Whether it is a republic or a British-style democracy, it makes no difference if you are the monority or not. Under both systems, the majority rules. In USA, you may FEEL that you can vote together as a state, but what's to stop a bunch of states from colluding together against you? In fact, that is what happens all the time in USA. The big states, New York, California, Texas, etc control everything. The other states don't really count. Even if you have the votes, you don't have the power.
British-style democracy is actually better for minorities. The reason is because it is based on alliances. Typically, the smaller parties can ally with a few others to have some power. This is what happens in most countries (except weird ones;) like Canada and Britain). In many other countries, you'll notice that the majority in power actually has to pay attention to their opponents. In the US-style system, the minorities have no voice whatsoever. You are literally forced to vote for a big party. This is why everyone votes for Republicans and Democrats. Every wonder why no one votes for the Green Party, Liberatarian Party, etc? You either vote for Democrats or Republicans or else you don't matter (might as well not vote).
I personally don't like US-style systems. They are very static because you can hoard power. Under British-style systems, they are more dynamic and the opposition can overpower the major power if they do something no one likes (eg. all the minor parties can vote together against some bill that most hate). Of course, this comes with a price. British-style systems are unstable (many governments can have to call elections earlier after the coalition falls apart). In contrast, I can't recall a US govt ever failing and calling an early election. Nevertheless, I prefer a dynamic yet unstable system over a stable yet static system.
Who's your monarch? Is it some dude from Netherlands or someone else? I live in Canada and it is also technically a constitutional monarchy. Sucks... nothing worse than everything takin an oath to the Queen instead of the country or some other entity:(
Wow. This is really confusing the issue. Should information be able to flow anonymously? Yes. Should law enforcement seek to identify and arrest criminals? Yes. Can law enforcement do their job without ending the right to be anonymous? Yes. Actually, in the US, we make law enforcement jump through LOTS of hoops to protect citizen rights.
I don't thin kthe original poster is confusing the issue (although I don't really look at the issue his/her way)...
Everything you said is correct BUT granting FULL freedom of speech (or any freedom but let's stick with speech) will mean that what you are saying won't be true. That is, either your reasoning is flawed or you don't support FULL freedom of speech. Let's see what I mean.
First case: You say info should flow freely, yet you say that law enforcement should identify these people. This is impossible. If the system is TRUELY anonymous, how can anyone identify a person? So what you are saying cannot be true--it's illogical. I don't know much about Freenet but if it DOES grant FULL freedoms, law enforcement can NEVER identify the people.
Second case: The other possibility is that you don't believe in FULL freedom of speech and believe that police should always be able to trace criminals. In that case, you don't support things like Freenet at all.
So you much take one of those positions. You mention that police is made to jump through "hoops" to protect individual rights. But this won't apply to Freent (or any other service that grants TRUE anonymity). Police can't do anything because it is technologically impossible to trace people in such a sytem (NOTE: I am assuming that Freent can implement a truely anonymous system. I have never used it and don't know how it works so this is just an assumption at this point).
Just to avoid confusion, I'm not saying child porn should be legal. In fact, it NEVER will be. The reason is because it violates individual rights. A child is a person and hence has rights. No one can violate the child's human rights. Therefore, child porn will never be legal anywhere on earth (not counting non-progressive, or conservative regions). IF child porn (it's really child abuse) is legal, then I have the right to come and rape you. There is no difference between you assulting your child and me assaulting you. Either both are legal or none are.
Actually that (ie. child porn in the system) shows that the system is working (No, I'm not a child pornographer). Freenet is supposed to guarantee (or at least increase) people's freedoms. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the people who have the least freedoms will start to use that system the most. Granted, this is not what we want but it is the price we pay for having the system. So for now, there won't be many others using the system but in the long-run society (ie. the whole public) will start using it. You even alluded to it by point out the MP3 file swappers. They might start using the system once they lose their freedoms when using the status quo.
Typically what I described is how such systems work. For instance, look at black markets which try to trade goods in countries that ban stuff. Say you pick Afghanistan. When things were banned, the black markets moved goods. Initially, the goods were things like pornography (not child porn). But eventually they started trading music, movies, posters, etc.
