Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unnecessariat

morecrows.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 256 posts

Re: Unnecessariat

#71

Post by clock_tower »

mac01021 wrote: post #65
clock_tower wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The world needs to return to feudalism (EDIT: it looks like I said "feudalism" and meant "the current economic model of Europe"...), with elites -- who are more or less permanent and hereditary even in capitalism -- having, and believing and accepting that they do have, clearly-defined obligations towards the common people and towards the collective defense of the realm. Of course, there'll always be room for…

> The world needs to return to feudalism Traditionally feudal lords have aimed mostly spend the minimal amount possible on welfare for their serfs - staving off social unrest but keeping for themselves as much as possible of the GDP subject to that constraint. Are you suggesting that neofeudalism will somehow do better in this respect? Or simply that that would be better than what we have now? > is less likely to tur…

> Will some sort of neo-feudalism do better than historical feudalism?

I think that what I'm groping towards by saying "neo-feudalism" is the existing European social model with the optional addition of ermine capes, as someone else commented below... This discussion has actually taught me a few things, and I don't have a pre-existing opinion here.

> Kings and lawlessness

A president's timeframe is likely to be "until the end of my term in office," at least if the behaviors of the last few presidents are any indication; a king's timeframe is, at least, "until the end of my life", more likely "forever" since he's handing off the kingdom to his children. (Or she to her children in a queen's case.) This should make it easier to resist panic and opinion polls, and make decisions that pay off in the long term -- like remaining a good country to surrender to.

On the other hand, when a king goes wrong it's hard to stop him -- especially in a context where the king has most of the country's military power. (And decentralized military power creates its own problems; the French religious wars, for example, lasted 80 years and ended in autocracy.)

A tyrannical elected leader (like Hitler) could secure power just as solidly as a tyrannical king could, so elections are no protection there, but what about an incompetent king versus an incompetent elected leader? Get a president with bad judgement, it'll be over in four or eight years; get a king with bad judgement and your country might be permanently wrecked.

So, I'll revise my previous statement: the world needs the European social model, but should probably stay about as democratic as Europe probably is now.

But I stand my position that "capitalism is the problem" means that there are multiple other choices that can be looked at, not just communism. Problems with communism don't mean that capitalism is flawless; and problems with capitalism don't mean that we should abolish private property.

Or maybe what I'm groping towards is this: if people behave responsibly, things will probably be all right, but if they don't, things will go badly. But that's what Confucius said, and his system ended up as a cloak for autocracy...

Re: Unnecessariat

#72

Post by coldtea »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #45
clock_tower wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The world needs to return to feudalism (EDIT: it looks like I said "feudalism" and meant "the current economic model of Europe"...), with elites -- who are more or less permanent and hereditary even in capitalism -- having, and believing and accepting that they do have, clearly-defined obligations towards the common people and towards the collective defense of the realm. Of course, there'll always be room for…

That largely resembles the contemporary European social contract, where there are elites and commoners and in exchange for the elites not having their boat rocked too hard the commoners are guaranteed health care and general welfare, but not necessarily prosperity.

So just like the US, but the elites are less elitist, and the people are less broke?

Re: Unnecessariat

#73

Post by emblem21 »

jbooth wrote: post #60
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were right until your last sentence. Reagan made the nation feel that its civic and moral fabric was strong. Nevermind that his policies undermined civil society and his religious backing was hypocritical of anything close to Christ's teachings on compassion, it made people feel strong and so it won him the election.

Trump's got the same thing with the specific brand of disempowered people that the article's talking about.

I have found people are frequently ready to kill one another to protect THEI specific brands of the disempowered of choice, often at the expense of the disempowered brand they despize.

Re: Unnecessariat

#74

Post by clock_tower »

wildmusings wrote: post #46
clock_tower wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The world needs to return to feudalism (EDIT: it looks like I said "feudalism" and meant "the current economic model of Europe"...), with elites -- who are more or less permanent and hereditary even in capitalism -- having, and believing and accepting that they do have, clearly-defined obligations towards the common people and towards the collective defense of the realm. Of course, there'll always be room for…

> Indeed. The world needs to return to feudalism, with elites -- who are more or less permanent and hereditary even in capitalism -- having, and believing and accepting that they do have, clearly-defined obligations towards the common people and towards the collective defense of the realm. This post is a good reminder that capitalists are the radical liberal utopians of an earlier age, and what the realistic alternat…

I think that what I really want is the current European social-welfare model, rather than anything as world-shakingly different as feudalism.

As for semi-permanent elites, I think I've been reading too many books on old money lately. You're right: people who start poor easily become rich, and people who start rich easily become poor. "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" is a human universal...

