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

Slop Terrifies Me

ezhik.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 370 posts

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#361

Post by int_19h »

kbelder wrote: post #275
drzaiusx11 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, the rich have never stopped employing elaborate casts of servants; these servants just go by different titles now: private chef, personal assistant, nanny, fashion consultant, etc.

The fact that it's a voluntary arrangement instead of forced makes a significant difference.

Those particular roles were voluntary arrangement for much of human history, simply because people who fill them tend to be significantly better off than those who don't directly serve the powerful (and instead serve their economic interests, like e.g. agricultural slaves or serfs).

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#362

Post by int_19h »

smokel wrote: post #49
jjgreen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to capitalism!

Besides being a bit of a shallow comment, what exactly do you imply here? That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case, it just needs a stronger government than what the US currently has in place. (e.g. progressive taxation and strong antitrust policy seem to work fairly well in Europe).

> That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case,

It is necessarily the case. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of capital, which among other things means that it's possible to accrue it without limit. So the loop whereby the rich accumulate capital, which then allows them to extract even more value produced by workers (i.e. people who actually do useful things with said capital), is an inherent part of capitalism.

You can make it more mellow by heavily taxing the capitalists and using that money to raise the standard of living for everyone else, which is basically what Western social democracy is. But it doesn't eliminate the loop, and thus rich continue getting richer. And more powerful, too, which they use to dial said taxation back eventually.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#363

Post by int_19h »

glitchc wrote: post #353
coldtea wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They taught you the only two altenatives are 1917 style communism or 2026 style capitalism? Talk about a crap educational system.

Proven outcomes in the real world matter, not hypotheticals in a textbook. Can you provide clear examples of successful communist nations where you would be willing to live and raise children, or is this just pseudo-intellectualism?

All communist nations have implemented the same exact narrow subset of the ideology that we know as Marxism-Leninism.

The reason being that everyone else who tried something more e.g. democratic generally got crushed. So the commies that ended up running countries in the real world were the most ruthless, hyper-violent ones.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#364

Post by int_19h »

myth_drannon wrote: post #276

From The Free Press article: In a 1995 interview with Inc. magazine, author Kurt Vonnegut was asked what he thought about living in an increasingly digitized world. His response is so perfect that it’s worth reprinting in full: I work at home, and if I wanted to, I could have a computer right by my bed, and I’d never have to leave it. But I use a typewriter, and afterwards I mark up the pages with a pencil. Then I ca…

And yet he uses a typewriter. Imagine how much more human interaction he'd have if he did it with old fashioned quills! And let's not even talk about the fact that the letter was industrially processed, driven by trucks alongside thousands of others, instead of delivered by hand by people walking the country.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#365

Post by int_19h »

ninkendo wrote: post #175
danaris wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us have a perfectly good game plan for that. It's called Universal Basic Income. It's just that many powerful people have a vested interest in keeping the rest of us poor, miserable, and desperate, and so do everything they can to fight the idea that anything can ever be done to improve the lot of the poor without destroying the economy. Despite ample empirical evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't call UBI a "game plan" so much as a thing people can point to so justify their actions to themselves. It helps you pretend you're not ruining people's lives, because you can point to UBI as the escape hatch that will let them continue to have an existence. It's not surprising that so many in the tech industry are proponents of UBI. Because it helps them sleep at night. Never mind that UBI has never actuall…

There's no reason why UBI wouldn't work.

The reason why it doesn't exist is because, for all that those in positions of power love to talk about it, they very consistently shoot down any actual attempt to implement them. I mean, for starters, it'd mean much higher taxes, and especially higher taxes on those very people (who currently pay lower rates on capital gains than people who actually produce value pay on their wages). When was the last time you've seen one of the Big Tech luminaries advocate for higher capital gains taxes?

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#366

Post by int_19h »

fragmede wrote: post #300
danaris wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People need to do something in order to recieve money Why? What purpose does this serve? Why should people have to prove their worthiness to be allowed to continue living?

Because I ain't giving away my money to freeloaders.

You're going to be doing that either way. The only question is whether you will first humiliate those "freeloaders" by having them do meaningless work just so that they can receive their paycheck, or not.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#368

Post by glitchc »

int_19h wrote: post #363
glitchc wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proven outcomes in the real world matter, not hypotheticals in a textbook. Can you provide clear examples of successful communist nations where you would be willing to live and raise children, or is this just pseudo-intellectualism?

All communist nations have implemented the same exact narrow subset of the ideology that we know as Marxism-Leninism. The reason being that everyone else who tried something more e.g. democratic generally got crushed. So the commies that ended up running countries in the real world were the most ruthless, hyper-violent ones.

Right. To me the conclusion is that communist theory is fatally flawed. Real world application shows that every real, practical communist system will rely on hyper-violence and ruthlessness to preserve itself. Therefore the average person is better off in a capitalist system than a communist one. Can you refute this conclusion?

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#369

Post by jezzamon »

direwolf20 wrote: post #145
jezzamon wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no coincidence that populism is rising. That's the non-violent way out - electing leaders that are willing to change the dynamics a lot.

Populism is how you get elected, not what you do once elected. Disregarding current politics, Adolf Hitler was a populist and that didn't go very well, did it? As I see it now, populism means focusing on truthiness instead of truth, charisma instead of competency, and running the country into the ground because those things you don't have are actually important.

Agreed, my two sentences should probably be a bit more disconnected to each other. Not a proponent of populism myself, but that is the way I see things moving

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#370

Post by int_19h »

glitchc wrote: post #368
int_19h wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All communist nations have implemented the same exact narrow subset of the ideology that we know as Marxism-Leninism. The reason being that everyone else who tried something more e.g. democratic generally got crushed. So the commies that ended up running countries in the real world were the most ruthless, hyper-violent ones.

Right. To me the conclusion is that communist theory is fatally flawed. Real world application shows that every real, practical communist system will rely on hyper-violence and ruthlessness to preserve itself. Therefore the average person is better off in a capitalist system than a communist one. Can you refute this conclusion?

I don't see how that is a logical conclusion. Again, we're talking about the time when communist parties were literally banned most everywhere, and even talking about that stuff was sufficient to lock people up. Why are you surprised that this process selected for hyper-violence? And why do you project its results to different circumstances?
Post reply on HN