Same thing should happen with Freenet. Right now it might be used for unwanted activities. But in the long run, its benefit will be realized in the form of other things (of course, this is assuming that Freenet becomes popular)...
I thought that was one of the most insightful and truthful comments I've seen in a while. Europeans and others like to rant about the US 24x7, but the reality is they are just as screwed up, and perhaps more so because they spend all their time obsessing about the US instead of trying to fix their own problems.
I'm not a European but even I can say that Europe is NOWHERE near what USA is. Europe doesn't invade other countries, start wars, etc--at least at the same rate as USA. Europe also has better social structure. They pay higher taxes but their environmental protections are better, they work less (more holidays), less crime (at least the violent type), lower homelessness, etc.
How many Europeans go "insane" and start shooting their former employers/employees? How many Europeans are actually scared to walk into "certain parts" of their town? Even things like drug addiction (illegal kind, although one may consider the legal kind as addiction too) are worse in USA (although I haven't checked the figures lately)...
I'm not an American but I think the answer lies in capitalism. USA took the path to capitalism, which necessarily results in commerce bodies (such as corporations and business owners) getting wealthy. And since capitalism values money over everything else, wealth translates to power...
The path USA has taken is no different than any other country's... it's just that USA is far ahead (ie. more capitalistic) than the other countries. The same thing WILL happen in YOUR country--whatever that may be...
They are reactionary, conservative, AND authoratarian. I don't think those words are mutually exclusive. They describe different things: one describes what causes an action to be carried out, another deals with econopolitical stance, and the last deals with power.
Here is why I consider them to be all three:
Reactionary: These guys are the complete opposite of progressives. They sit around doing nothing and then all of a sudden start doing something which often has nothing to do with anything long-term.
Conservative: Bush and his buddies are clearly conservative due to their policies on abortion, religion, attempts to enrich the wealthy class, etc.
Authoratarian: Most people consider this trait to be the most noticeable but I disagree. Only a few of the administration seem to be authoratarian (Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, plus neo-cons (like Paul Wolfowitz, etc))
I think the Bush administration really can't create a dictatorship (because Bush himself is incapable of running it). Instead, someone else (Cheney perhaps) will likely attempt to do that in a few elections down the road...
Lastly, USA will end up a fascist state more than a dictatorship (don't forget that fascism doesn't require dictatorship. For instance, most people don't know that Nazism had massive support. People consider Hitler to be a dictator but if there were DEMOCRATIC elections, he would have kept winning them EASILY). Same thing will happen in USA I suspect...
I think the turning point will be the next terrorist attack in USA (I think it will happen). USA will unroll their patriot act II and start implementing new policies...
What is needed here is both strict safety regulation and a ban or heavy tariff on goods from countries that do not enforce a basic level of similar reguations.
The problem is that capitalists, who basically control the economy (as well as portions of the government) will never agree to it. Tariffs are as evil as socialism to this crowd and I just don't see that working.
The only way is to mount a social movement in the host countries but that is very difficult given that you can end up in jail easily (protesting=jail in most countries) and most people are too poor and would do anything for a job (eg. most poor countries practice SLAVE LABOUR.. the corporations don't call it that; the government doesn't call it that; but it really is)...
I think a stronger case can be made, though: all of these countries which have weak employee protection laws now will get stronger laws and start having retroactive lawsuits (ala tobacco or asbestos) which will probably cost the companies a lot more down the road than it would cost them to avoid those areas now. And I'll bet they're not factoring that risk into their cost analyses.
In a corporate world where the short is all that matters, your idea probably has even less of a chance of succeeding than the original proposal..
Iraq had a socialist economy (The Baath Party was a pan-Arab Socialist Party) that made the people's woes even worse.
Where did you get that info from? The US govt? Iraq's govt was as socialist as the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic!
If Iraq was socialist, USA never would have supported it. What happened is that it was on a path to socialism (although I think it would have failed because Islamic fundamentalism would resist socialism) but USA jumped in and started supporting Saddam Hussein, who wasn't a socialist at all. So Iraq never really became socialist. USA ensured that it never did. And letting Sadam Hussein run things (along with some US and French/German help) didn't help the socialist cause either...
