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

Just own the damn robots

thereformedbroker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 356 posts

Re: Just own the damn robots

#341

Post by fastball »

logfromblammo wrote: post #301
fastball wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. "Probably", "maybe". I don't think it's society's responsibility to look back further than the formation of that society. For the US, I think you can safely use 1776 as a starting point. The US formed itself with the express purpose of creating equality for the original settlers. If someone is violating those principles, society should punish accordingly. If not, society is not "rewarding wealth". They are all…

Prior to industrialization, "pull your own bootstraps" fortunes were extremely rare, and largely a matter of accidentally being in the right place at the right time. Most wealthy folks got there from skimming off their human herd by force or threat of force and by bribing the most docile and cooperative by giving them some of their own production back. After industrialization, a lot of people were able to leverage fi…

What exactly is the problem with this?

Re: Just own the damn robots

#342

Post by bamboozled »

ForRealsies wrote: post #270
bamboozled wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a pretty common attitude amongst a lot of people in their late twenties and early thirties I socialise with (who should probably be well into parenthood). Common question seems to be, "Why bring a child into a world facing climate change, potential nuclear war and a lack of prosperity or opportunities for personal growth". Adopting is probably a better option ;)

Your grandma: 6 kids. Your mother: 2 kids. You: 1 cat and an abortion.

You're wrong in every case, but am I supposed to feel ashamed or something?

Re: Just own the damn robots

#343

Post by fastball »

Qwertious wrote: post #325
fastball wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between basic income and the children of the wealthy is the spectre of the money disappearing. Only the most short-sighted of the wealthy do not realize that there are many ways in which their wealth could dry up. This provides an impetus to use the money constructively while you have it, because it might not be around forever. Basic income does not give the same drive. You can watch TV all day, doing…

>Only the most short-sighted of the wealthy do not realize that there are many ways in which their wealth could dry up. This provides an impetus to use the money constructively while you have it, because it might not be around forever. Money doesn't dry up, it increases thanks to investment and hedge funds. You just need to ensure you never dip it below net-positive+base inflation rate. Suppose you have a billion dol…

I didn't realize we were only talking about 100+ millionaires.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#344

Post by marcus_holmes »

explainplease wrote: post #213
marcus_holmes wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It worked for Gandhi fighting (or rather, not fighting) the British. Superior weaponry doesn't necessarily lead to victory in this kind of conflict.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend playing the Paperclips game that was posted recently. When your enemies are merely numbers on a screen, what does it matter who or what they are? Your machines are tasked to eliminate them, and if your machines are better than their machines--or, in this case, if the enemy don't have any machines--you win, and they disappear. Then you task your machines to clean up the mess,…

that Paperclips game cost me half a day of my life... I don't know whether to thank you or curse you ;)

Re: Just own the damn robots

#345

Post by Sean1708 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #315
Sean1708 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But didn't that all happen during the Industrial Revolution as well? Why is this any different?

> But didn't that all happen during the Industrial Revolution as well? Arguably. > Why is this any different? Even if it wasn't, massive changes to politico-economic systems to redistribute gains were needed to mitigate the adverse distributional effects of the industrial revolution, so...

I'm sorry of I appeared adversarial, it was a genuine question. Why can we not make changes to the current politico-economic system if we were able to do it in the past?

Re: Just own the damn robots

#346

Post by ForRealsies »

bamboozled wrote: post #342
ForRealsies wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your grandma: 6 kids. Your mother: 2 kids. You: 1 cat and an abortion.

You're wrong in every case, but am I supposed to feel ashamed or something?

The "You" used wasn't directed at you personally, just as an observation of current trends.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#347

Post by logfromblammo »

fastball wrote: post #341
logfromblammo wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior to industrialization, "pull your own bootstraps" fortunes were extremely rare, and largely a matter of accidentally being in the right place at the right time. Most wealthy folks got there from skimming off their human herd by force or threat of force and by bribing the most docile and cooperative by giving them some of their own production back. After industrialization, a lot of people were able to leverage fi…

What exactly is the problem with this?

No problem, per se, just facts too often ignored by those trying to work out a formula for how to succeed in business or get rich quick or plan a comfortable retirement.

Those simply trying to avoid getting crushed by the system already know: "Them that's got shall get; them that's not shall lose. God bless the child that's got it all." If you want to get rich, you usually have to be rich. Making your first fortune is always the hardest.

If you aren't already in a position to invest anything--if you are living paycheck-to-paycheck or worse--the only way to own a robot is to build one, because you can't buy one. You can be outbid by anyone with a dollar that isn't already spent. You're already screwed. But you knew that, because you're pinching pennies so hard that Lincoln cries out, then the Lincoln in the monument on the reverse side squeaks out a protest. And if you do manage to build a robot, you'll probably have to sell it at some point for less than it its true worth, due to a crisis.

