To the extent that BTC, in this scenario, is identical to cash in the bank, there is little reason to bother with BTC at all. If your BTC purchases are tied to a verified real identity and a major bank, you may as well use dollars anyway --- you've given up the pseudonymity and independence from centralized financial authorities that motivated BTC in the first place.
When I'm in the middle of a severe cold, I often don't mind being a bit drowsy --- I'm generally planning on spending time in bed, rather than one the road, anyway. The sedative effects of diphenhydramine are often a welcome benefit for getting through the "rest and plenty of fluids" stage. Outside of emergency situations, why are you driving around while sick anyway? To share the joy of sickness with your pals at work?
Try maxing out your spending limit for six months, then asking for chargebacks on every single purchase made. You can only scam a couple of minor chargebacks before the credit card companies catch on and side against you (and make sure you never get credit again); try and pull anything big and systematic, and you'll wind up with fraud charges against your real identity. An ephemeral pseudonymous bitcoin wallet ID doesn't carry the same assurances against large-scale repeated fraud.
Beside "both are really nasty regimes," the comparison isn't particularly apt. The NK regime is highly internally repressive (to a level only dreamt of by Nazi security forces), but also extremely isolationist (compared to the aggressive expansion and conquest used by Hitler to secure internal support for his programs). Visiting this crazy fat asshole is more like visiting Kim Jong-Il in 2010; the NK dynasty represents its own unique variety of crazy.
D-Wave has yet to demonstrate, in the open literature, that their quantum annealing is faster than classical computing annealing methods using considerably cheaper hardware. Early "look how fast we are" comparisons involved comparing against really terrible algorithms on classical hardware --- independent researchers were able to beat D-Wave when not using intentionally crippled approaches.
Quantum superpositions of true and false have the possibility of collapsing to the "true" state when closely observed --- not generally the case with "all other marketing," which tends to follow a classical hidden variable approach (i.e. they were lying all the time, you just didn't know where to look).
Yes, he fought against Fascist Italy and Germany --- but, it's like a turf war between rival gangs; he wasn't doing it out of dislike for the fundamental principles of Fascism; only that he was a Greek nationalist, instead of an Italian nationalist (thus not friendly towards Italian military aggression against Greece). When it came to policy and ideology, he modeled his state after that of the Italian Fascists --- book burnings, brutal suppression of dissent (leftists), youth thug squads, enmity against cultural/religious diversity, etc. His only main difference from Fascism was that he worked through the existing, entrenched authoritarian state, rather than gaining popular support to overthrow the existing state and install a fascist dictatorship (not necessary when your dictatorship is already in power, so you can tone down the radical populist rhetoric a bit) --- thus, scholarly contention that he should be technically categorized as "paternalist-authoritarian" instead of "fascist." Sure, he threw in some anti-imperialist rhetoric, which was an easy thing to do for a country without major imperial holdings (but fighting back against imperialist grabs by other countries).
Hitler's speeches are in German, and the US public mainly only has memories of the swastika as symbolizing an evil enemy. Thus, swastika-wearing, Hitler-quoting neo-Nazi movements have little resonance with Western/US audiences; the insidious power of Hitler's own words and symbols has little resonance with the American people. However, more "home-grown" groups, promoting similar ideologies but without swastikas or German-language slogans, do get a significant amount of traction in the US --- if you wrap up the ugliest racism, xenophobia, and far-right authoritarianism in an American flag, you can attract quite a following. So, while Nazis-calling-themselves-Nazis are only a fringe joke in the US, Neo-Naziism by other names is far from being "not a problem."
Metaxas didn't fight against Italy because he was ideologically opposed to fascism, but as a squabble between two nationalist, fascist dictatorships that each wanted their own country to be the powerful one. From the Wikipedia article on Metaxas,
Patterning his regime on other authoritarian European governments (most notably Fascist Italy), Metaxas banned political parties, prohibited strikes and introduced widespread censorship of the media. National unity was to be achieved by the abolition of the previous political parliamentary system, which was seen as having left the country in chaos (see National Schism).