There hasn't been a case where USA has helped a socialist, Communist or communist country in the last 50 years. USA only allied with one Communist country, USSR, during WWII. Other than that, USA has attempted to destroy all others. USA never supported any socialist/communist/etc country because it is run by capitalists, and capitalists are arch-enemies of socialists, and vice versa.
I suspect that we're heading toward a two-class society, comprised of the working skilled and the unemployed masses.
This won't happen--at least under the robot situation--because the unemployed masses will be greater than the working class. Under such a scenario, a revolution will result. Don't forget that larger numbers can overthrow minorities under any democracy-like system. The only reason it doesn't happen now is because the vast majority of people are middle class and not poor.
capitalism suxxors... you aren't going to fix it... There WILL be a revolution... capitalism will fall... Trying to fix capitalism is like trying to fix monarchy...
BTW, Keynes has thoroughly been dismissed by the modern day economist establishment...
Even though we have different ideologies (I'm a socialist), I'm glad that you have noticed how modern day economists are nothing more than a bunch of fools. They are the modern equivalent of alchemists. Instead of asking 'What is best for humanity?', they always ask 'Given capitalism, what is best for humanity?'... All these economists will be discredited within 200 years...
Of course, the fact that most economists work at banks, financial institutions, IMF, World Bank, and other capitalist institutions shouldn't be surprising. Most people would be more than happy to propagate a bunch of lies if they were getting paid $70k per year. Needless to say, capitalist rewards these exact instituations (banks, stock markets, etc) that these economists trumph...
Supply and demand is the most bogus concept ever unleashed on humans. It was invented by capitalists and supported today by capitalists. All economists, who are mostly capitalist, are a bunch of fools. They will all be discredited within 200 years..
Supply and demand MAY work under a theoretical framework but doesn't work in reality. A classic example is stock markets. Economists have been trying to explain stock market for decades and still can't. Why? Because supply and demand doesn't work. The simple reason is because none of the assumptions needed for their capitalist theories are true in the real world.
I haven't read your stuff but will in the future. Are you part of the technocracy stuff? BTW, I think something is wrong with your main page. It is horribly slow on Mozilla Firebird (it could be a problem on my end but I'm not sure)... Anyway...
Without reading much about your econopolitical system, what is there to prevent someone or some entity or some group from hoarding all the resources? What's to stop a select few from dictating things to everyone else? A quick glance seems like your system can be taken over by scientists or some technology-oriented individuals? Who selects the people that will make decisions?
This would be a big boon for universities, companies, and society in general, as it would help shift those put out of work into more advanced fields. In fact, why not give access to university labs and engineering facilities for those so inclined, and encourage more grant money for basic and applied research?
I'm a socialist and support welfare but in the circumstance that he described, giving a grant is far more preferable AS LONG AS the result is not owned by a corporation or some private entity. That is, the work these people do must be owned by the public (this is in contrast to modern day trends where corporations sponser universities and end up owning a lot of the intellecutal property and work).
In any case, what you are saying about educating everyone will not have the impact you are assuming. For instance, even if everyone was say computer engineers, a lot of people would be out of jobs. The world only needs so many computer engineers (as one might feel firsthand from the recent economy;( ). The same thing applies to all the other fields. If there are more astrophysists, there would still be people out of jobs.
The scenario the author presented WILL result in people being out of jobs no matter what. This is necessarily so because the wealth accrues to a select few. IF the robots were owned by the public or by everyone, including you, then it wouldn't even be a problem in the first place.
Educating people will not give them a job. I can say that from firsthand experience but people in other fields can attest to it. For instance, most scientists (people who graduate from chemistry, physics, etc) never get any jobs in their fields. Are they all dumb and stupid? Nope. I have run into so many guys that can contribute SO MUCH to the advancement of science yet it doesn't happen. There are only so many required jobs in a particular area...
The 'revolution' this time may not come by arms, but by economics.
It IS possible for an economic revolution. For example, people can start boycotting goods, withhold funds (not give to banks), etc. But I don't think that alone will work for two reasons.