It even says it in the article. All you need to do to buy enough Amazon stock to retire is to already own a chain of grocery stores in New Jersey! Meanwhile, the employees of those grocery stores have to cut each other's throats to get an Amazon warehouse job, because that game of musical chairs took so many seats away all at once.

"Just own the damn robots" is a surrender to the zero-intervention inevitability of an ownership class that owns everything, and a dispossessed class enslaved to them economically, yet also almost entirely useless to them. Owning things is a solution that only works for problems that rich people have. It's advice maybe good enough for the top 10%, worried that they will backslide. It doesn't do anything for the bottom 90%, who either can't get ownership of a robot, or can't keep it long enough for it to solve their financial problems.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#348

Post by explainplease »

anigbrowl wrote: post #309
explainplease wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for sharing that. I wish more people like yourself, who have first-hand experience, would speak out. As you noted, the rhetorical techniques they use are not in good faith. We need more actual witnesses to testify against it, because such personal testimony is less susceptible to the deceptive, distracting non-arguments they use. > To me, it's a wasted effort. This energy all those bright young people inves…

As you noted, the rhetorical techniques they use are not in good faith. Wow, project much? I don't see that argument made in his comments, nor is it evidenced in the comments of others. Considering that I drew attention to the authoritarian pitfalls of communism and their destruction of 'life, liberty and dignity' before you joined the thread, your complaints about systematic erasure are baseless. Perhaps you didn't…

I wasn't referring to you, because I wasn't even thinking about your comments.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#349

Post by explainplease »

anigbrowl wrote: post #310
explainplease wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "means" I mean "necessarily results in," not "is defined as." If after my clarifying that you still disagree, please explain, otherwise what's the point of saying so?

Oh, if you're going to redefine words after the fact to reshape your argument, further conversation is a waste of time. And you had the nerve to accuse others of not arguing in good faith?!

What are you talking about?

Re: Just own the damn robots

#350

Post by explainplease »

ddnb wrote: post #281
explainplease wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In comparison to what? Eachother? Yes, that is the point I tried to make with all those paragraphs. > These are economic systems and are seperate from political systems. I directly addressed this in the penultimate full paragraph. > and let's not pretend china isn't capitalist It depends on how you define "capitalist." Some industries in China are state-controlled--is that capitalist? Is "capitalist" 0% state contr…

> I realize that you're not the first person I replied to, nor the last, but I wish you would say why you think I'm wrong, because otherwise what's the point of saying so? The quote I used to have an example of what I think was not correct. The problem is your reasoning is based on these 'wisdoms' that aren't actually real facts or which are simply misunderstood, for example: > toward either anarchy or communism Comm…

> The problem is your reasoning is based on these 'wisdoms' that aren't actually real facts or which are simply misunderstood, for example

This is what communists always say: "Communism is just misunderstood and has been poorly implemented. We'll get it right this time." 100 million people in the 20th century say otherwise--well, they would, if they were alive to do so, but they were killed by communism.

I'll try to be concise:

1. Communism and anarchy are not the same thing, because in communism, sharing is not optional.

2. Communism is not stateless, because the laws are enforced to enact communism, and whatever entity enforces the laws is the state.

I guess you're thinking that communism is "the people" rather than "the state," but that is a false distinction, because whichever of the people dissent are forced to comply by the other people, i.e. the state.

This is like saying that there is no "state" in the United States, because it is "of, by, and for the People." However, this is a false distinction, because the state is not the People, rather it is authorized by the People, and its powers are delegated to it by the People. It remains a distinct entity.

3. Therefore, anywhere there is a government, there is a state. The only stateless society would be total anarchy, like nomads roaming the plains thousands of years ago. Even then, they had tribes, which were essentially mini-states. So to claim that communism is stateless is essentially playing semantic games.

4. You said, "Communists and anarchists have the same end goal, these two 'groupings' are one and the same in the end." This is interesting, because most of (if not all of) the "anarchists" we see today are actually thinly veiled communists. They advocate anarchy to destroy the existing society, hoping to then create a new communist state afterward. But you seem to think that communists and anarchists are the same because you think that both are advocating for a stateless society (which is not the case). So we agree on your conclusion, but apparently for different reasons.

5. Communism is not classless. Whoever is in charge is in a class above the rest.

> Your whole post is more of an argument against authoritarianism than anything else in my opinion.

Yes, it is--and communism is authoritarian.

Post reply on HN