So, Golden Dawn's model after Metaxas is all about bringing back good ol' Fascism; the only difference they have with German or Italian fascist movements is that their movement centers around making Greece the big, strong, bully country (instead of Germany or Italy).
That's a nice snappy soundbite --- but, perhaps a bit easier said than done. What list of revolutionary scientific discoveries can you credit to your own name from following such sage advice?
Yes, there are lots of things admirable about, and lots to learn from, the experience of folks like Einstein. However, a useful role model is not necessarily the same as high-level pithy quips extracted from a mythologized lifetime of work. Real-life role models (in teachers, parents, friends, etc.), versus aspirational heroes, might be a bit more mundane --- but can make a far greater difference in a person's life. No matter how many inspirational Einstein posters you plaster on the walls, don't expect youth (of any gender or race) to become infused with scientific greatness.
Well, I can't speak for your church; but, working to reach out and be more inclusive of the increasingly diverse neighborhood around my church is a recurring theme brought up at basically every council meeting. There certainly is a "push for diversity" in churches, if you go to the churches that value diversity --- rather than the ones filled with the members who fled the more diverse churches decades ago over the prospect of welcoming inter-racial couples, and later gays.
You may not see "pushes for diversity" in many places because you surround yourself with like-minded racists and sexists. However, there's a lot of "push for diversity" going on all over (yes, in predominantly black and latino communities, too) among those who value freedom and equality of humankind.
I've known a few women who had extremely rich parents --- and had to flee as far as they could to have any life besides "trophy wife for a richer husband." Some rich parents can be extremely sexist and small-minded; they're interested in passing on the family empire to their sons, and selling off their daughters for political/financial alliances. Wanting to grow up as anything other than a high-society socialite can make you a persona non grata in wealthy circles.
Is Einstein (or Edison) a useful role model; far less, the thoroughly mythologized versions presented in books? Sure, Einstein is someone to admire --- but I'm no Einstein (and nor are any of the scientists I regularly work with). There's no meaningful way for me to model my life on a "be like Einstein" principle, no matter how cool I think that would be. On the other hand, I've had lots of great role models --- real live "ordinary" people, showing ways to live productive and fulfilling lives without having Einstein's brain in my noggin.
Calling this a "Cheshire Cat state" is giving it a name --- which is not the same as the thing, or what the thing is (cf. H. Dumpty, 1872). If you want a full technical description of what this state is, that will be readily found in the papers describing it (with no obfuscation intended); however, it might be a bit lengthy to use as a name. On the other hand, a little innocuous wordplay creates a unique and memorable identifier, from which a reader could look up the specifics --- i.e. a good name. Note also that "cat states" are already common jargon in the field.
You give Bob some apples, and Bob gives you a pair of shoes. Alice sees you in your new shoes, and says "hey, those are the shoes somebody swiped from my porch last night!". Who owns the shoes, and the apples? How do you determine and resolve this without resorting to either a larger legal/enforcement infrastructure, or a three-way shootout between you, Bob, and Alice?
If you want a concept of "ownership" more complex than the mere fact of immediate physical possession, it takes a societal infrastructure of many people agreeing to some common set of rules/procedures (i.e. a "state") to hash out the subtler nuances.
I don't know how you procure your shoes. However, in my own experience, this involved handing appropriate pieces of magic paper to the correct recipient (designated by his/her own appropriate magic papers), who gives me some magic paper saying I now own the shoes, that might get checked by the magic paper enforcement officer by the exit. If you don't perform this magical paper ritual "correctly" (according to the commonly accepted norms of a bunch of onlookers), you're likely to find others disagreeing about your claim to own the shoes. For example, sketching a picture of a dead president on a napkin and handing it to the nearest bystander doesn't typically appease the magic paper enforcement officers. Your ability to walk out of the store with shoes --- and have this action recognized and approved by everyone around you, rather than being shouted at by an angry clerk and tackled by a mall cop --- depends on a massive social infrastructure of shared beliefs in magical paper rituals.
