; etc).
(iii) The system must be funded or developed by non-partisian body, preferably a non-profit organization. The government can come up with the specs, requirements, etc but some third party should develop the system (i.e. put the requirements into more concrete terms for vendors). If it is left up to the govt (as is the case now), those in power have an incentive to further their goals, and/or maintain status quo. This is unacceptable to me.
(iv) The system must be able to produce results with minimal human interaction. What I mean is that the system should be able to transfer the votes, count itself, etc. The more humans interacting with it, the more prone to exploitation. Every person that touches the system will have their own personal agendas. It would be preferable for the system to do everything itself. This isn't as danger
I can't believe you justify the caste system but that is to be expected...
Anyway, the reason the caste system is horrible (far worse than the class system practiced in Western countries) is because a person has NO CHOICE under a caste system. You are basically what you were born into! A Western system, as classist as it might be, does not have that limitation. Some dude off the street could be the next Bill Gates. Sure the probability is very low but he has the choice. A caste system does not allow that.
I hate class systems but I hate caste systems 1000x more. It's sad that you don't realize it... but then again, if you are benefitting from it, you probably would have that opinion...
KoalaBear33
Only a capitalist would try to bet on other people's lives.... Market is their God! :(:(:(
KoalaBear33
I don't think they will sue for the code. Instead, they will probably come up with some vague claim that Linux is derived from UNIX or some such thing.
Such a case may go to court because some people consider Linux to be a version of UNIX. In fact, I'm reading some old Linux book (circa 2000??) and it actually refers to Linux as a UNIX (and not as a UNIX-like OS)...
KoalaBear33
None of this really proves anything or advances the issue in any direction. IBM has simply rehashed the FSF argument. I still think there is a big battle ahead.
The article from MozillaQuest is more of an op-ed piece than anything else. Sure, they quote stuff here and there but there is nothing concrete--either way.
This whole SCO thing started out as an attack on IBM, and a money-making scheme. Now it looks like it is going to test the GPL and many of the FSF principles. I don't know if this is exactly the test we wanted for the GPL but we are getting something.
In other news, SCO claims that they will sue Linus Torvalds. Depending on the day of the week, and how the stars are aligned, this may be true or simply be a threat. If SCO does sue Linus, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
A lot of the open-source, free software, and Linux stuff haven't had much challenge in the courts. We'll find out how the US government and its proxy, the US courts, view all this. It wouldn't surprise if some 3rd parties even got involved. This SCO situation will be ground-breaking.
Of course, what I have said is with the assumption that SCO will actually take all these parties to court. For all I know, they may not.
KoalaBear33
That's never going to happen because the world doesn't revolve around open standards. If anything, users would consider Windows as the standard.
KoalaBear33
Class warfare creates civil wars as well, and in a plutocracy, class warfare is eventually created.
My prediction all along has been that capitalism will fail within my lifetime. There are two potential reasons for that. One of them is due to class wars. Marx said that capitalism will collapse due to class wars. It hasn't happened yet but I think it will...
we are ignorant, if our species could handle power we would cease to have wars and wouldnt need to build nuclear weapons.
I don't think we are necessarily ignorant. It's just that SOME people are elitist and want the world for themselves. Once these people dissapear, world would be fine.
KoalaBear33
Most of what you said is meaningless in so far as life is concerned. For instance, information is definitely easily communicated with others but what use is this if it isn't put to "good" use? You'll become nothing more than an information slave. Actually that's what is happening to people.
Similarly, consider education. It's cool and all that most people are more educated now than ever. But look at why that is. How many people go to universities for education, and how many go just to get a job? If employers did not require university degrees (only reason they ask is to cover themselves, and for competitive reasons) then how many people would go to universities? Not many IMO. So, I ask, is the current education really benefitial to humanity? At the rate that the world is going, pretty soon you need a university degree to even replace a lightbulb or to photocopy some documents. Just because the population is educated may or may not mean anything.
I still maintain my original point: humans are not harnessing technology properly. The vast majority of technology is not used properly, and simply benefits a select few...
KoalaBear33
Your logic is flawed. Totalitarianism is more than that. Simply controlling the economy isn't totalitarian. For instance, would you say that USA is more totalitarian than (pick your favourite country) say Brazil because the US govt controls its economy more (eg. US federal reserve, along with financial institutions like the stock markets, banks, etc have FAR greater control than any of those do in Brazil)?
To prove further, what happens under anarchism? Is that more totalitarian or less totalitarian?
Having said this, I agree with you that it is easier to convert a centrally planned economy to totalitarianism than other types of economies. However that is not a rule and is almost meaningless. Nazi Germany was totalitarian yet their economy was captialist and they relied on free markets. Similarly, religious fundamentalist countries (say Iran) can be thought of as quasi-totalitarian yet they rely on free markets and hardly anything is centrally controlled (at least on the economic side--political side is another story)...