Firstly, the world is not egalitarian and there are massive differences is wealthy between regions/countries/etc. The wealthy can simply go and exploit someone who is even more desperate than you. They can even sell their products to this desperate bunch. Don't forget that you can make lots of money by selling to the poor, as long as there are large numbers of them (Monarchs hundreads of years ago became wealthy by taxing the poor. Sure the poor may not be able to may much tax but when you have large numbers you become rich).
Secondly, it is hard to initiate an economic revolution when you are not rich. The wealthy own a massive chunk of the wealth. So you can't really have much impact. This is like trying to initiate a shareholder revolt when you only own a small percentage of the company. As a matter of fact, economic revolutions (or any economic action) is far more difficult to carry out nowadays because the lower classes own even less than they did 100 years ago.
Welcome into communism. Communist Party of Soviet Union promised to build it by 1980. They were overoptimistic, because Russia was not ready for the transition to communism and everyone (including the bolsheviks) knew that even before 1917. But our generation will live under communism (for some time).
err... communism is supposed to eventually result in the elimination of govt. I know: never happened... but it is supposed to... Under the "cycle" you describe, I don't think communism is stable enough to last...
In the past you could give your peasents some cheap weapons and if you threw enough of 'em at the Military they'd succeed. With modern warfare (weapons, logistics, communications) you can easilly put down any such 'peasant' revolt. And with modern propaganda you can nip it in the bud.
I agree with most of what you say and I'm not endorsing violence but don't forget that Communists overthrew their governments fairly easily. Or even look at the American and French revolutions: who would have thought that people can overthrow some of the most powerful monarchs at that time? Propaganda is definitely a big problem now but the population can resist it too.
Lastly, don't forget that the military is mostly made up of lower classes. I don't even think there are 100 millionaries in the US military (for example). If a LARGE MAJORITY of the population initiates a revolution, I am pretty sure that the military (or at least a big chunk of it) will support these people.
Non-violent revolts can work too. For example, the people, acting as consumers, can start boycotting products, create alternatives, and basically wreck the establishment.
I personally think that capitalism will collapse within our lifetimes. In my opinion, a key determinant of revolutions is the size and strength of hte middle class. As long as the middle class is big and happy, everything will be stable. But if the middle class erodes and becomes working class or poorer, watch out...
Also, a lot of Latin American countries are on the verge of a revolution... this time, USA can't do anything...
The old wisdom that work is good for you is mostly bullshit; a mantra that the mostly socialised government constructed so they could controll the masses.
I don't know what you are reading but work is good for you is a CAPITALIST argument. If anything, socialism calls more minimizing work (hence the stereotypical view that socialists are lazy and don't do anything). Capitalists are the ones that are against reduced work weeks, etc.
Separating those that produce the good and those whom makes most of the money is a good thing.
What you are saying is impossible. Even under a capitalistic society, consumers dictate the economy. According to some estimates, 2/3 of the US economy is driven by consumers. And most consumers are not wealthy. Once these people start losing their purchasing power, the rich will get hit for sure. My theory is that if say 20% of the middle class is converted into working class, or 20% of working class is converted to poor, the impact will be more than 20% on the wealthy.
During the 19th century, the 1920's, 1940-65 and the 90's.
It's interesting to note that you also left out the fact that the same policies resulted in depressions, and wars. What helped in the 20's, hurt the 30's, and what helped the late 1800's hurt the early 1900's...
I've always felt that trying to eliminate the undesirable and banal jobs for which you need little skill and intelligence is good for society; of course, I consider myself in the 5%.
There is no such thing as skill and intelligence. It is purely arbitrary and dependent on the environment. For example, a computer engineer is next to useless in most parts of the world (because there isn't even a computer industry in most countries). In contrast, teachers are not highly valued in say USA whereas they are very important in many other countries.
To further prove my point, consider a salesperson. Is that person valuable or not? Should a person be pushing products to you even if you don't want it? The answer is arbitrary.
How about an astronomer? To most people, an astronomer is next to useless. People do not value them and many people don't even consider them to be skilled in anything. Needless to say, a segment of the population would disagree...