I'm not disagreeing that some theories/practices of property may be "better"/"more just" than others. However, none of them are "fundamental" --- all mechanisms of property are based on societal "shared delusions" about how to "rightly" negotiate use of material goods. Property relations as upheld by current states do indeed include great injustices --- the ability for a tiny few to wield authority over the material conditions of many far out of proportion to individual labor. I'd love to see movement towards the Socialist concept of "to each according to his contribution," where property is distributed more according to labor than according to luck in being positioned to control and exploit the labor of others.
However, these issues are a matter of degree rather than a fundamental "state/no-state" dichotomy. The simplistic ideology of "stateless" societal relationships and "natural rights" leads to naiveté about the actual structures of power and oppression in society. It doesn't matter whether structures of power are "formally" organized as States, or Markets, or Social Norms, or Natural Rights --- what matters is the impact it has on people and the practical exercise of freedom. The "stateless" society is simply another form of state --- perhaps a better one, or perhaps far worse, depending on the form assumed. The "right" of a manufacturer (do you mean the workers who built the car? or some rich guys who "own" the workers' labor, mainly thanks to luck of birth?) to issue its own paper stating ownership (and what this actually means) is simply another form of shared societal fiction.
I don't believe "power and authority derives from the state" --- nor "from the individual's rights to self determination." Power derives from power --- which may be held by states, or many individuals, or a few individuals, or wherever. I'd like to dismantle and devolve structures of power --- so that ideally it will be more amenable to "individual self determination" --- but this requires critiquing the accumulation and use of power in whatever form it takes, whether "formal states" or "free market" petty authoritarian feudalism.
The concept of ownership, title, and property are themselves products of having a state. Why am I not allowed to jump in "your" car, modify it as I wish (to start the ignition), and drive away? Because, somewhere in a filing cabinet, there is a magical piece of paper saying that the car is "yours" and not "mine" --- a property in no way inherent in the physical existence of the car itself. The "magic" of the paper that makes the car "yours" is that enough people agree to the rules of the state --- so, they probably won't try to drive your car; and, if they do, someone else may hunt them down and forcibly detain them (again, by power of the state). There is no private property without the state, besides the "private property" of whoever is strongest and nastiest to kill everyone else and grab their stuff.
States may indeed have too much power --- but, if you want "private property" so that some magical piece of paper can dictate who gets to drive "your" car, then you'll need a state (a shared delusion negotiated with a sufficient number of your neighbors).
If you got a problem with The Man, go camp on The Man's front lawn, and make sure the whole world, and especially him, knows it.
The man's front lawn is surrounded by a very high fence, with the house set off from view of the street by several acres (possible patrolled by armed guards who will shoot trespassers). You really think you can walk up to the front door of Google, Apple, or Facebook executives' house and leave door hangers telling them what naughty boys they've been? That their staff won't route them to the helipad instead of the Bentley if their street to work is blocked by protestors? Today's immense wealth disparities mean the oligarch class can live entirely insulated from any public street where protestors can legally and ineffectively gather. Shouting at The Man's front yard's external fortifications won't get you anywhere.
During the "major protests and civil rights battles in this country," the exact same concerns you raise --- that only innocent, hard-working folks were harmed by obstructions to streets and businesses --- were spouted by the powers-that-be opposing change. If you protest according to the rules of the rich and powerful, all you'll get is the continued rule of the rich and powerful.
What happens when your "proper places to protest" are reduced to nowhere effective? When you're corralled into "free speech zones" far from private property, which is every square inch of the city? Important protests of the past have blocked up private businesses, and even impeded "innocent bystanders" from going about their life: consider the Woolworth's lunch counter sit-ins central to forcing de-segregation during the civil rights movement. If you limit protests to where they are harmless and invisible and never intrude on the priorities of the powerful, then you'll never get anything out of them --- leaving the disenfranchised masses even more desperate and angry.
A ten-year-old car may be unreliable because one typically doesn't expend the same resources on repairs as for, e.g., a 10-year-old human. If you're willing to constantly repair, replace, and upgrade parts, you can keep a car going much longer. Generally, economics dictates it's cheaper to buy a new car than extensively maintain an old car --- unless it's a highly collectable, desirable old car, in which case someone might keep it chugging along at higher cost.
