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

What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

loc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 659 posts

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#601

Post by EGreg »

Ancapistani wrote: post #449
EGreg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. You see, "private property" was a step up from Feudalism. It allows you to own things. For example, the Web disrupted AOL, MSN, Compuserve, cable channels, radio stations, journalism, etc. But then, people started to just make their own "private" sites bigger. "I built it -- I own it!" OK, so Mark Z owns facebook, Jeff Bezos owns Amazon, and so forth. Our public discussions take place on "privately owned"…

> You see, "private property" was a step up from Feudalism. Private property absolutely existed under fuedalism as well, albeit in a more limited form for most people. Serfs generally worked land privately owned by - or granted by the crown to - private individuals. Minor nobles had property rights equal to and exceeding those of private landowners today. Property other than real estate was privately owned by serfs.…

Yep. I am friends with many anarcho capitalists. I would say I’m a left-libertarian. We have a lot in common!

The way I arrive at it is like this:

1) Property requires “men with guns” to enforce. How do we as a society determine property on a larger scale than personal property? However we do it seems to centralize control in the hands of a few, to exclude others from using a resource.

2) People form organizations, and those organizations make rules (of which property laws represent just one aspect). Organizations can be small (neighborhoods, small forums like this) or large (cities, states, federations, Big Tech)

3) Governments are just the people in charge of running the organizations. Every organization is run by some rules. The question is what system leads to the best results. I don’t criticize “THE government”. I criticize large organizations like states, corporations etc.

4) Taxes are just the analogue of rent. Private landlords can force you to pay rent or get out. If the scale is larger, a city makes you pay tax. The city is the landlord. Consider that Disneyworld is owned by a corporation, while Boca Raton used to be privately owned but then sold to the residents.

5) What would you arrive at if you applied the same critiques of intellectual property — owning ideas, songs etc. — to owning water, air, and so forth … and then down the line — owning huge forests or fields. What does “ownership” of such huge things really benefit people? When the eviction moratorium expires, from a consequentialist point of view is a nation with many nearly-homeless people going to be richer?

On my side, I would really love to hear how you work out this “exercise for the reader”you mentioned — it seems way above my pay grade hehe

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#602

Post by joshuamorton »

thegrimmest wrote: post #386
joshuamorton wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A homeless person can be more free than a person confined in a mansion, can they not? Sure. But a rich homeless person is no longer homeless, and a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home. You haven't addressed my point. > Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free. Right, so when I said > You sort of admit a…

> a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home I disagree. The rich person may be more comfortable, but they are no more free. Confinement is confinement. > Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty Fraud is related to securing of property rights, which are a part of liberty. How free are you if people can remove the food from your pantry? Fraud as a criminal offense h…

> I disagree. The rich person may be more comfortable, but they are no more free. Confinement is confinement.

Is level of confinement the only thing that defines slavery?

Assume the rich person and the poor person want the same thing. The rich person can acquire it. The poor person cannot (or can only do so by risking force in response).

All else equal, the rich person can do strictly more things. How are they equally free? The definition of freedom is usually something along the lines of "the ability to do things". The rich person can do more things, they're freer.

The term for what I'm describing is sometimes "freedom from want" and is a commonly considered to be a freedom/right when discussing freedoms if you look beyond liberalism as it was in 19th century. The idea being that while liberalism does a decent job of ensuring that the government doesn't oppress you, it does nothing to ensure that other people don't oppress you. Granting some standard of living to everyone ensures that you can't be taken advantage of because you have no better option, no one can treat you worse than the living standard the government provides.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#603

Post by kingcharles »

viraptor wrote: post #26
kinbiko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before clicking on this link I was thinking "oh yeah, I know of one such example near where I used to live in Bath". And then I clicked the link... and now I'm terrified of you.

We may have met :-) It was actually hard to find a good example on street view today - the whole centre is washed now and Cheap/Westgate aren't black for over a decade.

Bath posse, represent.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#604

Post by teatree »

alex_duf wrote: post #151
teatree wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person who has been exclusively on something similar to soylent for entire 2021, it is certainly possible today albeit not via 4 pills.

Out of complete curiosity: any particular reason to avoid traditional food?

I have a medical condition which requires enteral nutrition.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#605

Post by teatree »

seafoam wrote: post #136
teatree wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person who has been exclusively on something similar to soylent for entire 2021, it is certainly possible today albeit not via 4 pills.

Ok I will bite, what are you on ?

Isosource 1.5

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#606

Post by berkes »

viraptor wrote: post #9

The "less cleaning due to less coal" part is not something we really think much about these days, but the older limestone buildings can really show the difference. Here's a view with the old and either pressure-washed or redone wall: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wso9gae4JPsN6NaG6 and that's on a residential side street... Imagine getting your clothes slowly covered with it every time you go out.

I imagine we'll see a same effect in decades, when cars no longer dominate our cities and/or are replaced with EVs.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#607

Post by easytiger »

ajmurmann wrote: post #384
easytiger wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use of the idea that now is an opportunity to be seized I think dictates that it's a desire

So, if I predict something catastrophical will happen and I make efforts to prepare for it, I'm part of the problem?

The institutions are stating that exploitation of the status quo to implement X is an opportunity. One that usually comes at the cost of individuals

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#608

Post by throwaway0a5e »

pydry wrote: post #505
zionic wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the wealthy love this because their debt becomes cheaper to service while their assets skyrockets. Inflation primarily hurts the non-asset owning poor.

Have you met the non asset owning poor? They have debt. LOTS of debt.

The interest rates are high enough and the debt terms are short enough that they get screwed hard by relative buying power loss long before any of that matters.

Having your car loan evaporate over three years doesn't mean crap if you can't afford to make the payment after one.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#609

Post by robben1234 »

retrac wrote: post #323
viraptor wrote: post #9

The "less cleaning due to less coal" part is not something we really think much about these days, but the older limestone buildings can really show the difference. Here's a view with the old and either pressure-washed or redone wall: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wso9gae4JPsN6NaG6 and that's on a residential side street... Imagine getting your clothes slowly covered with it every time you go out.

That was one of the most striking differences I noticed when I saw a bunch of photos from c. 1970 of my hometown (Toronto). Everything that wasn't freshly painted was grubby in a way you don't see anymore here. 1971: https://www.blogto.com/upload/2014/03/20111020-royal-alex-f0... 2009: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Royal_Al... We phased out most coal in the 70s with the last eliminated in the ea…

For some reason aesthetically I prefer the coal-covered limestone buildings. They are just pleasing to look at. So in a way I find it strangely disappointing that they get pressure washed.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#610

Post by golergka »

Damogran6 wrote: post #56
golergka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's striking that most of his true predictions were already in place in the sixties In first world countries, may be. Now more of them are true for more and more people all around the globe too.

“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed. The Economist, December 4, 2003” ― William Gibson

With time, I started to interpret this quote differently. It's not that one place is more in future than another; it's that even different parts of the future are unevenly distributed among the globe. Now, more than ever, different countries sometimes seem very advanced in some ways but at the same time backwards in others.
Post reply on HN