Comment by DrScientist | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DrScientist | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

On your second point, that rather assumes those 'unless' people will willing to just 'go away'.

That's typically not what happens - you either get bloody revolution or people just ignore the rules that aren't giving them a fair shot ( ie turn to crime - ie state disapproved activities ).

This is what has traditionally held back the elite from their worse excesses - they don't want to live in a world where either of those things happen.

ie what's the point of being rich if you are constantly worried about yourself or a member of your family is going to be violently kidnapped etc.

As to your first point - it's a bit like the first - if there is no social safety net, then it you could happen to you - you could get ill, lose your job etc. Even if you believe the system is created by total self-interest - then the past has shown that the equilibrium involves looking after everyone to some extent as:

1. It could be you one day.

2. Having lots of desperate people, even if it isn't you, is in no-ones self interest.

I agree historically, but your points break down when the threat of revolutions no longer have the physical or economic power they once did.

Good luck violently kidnapping the family members of a AI CEO in a world of flock cameras and humanoid robot patrol units.

And good luck withholding your labour when 80% of people can't even find paid employment.

Also, arguably if the unemployed masses are going to try to overthrow those provide them with at least the basics to survive and part take in a revolution, then those involved in the revolution shouldn't be surprised if what little they have is withdrawn. Strategically this sounds a lot of like punching your boss and demanding he pays you more or you'll punch him again. This isn't a reasonable negotiation tactic unless you hold some of the cards. The only reason threatening to quit a job can sometimes work is when it's a real threat of economic harm, absent that, it's just annoying and they'll probably be happy to see you off the payroll.

There are too many people in the world currently that think that security is through absolute technical/military dominance, when the reality the thing you really need for security is other people or countries not wanting to harm you.

In fact the rise of things like cheap killer drones or robots makes that truth more real, not less.

> And good luck withholding your labour when 80% of people can't even find paid employment.

So those 80% are either being supported somehow to live a life at a level where they don't resort to violence or crime or they aren't. ie you keep them happy at some level or you fight. Note if you let them die/kill them, then you will likely lose the support of the 20% as they can see which way it's going.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com