The whole notion of skill and intelligence was propagated by the aristocrats in the 17th and 18th century to maintain a classist system where they benefitted.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether it is a republic or a British-style democracy, it makes no difference if you are the monority or not. Under both systems, the majority rules. In USA, you may FEEL that you can vote together as a state, but what's to stop a bunch of states from colluding together against you? In fact, that is what happens all the time in USA. The big states, New York, California, Texas, etc control everything. The other states don't really count. Even if you have the votes, you don't have the power.
;) like Canada and Britain). In many other countries, you'll notice that the majority in power actually has to pay attention to their opponents. In the US-style system, the minorities have no voice whatsoever. You are literally forced to vote for a big party. This is why everyone votes for Republicans and Democrats. Every wonder why no one votes for the Green Party, Liberatarian Party, etc? You either vote for Democrats or Republicans or else you don't matter (might as well not vote).
British-style democracy is actually better for minorities. The reason is because it is based on alliances. Typically, the smaller parties can ally with a few others to have some power. This is what happens in most countries (except weird ones
I personally don't like US-style systems. They are very static because you can hoard power. Under British-style systems, they are more dynamic and the opposition can overpower the major power if they do something no one likes (eg. all the minor parties can vote together against some bill that most hate). Of course, this comes with a price. British-style systems are unstable (many governments can have to call elections earlier after the coalition falls apart). In contrast, I can't recall a US govt ever failing and calling an early election. Nevertheless, I prefer a dynamic yet unstable system over a stable yet static system.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Who's your monarch? Is it some dude from Netherlands or someone else? I live in Canada and it is also technically a constitutional monarchy. Sucks... nothing worse than everything takin an oath to the Queen instead of the country or some other entity :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Wow. This is really confusing the issue. Should information be able to flow anonymously? Yes. Should law enforcement seek to identify and arrest criminals? Yes. Can law enforcement do their job without ending the right to be anonymous? Yes. Actually, in the US, we make law enforcement jump through LOTS of hoops to protect citizen rights.
I don't thin kthe original poster is confusing the issue (although I don't really look at the issue his/her way)...
Everything you said is correct BUT granting FULL freedom of speech (or any freedom but let's stick with speech) will mean that what you are saying won't be true. That is, either your reasoning is flawed or you don't support FULL freedom of speech. Let's see what I mean.
First case: You say info should flow freely, yet you say that law enforcement should identify these people. This is impossible. If the system is TRUELY anonymous, how can anyone identify a person? So what you are saying cannot be true--it's illogical. I don't know much about Freenet but if it DOES grant FULL freedoms, law enforcement can NEVER identify the people.
Second case: The other possibility is that you don't believe in FULL freedom of speech and believe that police should always be able to trace criminals. In that case, you don't support things like Freenet at all.
So you much take one of those positions. You mention that police is made to jump through "hoops" to protect individual rights. But this won't apply to Freent (or any other service that grants TRUE anonymity). Police can't do anything because it is technologically impossible to trace people in such a sytem (NOTE: I am assuming that Freent can implement a truely anonymous system. I have never used it and don't know how it works so this is just an assumption at this point).
Just to avoid confusion, I'm not saying child porn should be legal. In fact, it NEVER will be. The reason is because it violates individual rights. A child is a person and hence has rights. No one can violate the child's human rights. Therefore, child porn will never be legal anywhere on earth (not counting non-progressive, or conservative regions). IF child porn (it's really child abuse) is legal, then I have the right to come and rape you. There is no difference between you assulting your child and me assaulting you. Either both are legal or none are.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually that (ie. child porn in the system) shows that the system is working (No, I'm not a child pornographer). Freenet is supposed to guarantee (or at least increase) people's freedoms. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the people who have the least freedoms will start to use that system the most. Granted, this is not what we want but it is the price we pay for having the system. So for now, there won't be many others using the system but in the long-run society (ie. the whole public) will start using it. You even alluded to it by point out the MP3 file swappers. They might start using the system once they lose their freedoms when using the status quo.
Typically what I described is how such systems work. For instance, look at black markets which try to trade goods in countries that ban stuff. Say you pick Afghanistan. When things were banned, the black markets moved goods. Initially, the goods were things like pornography (not child porn). But eventually they started trading music, movies, posters, etc.