Cars are a bad example, anyway; they're both a consumer good aimed at high turnover for new sales, and perform a task requiring a lot of mechanical strain and wear. Consider, instead, industrial equipment, which is likely to stay in service (with repair/maintenance) for many decades (sometimes, over a century) --- it's not unusual for industrial equipment to be older than the people using it. Factor in that you've got robots to perform routine maintenance on robots, and a piece of equipment with high initial costs might be kept in service for a long time, rather than left to wear down and be scrapped after a decade or two like a car.
There are plenty of other plot holes; long service life for expensive and potentially self-maintenancing machines does not seem particularly unreasonable.
Parents are not responsible for the crimes their children commit, and neither should the creators of such robots be. Up to a certain age children can't be held responsible in the eyes of the law, and up to a certain level of development neither should robots be.
Your two sentences here are somewhat in conflict: parents are sometimes legally held responsible for the actions of their children, before their children are sufficiently developed (or, at least, aged) to be held fully personally responsible. Similarly, manufacturers of equipment that turns out to be dangerous under "normal" use also get in trouble. Why should "creators of robots" not be held responsible, unlike creators of other dangerous and defective devices (or parents of destructive children)?
There's a difference between "the middle class leaves" (because middle-class jobs are gutted) and "the middle class is forced out of their homes by the upper-middle-class." The people being evicted are representative of the vast overwhelming majority of the population; general working people who keep a city going. Perhaps you don't believe anyone should be allowed to settle down and work and live in a small but reasonably comfortable home if they can't pull a six-figure salary; these people disagree. Maybe you don't worry about losing your home, having to move far out of town; losing your friends, community, school zone, and perhaps your job, too. Maybe you were raised with a silver spoon in your mouth, with zero experience of the actual struggles and concerns of the majority of working American families. But don't let your ignorance control your disdainful attitude towards the working class.
Slashdot Mirror
To the extent that BTC, in this scenario, is identical to cash in the bank, there is little reason to bother with BTC at all. If your BTC purchases are tied to a verified real identity and a major bank, you may as well use dollars anyway --- you've given up the pseudonymity and independence from centralized financial authorities that motivated BTC in the first place.
When I'm in the middle of a severe cold, I often don't mind being a bit drowsy --- I'm generally planning on spending time in bed, rather than one the road, anyway. The sedative effects of diphenhydramine are often a welcome benefit for getting through the "rest and plenty of fluids" stage. Outside of emergency situations, why are you driving around while sick anyway? To share the joy of sickness with your pals at work?
Try maxing out your spending limit for six months, then asking for chargebacks on every single purchase made. You can only scam a couple of minor chargebacks before the credit card companies catch on and side against you (and make sure you never get credit again); try and pull anything big and systematic, and you'll wind up with fraud charges against your real identity. An ephemeral pseudonymous bitcoin wallet ID doesn't carry the same assurances against large-scale repeated fraud.
translated: d-r-i-n-k-y-o-u-r-x-o-c-o-l-a-t-l
Beside "both are really nasty regimes," the comparison isn't particularly apt. The NK regime is highly internally repressive (to a level only dreamt of by Nazi security forces), but also extremely isolationist (compared to the aggressive expansion and conquest used by Hitler to secure internal support for his programs). Visiting this crazy fat asshole is more like visiting Kim Jong-Il in 2010; the NK dynasty represents its own unique variety of crazy.
D-Wave has yet to demonstrate, in the open literature, that their quantum annealing is faster than classical computing annealing methods using considerably cheaper hardware. Early "look how fast we are" comparisons involved comparing against really terrible algorithms on classical hardware --- independent researchers were able to beat D-Wave when not using intentionally crippled approaches.
Quantum superpositions of true and false have the possibility of collapsing to the "true" state when closely observed --- not generally the case with "all other marketing," which tends to follow a classical hidden variable approach (i.e. they were lying all the time, you just didn't know where to look).
Citation given.
