Unnecessariat • Hacker News Board

Re: Unnecessariat

#151

Post by theaeolist » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:04 AM UTC

rquantz wrote: post #119

Animats wrote: post #15

From the article: "We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what’s worst of all, everybody who matters seems basically pretty okay with that. " That's it right there. We just don't need that many people to do all the stuff. Some of that is imports, but not all, or even most, of it. Get behind the $15 minimum wage. The…

We just don't need that many people to do all the stuff. Yes we do. There is so much work to be done. The problem is the poverty of the public sphere, brought on by specific, ideologically motivated decisions.

Indeed. Compared with many European countries US infrastructure and everything that is in the public domain looks like shit.

Re: Unnecessariat

#152

Post by vintermann » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:05 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #136

EGreg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the institution of private property doesn't use force or the threat of force? Property allows you to exclude, by force, others from use of a resource. Some organization grants a monopoly to some other organization or individual, and uses force, propaganda and intimidation to keep things that way. Whether it's "intellectual property" or owning huge swaths of land or whatever. Every system uses force or the threat…

And the institution of private property doesn't use force or the threat of force? For defense , not offense . I thought that would be clear, but apparently that needed to be called out explicitly. My bad. A co-op or mall charging rent is not much different than a city or state charging taxes. "Men with guns" will come evict you if you don't pay your rent. It's not even remotely the same thing. In the mall case you ve…

For defense, not offense.

"Defense" of your property claims, not self-defense. Again, Matt Bruenig has been over this. What if we both claim something as property, are we both acting "defensively" in trying to kill each other over it? One man's defensive claim is an offensive claim to another man, and there's no objective standard by which you can decide who's right.

Sure, one may have the backing of a state, but surely that's just more effective violence. You're not in favour of might makes right, do you? And tradition is no good, because claims have to start somewhere.

Re: Unnecessariat

#153

Post by prawn » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:06 AM UTC

clock_tower wrote: post #71

mac01021 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "unti…

I'm trying to imagine a system whereby as much power is removed from a corruptible entity as possible. Could the king in your scenario be a set of algorithms?

Someone on HN previously pointed me towards this: https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html

"Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare."

Re: Unnecessariat

#154

Post by cousin_it » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:10 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #136

EGreg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the institution of private property doesn't use force or the threat of force? Property allows you to exclude, by force, others from use of a resource. Some organization grants a monopoly to some other organization or individual, and uses force, propaganda and intimidation to keep things that way. Whether it's "intellectual property" or owning huge swaths of land or whatever. Every system uses force or the threat…

And the institution of private property doesn't use force or the threat of force? For defense , not offense . I thought that would be clear, but apparently that needed to be called out explicitly. My bad. A co-op or mall charging rent is not much different than a city or state charging taxes. "Men with guns" will come evict you if you don't pay your rent. It's not even remotely the same thing. In the mall case you ve…

> "by what principle can the dead bind the living?"

To achieve higher aggregate utility, by redistributing some of the money to those who would get higher marginal utility from it. Objecting to it based on freedom is backwards, because freedom is just one component of utility.

Re: Unnecessariat

#155

Post by studentrob » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:12 AM UTC

> from where I live, the world has drifted away. We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary

You're not unnecessary.

Have you read your local candidates' views? Have you identified the ones with whom you agree? Have you ever run a voter registration drive to help elect them? Or suggested to friends who share your views that they run for local office?

You're capable of making change. Putting so much energy into saying you're unnecessary shows you have the time.

Re: Unnecessariat

#156

Post by prawn » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:32 AM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #143

We do have theories. But all of them include some form of heavily progressive taxes (even on property) and redistribution. But anyway - here is my theory (without touching taxes) - every year kill the 10 richest people in the country. It will create very good incentive to give away parts of your fortune.

Is there a realistic way to cap earnings or holdings? Has it been tried?

Re: Unnecessariat

#157

Post by imtringued » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:47 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #110

whichfawkes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this is a great way to go from "some poor people have jobs and can barely afford rent" to "Why is everybody homeless now?".

Step 1: Poor person produces something useful, rather than simply consuming. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Everyone is homeless? Could you fill in step 2 for me? I'm not following your logic.

Poor person accepts job paying 1$/hour to compete with indian wages.

Re: Unnecessariat

#158

Post by imtringued » Wed, May 25, 2016, 8:59 AM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #92

Automation can automate manual labor jobs the easiest. Maintaining cities, crafting medicine, colonizing space -- these are important jobs that humanity has. I think the bigger issue is that most people don't have resources to pursue training to tackle this kind of work. There are so many problems left to solve in the world it's a joke to say "there isn't work to be done"

there isn't profitable work to be done

Re: Unnecessariat

#159

Post by tzs » Wed, May 25, 2016, 9:04 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #130

EGreg wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little by little the argument that "taxation is theft" will come to sound like: "But it's not fair to demand that the hard working robot owners pay more in taxes to help the people too lazy to own their own robots."

"Taxation is theft" is true regardless of whether robots are employed or not. The fundamental issue is, simply, that it involves the use of force (or threat of use of force). As long as men with guns will come and arrest you if you don't "pay your taxes" then it is theft. No rhetorical flourishes or byzantine logic can alter that.

Ben Franklin nicely explained what is wrong with that view (letter to Robert Morris, 1783-12-25):

---- begin quote ----

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

---- end quote ----

Re: Unnecessariat

#160

Post by venomsnake » Wed, May 25, 2016, 9:07 AM UTC

prawn wrote: post #156

venomsnake wrote: post #143

We do have theories. But all of them include some form of heavily progressive taxes (even on property) and redistribution. But anyway - here is my theory (without touching taxes) - every year kill the 10 richest people in the country. It will create very good incentive to give away parts of your fortune.

Is there a realistic way to cap earnings or holdings? Has it been tried?

I had an idea of tax that is Tax = Income - Log(Income). That would help make the positive loopbacks milder.

Well ... the big socialist experiments were not that successful in the last century. And the real growth of prosperity post WWII was due to a couple of hard to replicate factors. I guess it could be possible to mandate that no person could own more than 1/X of the national income. But won't pass unless after revolution.