Same thing should happen with Freenet. Right now it might be used for unwanted activities. But in the long run, its benefit will be realized in the form of other things (of course, this is assuming that Freenet becomes popular)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I thought that was one of the most insightful and truthful comments I've seen in a while. Europeans and others like to rant about the US 24x7, but the reality is they are just as screwed up, and perhaps more so because they spend all their time obsessing about the US instead of trying to fix their own problems.
I'm not a European but even I can say that Europe is NOWHERE near what USA is. Europe doesn't invade other countries, start wars, etc--at least at the same rate as USA. Europe also has better social structure. They pay higher taxes but their environmental protections are better, they work less (more holidays), less crime (at least the violent type), lower homelessness, etc.
How many Europeans go "insane" and start shooting their former employers/employees? How many Europeans are actually scared to walk into "certain parts" of their town? Even things like drug addiction (illegal kind, although one may consider the legal kind as addiction too) are worse in USA (although I haven't checked the figures lately)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not an American but I think the answer lies in capitalism. USA took the path to capitalism, which necessarily results in commerce bodies (such as corporations and business owners) getting wealthy. And since capitalism values money over everything else, wealth translates to power...
The path USA has taken is no different than any other country's... it's just that USA is far ahead (ie. more capitalistic) than the other countries. The same thing WILL happen in YOUR country--whatever that may be...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Here is why I consider them to be all three:
- Reactionary: These guys are the complete opposite of progressives. They sit around doing nothing and then all of a sudden start doing something which often has nothing to do with anything long-term.
- Conservative: Bush and his buddies are clearly conservative due to their policies on abortion, religion, attempts to enrich the wealthy class, etc.
- Authoratarian: Most people consider this trait to be the most noticeable but I disagree. Only a few of the administration seem to be authoratarian (Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, plus neo-cons (like Paul Wolfowitz, etc))
I think the Bush administration really can't create a dictatorship (because Bush himself is incapable of running it). Instead, someone else (Cheney perhaps) will likely attempt to do that in a few elections down the road...Lastly, USA will end up a fascist state more than a dictatorship (don't forget that fascism doesn't require dictatorship. For instance, most people don't know that Nazism had massive support. People consider Hitler to be a dictator but if there were DEMOCRATIC elections, he would have kept winning them EASILY). Same thing will happen in USA I suspect...
I think the turning point will be the next terrorist attack in USA (I think it will happen). USA will unroll their patriot act II and start implementing new policies...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm no fan of Bush but don't judge someone by their parents! That's nothing more than stereotyping!!!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What is needed here is both strict safety regulation and a ban or heavy tariff on goods from countries that do not enforce a basic level of similar reguations.
The problem is that capitalists, who basically control the economy (as well as portions of the government) will never agree to it. Tariffs are as evil as socialism to this crowd and I just don't see that working.
The only way is to mount a social movement in the host countries but that is very difficult given that you can end up in jail easily (protesting=jail in most countries) and most people are too poor and would do anything for a job (eg. most poor countries practice SLAVE LABOUR.. the corporations don't call it that; the government doesn't call it that; but it really is)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think a stronger case can be made, though: all of these countries which have weak employee protection laws now will get stronger laws and start having retroactive lawsuits (ala tobacco or asbestos) which will probably cost the companies a lot more down the road than it would cost them to avoid those areas now. And I'll bet they're not factoring that risk into their cost analyses.
In a corporate world where the short is all that matters, your idea probably has even less of a chance of succeeding than the original proposal..
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Free-market liberal? What the hell is that?
Please don't call anyone on the right liberal... Thanks...
I'm a Canadian but your political system sucks. USA would be better off with more parties... no offense..
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Iraq had a socialist economy (The Baath Party was a pan-Arab Socialist Party) that made the people's woes even worse.
Where did you get that info from? The US govt? Iraq's govt was as socialist as the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic!
If Iraq was socialist, USA never would have supported it. What happened is that it was on a path to socialism (although I think it would have failed because Islamic fundamentalism would resist socialism) but USA jumped in and started supporting Saddam Hussein, who wasn't a socialist at all. So Iraq never really became socialist. USA ensured that it never did. And letting Sadam Hussein run things (along with some US and French/German help) didn't help the socialist cause either...