Yes, he fought against Fascist Italy and Germany --- but, it's like a turf war between rival gangs; he wasn't doing it out of dislike for the fundamental principles of Fascism; only that he was a Greek nationalist, instead of an Italian nationalist (thus not friendly towards Italian military aggression against Greece). When it came to policy and ideology, he modeled his state after that of the Italian Fascists --- book burnings, brutal suppression of dissent (leftists), youth thug squads, enmity against cultural/religious diversity, etc. His only main difference from Fascism was that he worked through the existing, entrenched authoritarian state, rather than gaining popular support to overthrow the existing state and install a fascist dictatorship (not necessary when your dictatorship is already in power, so you can tone down the radical populist rhetoric a bit) --- thus, scholarly contention that he should be technically categorized as "paternalist-authoritarian" instead of "fascist." Sure, he threw in some anti-imperialist rhetoric, which was an easy thing to do for a country without major imperial holdings (but fighting back against imperialist grabs by other countries).
Hitler's speeches are in German, and the US public mainly only has memories of the swastika as symbolizing an evil enemy. Thus, swastika-wearing, Hitler-quoting neo-Nazi movements have little resonance with Western/US audiences; the insidious power of Hitler's own words and symbols has little resonance with the American people. However, more "home-grown" groups, promoting similar ideologies but without swastikas or German-language slogans, do get a significant amount of traction in the US --- if you wrap up the ugliest racism, xenophobia, and far-right authoritarianism in an American flag, you can attract quite a following. So, while Nazis-calling-themselves-Nazis are only a fringe joke in the US, Neo-Naziism by other names is far from being "not a problem."
Metaxas didn't fight against Italy because he was ideologically opposed to fascism, but as a squabble between two nationalist, fascist dictatorships that each wanted their own country to be the powerful one. From the Wikipedia article on Metaxas,
Patterning his regime on other authoritarian European governments (most notably Fascist Italy), Metaxas banned political parties, prohibited strikes and introduced widespread censorship of the media. National unity was to be achieved by the abolition of the previous political parliamentary system, which was seen as having left the country in chaos (see National Schism).
So, Golden Dawn's model after Metaxas is all about bringing back good ol' Fascism; the only difference they have with German or Italian fascist movements is that their movement centers around making Greece the big, strong, bully country (instead of Germany or Italy).
That's a nice snappy soundbite --- but, perhaps a bit easier said than done. What list of revolutionary scientific discoveries can you credit to your own name from following such sage advice?
Yes, there are lots of things admirable about, and lots to learn from, the experience of folks like Einstein. However, a useful role model is not necessarily the same as high-level pithy quips extracted from a mythologized lifetime of work. Real-life role models (in teachers, parents, friends, etc.), versus aspirational heroes, might be a bit more mundane --- but can make a far greater difference in a person's life. No matter how many inspirational Einstein posters you plaster on the walls, don't expect youth (of any gender or race) to become infused with scientific greatness.
Why is there no push for diversity in churches?
Well, I can't speak for your church; but, working to reach out and be more inclusive of the increasingly diverse neighborhood around my church is a recurring theme brought up at basically every council meeting. There certainly is a "push for diversity" in churches, if you go to the churches that value diversity --- rather than the ones filled with the members who fled the more diverse churches decades ago over the prospect of welcoming inter-racial couples, and later gays.
You may not see "pushes for diversity" in many places because you surround yourself with like-minded racists and sexists. However, there's a lot of "push for diversity" going on all over (yes, in predominantly black and latino communities, too) among those who value freedom and equality of humankind.
I've known a few women who had extremely rich parents --- and had to flee as far as they could to have any life besides "trophy wife for a richer husband." Some rich parents can be extremely sexist and small-minded; they're interested in passing on the family empire to their sons, and selling off their daughters for political/financial alliances. Wanting to grow up as anything other than a high-society socialite can make you a persona non grata in wealthy circles.