KoalaBear33
Humanity will always find something to keep it busy, and quality of life will improve for everyone beyond your imagination.
You criticize the Luddites yet your vision hasn't come true either. Fifty years ago, people (in developed countries) said that the world will be so much better off. They had visions of environmentally clean cities, public trasit everywhere, high-tech houses that use solar power, easy life, less worries, and so on. If you looked at a sci-fi book or even scientific speculative articles, you would find what I described. For all intensive purposes, you could have been an author of those articles since your opinion is the same.
Yet none of the forecasts ever came true! People's lives did not get any easier, the world is nowhere near what it was expected to be and so on. For instance, a person works roughly the same amount as they did 20, 30, or 40 years ago (actually they work a LITTLE BIT LESS but it is negligible when you look at the full figures). A person works 9-5 just like they did 30 years ago, even though technology has significantly improved. Why didn't people's lives get easier? How come you aren't working 75% of what you would have 30 years ago? Or conversely, why hasn't your wage gone up by say 25% (while working the same # of hours) over the 30 years (after adjusting for inflation)?
The technology is there. But the (positive) impact on life isn't. Why? Think about it...
Your rosy predictions won't come true..and the predictions you made in your past life never came true either. Luddites may not be right but the truth is closer to them than you!
If you want to know my opinion... the problem isn't technology; it isn't the people either. So what is it? It's the system. The benefits of technology accrues to a small number of people. The rest of society does not benefit (the only time it does is via some side-effect tangential impact).
You are predicting a quality of life improvement via technology. Let me predict the opposite: people's lives won't improve that much in 20 years. You will be just as stressed out, working just as long, etc... Come back to me in 20 years. We'll see who is right...
KoalaBear33
Democracy is a concept more than a system. So I don't think the answer lies in that. My theory is that democracy also creates civil wars (yes, it creates them). For instance, the majority in may countries oppress the minorities (this is the cause of civil wars).
Thefore, the ideal system is anarchism. This way, power is shifted to the individual/community/whatever. People within a domain will be free to do whatever they want. You can still have democracy within those domains (eg. people within the neighbourhood might use democracy to make decisions).... I just dont' see democracy working out well on the larger scale...
KoalaBear33
Why does a communist or socialist govt have to be totalitarian?
;)
As far as giving keys to the US economy, it has already been done... you probably don't realize who you gave the keys to... you'll find out soon enough
KoalaBear33
Germany had their own nuke program. a 2 year delay - I don't know, I don't have the stats, but would that have been enough time for the Germans to have obtained nukes? And they had their V2 rockets to pop them all over the place.
I don't know much about WWII (it's not my interest)... but from what I understand, Germany gave up their nuke program years earlier. I'm not 100% sure on this but I think I read that somewhere.
what if Germany *had* won the war? I remember reading about this scene where the protagonist in the story had to queue up in some kind of hall to have his papers checked for his racial designation (or something like that).
What would have happened IMO is probably the creation of an elitist society--far more elitist than the present day capitalist one. You would have the "Aryans" at the top controlling and benefitting from everything. Then you would have other classes (essentially races, ethnicities, etc) further down the chain, basically working as slaves. It would be similar to slave-run colonialism, except you have "Aryans" insead of monarchs (ie. limited by race/ethnicity, not blood/family).
My personal opinion is that Nazism wouldn't have taken over the WHOLE planet. It would have been next to impossible to control the populations of Africa and Asia. I think the result would be more of a region based structure, with possibly Europe being 'whites only' and run by "Aryans" while other parts of the world will simply be harvesting grounds for slaves.
KoalaBear33
The Chinese military and Chinese industry are really the same entity.
I agree but a lot of countries are like that. Even USA is like that to a large extent. For instance, many US weapons manufacturers are considered "independent" and private but they are anything but. They are basically controlled by the military. Only difference is that in USA some private person or entity can get rich off the military whereas in China that isn't the case.
In addition, most countries just steal technology from civilian firms if they need it. The CIA for instance would steal tech from US companies if the US military needed it.
That's why, in my opinion, anything the US does that helps China economically is stupid when you look at it long term.
You already know what it is like that. It's because of capitalism. All that matters under capitalism is money. If someone can make money, that's all they care. They don't care about their country, their workers, the environment, etc. This is why USA (as well as other countries) are hypocritical. Cuba is apparently a country run by evil Communists while China isn't. If anything, Cuba poses far less of a threat than China. But it doesn't matter. All that matters is money. If USA couldn't make money off China, they wouldn't do what they are doing now...
I have to wonder how anyone smart enough to get elected to high office is that fucking stupid.
You may like to think you are living in a democracy but nothing is further from the truth. USA is nothing more than a plutocracy. Whatever big business says gets done. Right now, big business is highly in favour of trade with China...
KoalaBear33