There hasn't been a case where USA has helped a socialist, Communist or communist country in the last 50 years. USA only allied with one Communist country, USSR, during WWII. Other than that, USA has attempted to destroy all others. USA never supported any socialist/communist/etc country because it is run by capitalists, and capitalists are arch-enemies of socialists, and vice versa.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I suspect that we're heading toward a two-class society, comprised of the working skilled and the unemployed masses.
This won't happen--at least under the robot situation--because the unemployed masses will be greater than the working class. Under such a scenario, a revolution will result. Don't forget that larger numbers can overthrow minorities under any democracy-like system. The only reason it doesn't happen now is because the vast majority of people are middle class and not poor.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
capitalism suxxors... you aren't going to fix it... There WILL be a revolution... capitalism will fall... Trying to fix capitalism is like trying to fix monarchy...
BTW, Keynes has thoroughly been dismissed by the modern day economist establishment...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Even though we have different ideologies (I'm a socialist), I'm glad that you have noticed how modern day economists are nothing more than a bunch of fools. They are the modern equivalent of alchemists. Instead of asking 'What is best for humanity?', they always ask 'Given capitalism, what is best for humanity?'... All these economists will be discredited within 200 years...
Of course, the fact that most economists work at banks, financial institutions, IMF, World Bank, and other capitalist institutions shouldn't be surprising. Most people would be more than happy to propagate a bunch of lies if they were getting paid $70k per year. Needless to say, capitalist rewards these exact instituations (banks, stock markets, etc) that these economists trumph...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Consider yourself the outcome of another brainwashed capitalist mechanism (ie. modern day economics) ... ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Supply and demand is the most bogus concept ever unleashed on humans. It was invented by capitalists and supported today by capitalists. All economists, who are mostly capitalist, are a bunch of fools. They will all be discredited within 200 years..
Supply and demand MAY work under a theoretical framework but doesn't work in reality. A classic example is stock markets. Economists have been trying to explain stock market for decades and still can't. Why? Because supply and demand doesn't work. The simple reason is because none of the assumptions needed for their capitalist theories are true in the real world.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I haven't read your stuff but will in the future. Are you part of the technocracy stuff? BTW, I think something is wrong with your main page. It is horribly slow on Mozilla Firebird (it could be a problem on my end but I'm not sure)... Anyway...
Without reading much about your econopolitical system, what is there to prevent someone or some entity or some group from hoarding all the resources? What's to stop a select few from dictating things to everyone else? A quick glance seems like your system can be taken over by scientists or some technology-oriented individuals? Who selects the people that will make decisions?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This would be a big boon for universities, companies, and society in general, as it would help shift those put out of work into more advanced fields. In fact, why not give access to university labs and engineering facilities for those so inclined, and encourage more grant money for basic and applied research?
;( ). The same thing applies to all the other fields. If there are more astrophysists, there would still be people out of jobs.
I'm a socialist and support welfare but in the circumstance that he described, giving a grant is far more preferable AS LONG AS the result is not owned by a corporation or some private entity. That is, the work these people do must be owned by the public (this is in contrast to modern day trends where corporations sponser universities and end up owning a lot of the intellecutal property and work).
In any case, what you are saying about educating everyone will not have the impact you are assuming. For instance, even if everyone was say computer engineers, a lot of people would be out of jobs. The world only needs so many computer engineers (as one might feel firsthand from the recent economy
The scenario the author presented WILL result in people being out of jobs no matter what. This is necessarily so because the wealth accrues to a select few. IF the robots were owned by the public or by everyone, including you, then it wouldn't even be a problem in the first place.
Educating people will not give them a job. I can say that from firsthand experience but people in other fields can attest to it. For instance, most scientists (people who graduate from chemistry, physics, etc) never get any jobs in their fields. Are they all dumb and stupid? Nope. I have run into so many guys that can contribute SO MUCH to the advancement of science yet it doesn't happen. There are only so many required jobs in a particular area...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The 'revolution' this time may not come by arms, but by economics.
It IS possible for an economic revolution. For example, people can start boycotting goods, withhold funds (not give to banks), etc. But I don't think that alone will work for two reasons.