Is Einstein (or Edison) a useful role model; far less, the thoroughly mythologized versions presented in books? Sure, Einstein is someone to admire --- but I'm no Einstein (and nor are any of the scientists I regularly work with). There's no meaningful way for me to model my life on a "be like Einstein" principle, no matter how cool I think that would be. On the other hand, I've had lots of great role models --- real live "ordinary" people, showing ways to live productive and fulfilling lives without having Einstein's brain in my noggin.
Calling this a "Cheshire Cat state" is giving it a name --- which is not the same as the thing, or what the thing is (cf. H. Dumpty, 1872). If you want a full technical description of what this state is, that will be readily found in the papers describing it (with no obfuscation intended); however, it might be a bit lengthy to use as a name. On the other hand, a little innocuous wordplay creates a unique and memorable identifier, from which a reader could look up the specifics --- i.e. a good name. Note also that "cat states" are already common jargon in the field.
You give Bob some apples, and Bob gives you a pair of shoes. Alice sees you in your new shoes, and says "hey, those are the shoes somebody swiped from my porch last night!". Who owns the shoes, and the apples? How do you determine and resolve this without resorting to either a larger legal/enforcement infrastructure, or a three-way shootout between you, Bob, and Alice?
If you want a concept of "ownership" more complex than the mere fact of immediate physical possession, it takes a societal infrastructure of many people agreeing to some common set of rules/procedures (i.e. a "state") to hash out the subtler nuances.
I don't know how you procure your shoes. However, in my own experience, this involved handing appropriate pieces of magic paper to the correct recipient (designated by his/her own appropriate magic papers), who gives me some magic paper saying I now own the shoes, that might get checked by the magic paper enforcement officer by the exit. If you don't perform this magical paper ritual "correctly" (according to the commonly accepted norms of a bunch of onlookers), you're likely to find others disagreeing about your claim to own the shoes. For example, sketching a picture of a dead president on a napkin and handing it to the nearest bystander doesn't typically appease the magic paper enforcement officers. Your ability to walk out of the store with shoes --- and have this action recognized and approved by everyone around you, rather than being shouted at by an angry clerk and tackled by a mall cop --- depends on a massive social infrastructure of shared beliefs in magical paper rituals.
I'm not disagreeing that some theories/practices of property may be "better"/"more just" than others. However, none of them are "fundamental" --- all mechanisms of property are based on societal "shared delusions" about how to "rightly" negotiate use of material goods. Property relations as upheld by current states do indeed include great injustices --- the ability for a tiny few to wield authority over the material conditions of many far out of proportion to individual labor. I'd love to see movement towards the Socialist concept of "to each according to his contribution," where property is distributed more according to labor than according to luck in being positioned to control and exploit the labor of others.
However, these issues are a matter of degree rather than a fundamental "state/no-state" dichotomy. The simplistic ideology of "stateless" societal relationships and "natural rights" leads to naiveté about the actual structures of power and oppression in society. It doesn't matter whether structures of power are "formally" organized as States, or Markets, or Social Norms, or Natural Rights --- what matters is the impact it has on people and the practical exercise of freedom. The "stateless" society is simply another form of state --- perhaps a better one, or perhaps far worse, depending on the form assumed. The "right" of a manufacturer (do you mean the workers who built the car? or some rich guys who "own" the workers' labor, mainly thanks to luck of birth?) to issue its own paper stating ownership (and what this actually means) is simply another form of shared societal fiction.
I don't believe "power and authority derives from the state" --- nor "from the individual's rights to self determination." Power derives from power --- which may be held by states, or many individuals, or a few individuals, or wherever. I'd like to dismantle and devolve structures of power --- so that ideally it will be more amenable to "individual self determination" --- but this requires critiquing the accumulation and use of power in whatever form it takes, whether "formal states" or "free market" petty authoritarian feudalism.
The concept of ownership, title, and property are themselves products of having a state. Why am I not allowed to jump in "your" car, modify it as I wish (to start the ignition), and drive away? Because, somewhere in a filing cabinet, there is a magical piece of paper saying that the car is "yours" and not "mine" --- a property in no way inherent in the physical existence of the car itself. The "magic" of the paper that makes the car "yours" is that enough people agree to the rules of the state --- so, they probably won't try to drive your car; and, if they do, someone else may hunt them down and forcibly detain them (again, by power of the state). There is no private property without the state, besides the "private property" of whoever is strongest and nastiest to kill everyone else and grab their stuff.