And, now that I think of it, "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" was just as true under feudalism as in any other system: the average noble house was extinct in three generations.

Shrugs.

So much for that...

Re: Unnecessariat

#75

Post by clock_tower »

coldtea wrote: post #72
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That largely resembles the contemporary European social contract, where there are elites and commoners and in exchange for the elites not having their boat rocked too hard the commoners are guaranteed health care and general welfare, but not necessarily prosperity.

So just like the US, but the elites are less elitist, and the people are less broke?

It sounds like that sums it up nicely. I should move...

Re: Unnecessariat

#76

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

coldtea wrote: post #72
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That largely resembles the contemporary European social contract, where there are elites and commoners and in exchange for the elites not having their boat rocked too hard the commoners are guaranteed health care and general welfare, but not necessarily prosperity.

So just like the US, but the elites are less elitist, and the people are less broke?

Well in the US it doesn't matter where you came from or what you believe, the uniting factor is our work. This makes us believe that if you want a higher standard of living, you have to work for it, and if you are destitute, you deserve it. It has inspired many rags-to-riches lives and the caused hardship and suffering for many more.

Re: Unnecessariat

#77

Post by deciplex »

hueving wrote: post #25
aston wrote: post #4

This is a pretty great personal account, and it helps me tremendously in my goal of understanding this group of people who feel left out and overlooked by their government. However, it's also a good demonstration of how people find ways to rationalize acting against their own self-interest. One example: The author observes that the unnecessariat is having lots of economic value extracted from them, e.g. from required…

When you are motivated for an ideology it's rarely for short term self interest like you imply. If that were true there wouldnt be any rich people voting for Democrats, which isn't the case. With first hand account of a family member that would benefit from Obamacare but didn't vote for Obama, it was a matter of disagreeing with many other policies. E.g. You wouldn't vote for a politician promoting the elimination of…

> If that were true there wouldnt be any rich people voting for Democrats, which isn't the case.

I don't know about that. You can be completely self-interested, wealthy, and still vote liberal/progressive Democrat if you think the alternative is a Reign of Terror or Red October. Or, to dial it back a bit from that, if you think progressive policies will grow the economy of the nation in the long term (and, by extension, your own wealth) as opposed to looting it.

Re: Unnecessariat

#78

Post by Animats »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #57
Animats wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not. But they'll get a lot of working people off food stamps and Medicaid, freeing up welfare resources for people who aren't working.

It will also take more people out of the category of "working people".

Goldman Sachs disagrees. See link above.

Re: Unnecessariat

#79

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

clock_tower wrote: post #67
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India and China aren't too far behind. The former enables religious extremism and the latter hammers public opinion into a blind acceptance of the solitary ruling party. Here's what should concern you more: the 20th century was the age of strong states, from the active citizenry of the imperial United States, to the Communist dominance of society in the equally imperial Soviet Union. The 21st century is the age of th…

Very good points. My instinctive rejoinder to "the age of the corporation" is to ask how many bayonets the corporation has, but the answer is increasingly "not zero." This also causes me to notice something else: what if neo-fascism and its Asian counterparts are becoming popular precisely as a way to coerce corporations -- because nothing less than that can bring them under control? This sounds very plausible, and i…

That's a really good point. Perhaps the Achilles heel of mass democracy is that it is easily manipulated in a capitalist economy where our interactions with the world can be exclusively private.

Think about it: we can spend our lives at home, work, and the grocery store. Except they deliver. And so do restaurants. And so does Amazon, so that's everything. Can't deliver love but you can download and swipe, good luck.

When do we interact with government? For the most part, when we: pay taxes; get a ticket; go to the DMV. Some of us even vote.

Then again Australians have to vote and they get proportional voting so their desires scale with support, and it all seems to work out rather well.

Re: Unnecessariat

#80

Post by rashkov »

mac01021 wrote: post #55
msandford wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is precisely the point. You don't get to TELL your elected officials how to vote. You just get to try and elect people who will HOPEFULLY do what's in your best interests. There are no guarantees in the system, anywhere. That makes the question you asked rather disingenuous.

> You just get to try and elect people who will HOPEFULLY do what's in your best interests. You get to do a bit more than that, though few ever do. Making full use of representative democracy means continuously contacting your representative, not leaving them alone until you're convinced they'll act in your interests, and not leaving your friends/family/community alone until you've got as many other people as you can…

Which is why the 40 hour work week and dog-eat-dog economy seem to really suit those representatives just fine. No one has time or energy to make full use of representative democracy, unfortunately, except for some of the well off with resources to spare.
Post reply on HN