Firstly, the world is not egalitarian and there are massive differences is wealthy between regions/countries/etc. The wealthy can simply go and exploit someone who is even more desperate than you. They can even sell their products to this desperate bunch. Don't forget that you can make lots of money by selling to the poor, as long as there are large numbers of them (Monarchs hundreads of years ago became wealthy by taxing the poor. Sure the poor may not be able to may much tax but when you have large numbers you become rich).
Secondly, it is hard to initiate an economic revolution when you are not rich. The wealthy own a massive chunk of the wealth. So you can't really have much impact. This is like trying to initiate a shareholder revolt when you only own a small percentage of the company. As a matter of fact, economic revolutions (or any economic action) is far more difficult to carry out nowadays because the lower classes own even less than they did 100 years ago.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Welcome into communism. Communist Party of Soviet Union promised to build it by 1980. They were overoptimistic, because Russia was not ready for the transition to communism and everyone (including the bolsheviks) knew that even before 1917. But our generation will live under communism (for some time).
err... communism is supposed to eventually result in the elimination of govt. I know: never happened... but it is supposed to... Under the "cycle" you describe, I don't think communism is stable enough to last...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
In the past you could give your peasents some cheap weapons and if you threw enough of 'em at the Military they'd succeed. With modern warfare (weapons, logistics, communications) you can easilly put down any such 'peasant' revolt. And with modern propaganda you can nip it in the bud.
I agree with most of what you say and I'm not endorsing violence but don't forget that Communists overthrew their governments fairly easily. Or even look at the American and French revolutions: who would have thought that people can overthrow some of the most powerful monarchs at that time? Propaganda is definitely a big problem now but the population can resist it too.
Lastly, don't forget that the military is mostly made up of lower classes. I don't even think there are 100 millionaries in the US military (for example). If a LARGE MAJORITY of the population initiates a revolution, I am pretty sure that the military (or at least a big chunk of it) will support these people.
Non-violent revolts can work too. For example, the people, acting as consumers, can start boycotting products, create alternatives, and basically wreck the establishment.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I personally think that capitalism will collapse within our lifetimes. In my opinion, a key determinant of revolutions is the size and strength of hte middle class. As long as the middle class is big and happy, everything will be stable. But if the middle class erodes and becomes working class or poorer, watch out...
Also, a lot of Latin American countries are on the verge of a revolution... this time, USA can't do anything...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The old wisdom that work is good for you is mostly bullshit; a mantra that the mostly socialised government constructed so they could controll the masses.
I don't know what you are reading but work is good for you is a CAPITALIST argument. If anything, socialism calls more minimizing work (hence the stereotypical view that socialists are lazy and don't do anything). Capitalists are the ones that are against reduced work weeks, etc.
Separating those that produce the good and those whom makes most of the money is a good thing.
What you are saying is impossible. Even under a capitalistic society, consumers dictate the economy. According to some estimates, 2/3 of the US economy is driven by consumers. And most consumers are not wealthy. Once these people start losing their purchasing power, the rich will get hit for sure. My theory is that if say 20% of the middle class is converted into working class, or 20% of working class is converted to poor, the impact will be more than 20% on the wealthy.
During the 19th century, the 1920's, 1940-65 and the 90's.
It's interesting to note that you also left out the fact that the same policies resulted in depressions, and wars. What helped in the 20's, hurt the 30's, and what helped the late 1800's hurt the early 1900's...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I've always felt that trying to eliminate the undesirable and banal jobs for which you need little skill and intelligence is good for society; of course, I consider myself in the 5%.
There is no such thing as skill and intelligence. It is purely arbitrary and dependent on the environment. For example, a computer engineer is next to useless in most parts of the world (because there isn't even a computer industry in most countries). In contrast, teachers are not highly valued in say USA whereas they are very important in many other countries.
To further prove my point, consider a salesperson. Is that person valuable or not? Should a person be pushing products to you even if you don't want it? The answer is arbitrary.
How about an astronomer? To most people, an astronomer is next to useless. People do not value them and many people don't even consider them to be skilled in anything. Needless to say, a segment of the population would disagree...
The whole notion of skill and intelligence was propagated by the aristocrats in the 17th and 18th century to maintain a classist system where they benefitted.
Sivaram Velauthapillai