States may indeed have too much power --- but, if you want "private property" so that some magical piece of paper can dictate who gets to drive "your" car, then you'll need a state (a shared delusion negotiated with a sufficient number of your neighbors).
If you got a problem with The Man, go camp on The Man's front lawn, and make sure the whole world, and especially him, knows it.
The man's front lawn is surrounded by a very high fence, with the house set off from view of the street by several acres (possible patrolled by armed guards who will shoot trespassers). You really think you can walk up to the front door of Google, Apple, or Facebook executives' house and leave door hangers telling them what naughty boys they've been? That their staff won't route them to the helipad instead of the Bentley if their street to work is blocked by protestors? Today's immense wealth disparities mean the oligarch class can live entirely insulated from any public street where protestors can legally and ineffectively gather. Shouting at The Man's front yard's external fortifications won't get you anywhere.
During the "major protests and civil rights battles in this country," the exact same concerns you raise --- that only innocent, hard-working folks were harmed by obstructions to streets and businesses --- were spouted by the powers-that-be opposing change. If you protest according to the rules of the rich and powerful, all you'll get is the continued rule of the rich and powerful.
What happens when your "proper places to protest" are reduced to nowhere effective? When you're corralled into "free speech zones" far from private property, which is every square inch of the city? Important protests of the past have blocked up private businesses, and even impeded "innocent bystanders" from going about their life: consider the Woolworth's lunch counter sit-ins central to forcing de-segregation during the civil rights movement. If you limit protests to where they are harmless and invisible and never intrude on the priorities of the powerful, then you'll never get anything out of them --- leaving the disenfranchised masses even more desperate and angry.
A ten-year-old car may be unreliable because one typically doesn't expend the same resources on repairs as for, e.g., a 10-year-old human. If you're willing to constantly repair, replace, and upgrade parts, you can keep a car going much longer. Generally, economics dictates it's cheaper to buy a new car than extensively maintain an old car --- unless it's a highly collectable, desirable old car, in which case someone might keep it chugging along at higher cost.
Cars are a bad example, anyway; they're both a consumer good aimed at high turnover for new sales, and perform a task requiring a lot of mechanical strain and wear. Consider, instead, industrial equipment, which is likely to stay in service (with repair/maintenance) for many decades (sometimes, over a century) --- it's not unusual for industrial equipment to be older than the people using it. Factor in that you've got robots to perform routine maintenance on robots, and a piece of equipment with high initial costs might be kept in service for a long time, rather than left to wear down and be scrapped after a decade or two like a car.
There are plenty of other plot holes; long service life for expensive and potentially self-maintenancing machines does not seem particularly unreasonable.
Parents are not responsible for the crimes their children commit, and neither should the creators of such robots be. Up to a certain age children can't be held responsible in the eyes of the law, and up to a certain level of development neither should robots be.
Your two sentences here are somewhat in conflict: parents are sometimes legally held responsible for the actions of their children, before their children are sufficiently developed (or, at least, aged) to be held fully personally responsible. Similarly, manufacturers of equipment that turns out to be dangerous under "normal" use also get in trouble. Why should "creators of robots" not be held responsible, unlike creators of other dangerous and defective devices (or parents of destructive children)?
There's a difference between "the middle class leaves" (because middle-class jobs are gutted) and "the middle class is forced out of their homes by the upper-middle-class." The people being evicted are representative of the vast overwhelming majority of the population; general working people who keep a city going. Perhaps you don't believe anyone should be allowed to settle down and work and live in a small but reasonably comfortable home if they can't pull a six-figure salary; these people disagree. Maybe you don't worry about losing your home, having to move far out of town; losing your friends, community, school zone, and perhaps your job, too. Maybe you were raised with a silver spoon in your mouth, with zero experience of the actual struggles and concerns of the majority of working American families. But don't let your ignorance control your disdainful attitude towards the working class.