In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Kyle Rittenhouse and his new bride taking wedding pictures holding an AR-15 is certainly a choice.
Will no doubt become a family tradition.
There can be majority verdicts which means a few jurors have to nullify. That's the system in the uk despite the pretense that jury nullification isn't a real thing in practice. No system is perfect but perfection has never been the aim of any good justice system. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." is foundational for example.Jury nulli
Our moral sensibilities are pretty much insync especially in regard to the important stuff with life, liberty, representation, private property etc. We mostly differ on how to attain those ends, which basically boils down to what segments of society are calling the shots, ie, politics.
It's the same with the law for the most part. We don't really have an issue on a lot of the stuff in our criminal codes. The challenge for law is to generalize what for the most part are particular examples we can all agree on. For instance we all agree that you shouldn't be allowed to beat me up and take my stuff. So we codify that into something like "thou shalt not steal." But the intention behind that along withbthe punitive consequences were intended to stop bank robbers, not someone walking off with the teller's pen.
Kyle Rittenhouse and his new bride taking wedding pictures holding an AR-15 is certainly a choice.
That guy is a lost soul.
Kyle Rittenhouse and his new bride taking wedding pictures holding an AR-15 is certainly a choice.
While I do think purely legally he acted in self defence, he truly doesn't seem bothered at all at taking two lives. This merely clinches it.
Our moral sensibilities are pretty much insync especially in regard to the important stuff with life, liberty, representation, private property etc. We mostly differ on how to attain those ends, which basically boils down to what segments of society are calling the shots, ie, politics.It's the same with the law for the most part. We don't really have an issue on a lot of the s
I suspect we agree on who is calling the shots. Not 'our side' because we're too busy doing **** all. We don't even vote for what we want.
Most people agree on some core stuff although there have been massive arguments even on what theft is (UK#1 by far) but there are lot of issues on our criminal codes. Free speech, weapons, abortion, refugee treatment etc etc. As you say this is politics (or should be). But the justice system is far more than just the law. It's not what people agree on morally as much as a result of the competitive pressure stemming from where we disagree. For various reasons on this and democracy etc 'my side' have taken off the pressure. All we do is blame the 'other side' for continuing to exert pressure.
They should be more respectful towards their future president
I suspect we agree on who is calling the shots. Not 'our side' because we're too busy doing **** all. We don't even vote for what we want.Most people agree on some core stuff although there have been massive arguments even on what theft is (UK#1 by far) but there are lot of issues on our criminal codes. Free speech, weapons, abortion, refugee treatment etc etc. As you say this
The only two parties are Labor and Capital. Unlike the far left I think both need their rights respected, even though capital has the upper hand and basically divides and conquers labor. But in a modern economy they're not really as mutually opposed as it gets portrayed. It's not like capitalists are building unproductive pyramids all over the desert. Instead most everything capital is doing feeds right into final consumer consumption.
What happens with the profits from that consumption is the major factor determining how well people are doing today or tomorrow. At the end of the day, what percentage of profits go towards investing in productivity or using profits to finance more consumption is the fundamental driver of current and future living standards. From which a lot of the other issues you mentioned flow from.
I think you'll have to coujnt me as far left. it's not about respect, it's that I think it's increasingly untrue and falling apart. The pyramids are coming again.
I think you'll have to coujnt me as far left. it's not about respect, it's that I think it's increasingly untrue and falling apart. The pyramids are coming again.
That's not carved in stone. Economies get increasing returns from increasing employment or increasing productivity. We're pretty much in the former equilibrium at present but capital has and will migrate to the latter if the roi is there. That large corporations are basically sitting on cash retaing earnings is a sign of a monetary policy driver. That's not just about the rich getting richer.
It is pretty much carved in stone. The rich are getting richer and labour is becoming increasingly worthless. We are making kings. They will build pyramids. It may or may not be good news that they wont need slaves to build them for them.
Unless we find a way to redistribute towards relative equality without labour.
It is pretty much carved in stone. The rich are getting richer and labour is becoming increasingly worthless. We are making kings. They will build pyramids. It may or may not be good news that they wont need slaves to build them for them.
Unless we find a way to redistribute towards relative equality without labour.
It's not zero sum like that. Bezos could build a self-replicating humanoid factory and have the robots build all the pyramids he wants. That doesn't at all prevent the rest of us from doing whatever. Granted we'd rather he did something else with his capital but that's an opportunity cost loss for us, not a deprivation. It's like if he used all his wealth to produce the greatest fireworks show ever. Wouldn't really affect us at all or hamper our ability to do whatever.
With what?
It's also where we diverge fundamentally. All that wealth, power and inequality will not be anything like benign.
With our labor.
Capital's value is derived from it's ability to command labor. As that ability erodes it's not labor that becomes worthless but rather capital.
As capital loses its value in that way is when Marx thought the revolution could take place as the wealthy seek to hold onto their value. But even he didn't think a violent revolution was the only or inevitable remedy.
What if there is increasingly insufficient demand for labour
And kings who need almost none of it
It doesn't matter if the kings no longer need our labor. I need yours and you mine, at least until we use our labor to build a robot factory of our own.
As I said it's not zero sum. It's like with increasing wealth shares today. That doesn't prevent anyone from say inventing something and becoming wealthy. Nor does it affect the wealthy even though their share went from owning the entire wealth pie to someone else having a slice.
What if there is increasingly insufficient demand for labour
And kings who need almost none of it
I’m probably missing something, but of course there will be a reduced demand for human labor. The Terminator is going to build the pyramids quicker than you and you'd rather have him do it than you.
I’m probably missing something, but of course there will be a reduced demand for human labor. The Terminator is going to build the pyramids quicker than you and you'd rather have him do it than you.
I don't see a reduced demand for human labor. That's like early economists back when productivity started really ramping up arguing that people would only be working 10 hours a week due to reduced demand for human labor. The error is assuming our future wants will the same as our current ones.
If anything we have ample evidence showing just the opposite: the more people get the more they want. It's like with people saying they're too busy. If we came up with a pill so people only had to sleep half as long, we'd work longer hours to get more stuff. Same with women entering the workforce; more out of wanting more-better stuff than necessity.
So my prediction is we'll invent or create new ways to provide value to one another in addition to what the robots provide. Can't say what but I expect the entertainment industry to grow by an order of magnitude. People back in the 1800s couldn't even fathom the numbers of people working in nonessential jobs or even what those jobs would be. But here we are.
I don't see a reduced demand for human labor. That's like early economists back when productivity started really ramping up arguing that people would only be working 10 hours a week due to reduced demand for human labor. The error is assuming our future wants will the same as our current ones. If anything we have ample evidence showing just the opposite: the more people get the
Yeah, I agree with some of that. The demand for human labor will rise in areas where humans are scarce or uniquely able to provide some personal or empathy driven assistance - but the need for humans to work to survive is very likely going to decrease.
But who knows how this will play out in reality or whether people will be supported without work, and whether those creative or specialized positions will actually even exist or be feasible in any reasonable amount.
It's not zero sum like that. Bezos could build a self-replicating humanoid factory and have the robots build all the pyramids he wants. That doesn't at all prevent the rest of us from doing whatever. Granted we'd rather he did something else with his capital but that's an opportunity cost loss for us, not a deprivation. It's like if he used all his wealth to produce the greates
I don’t think anyone needs to or should bite this bullet. Of course if someone is able to accumulate a disgusting amount of wealth and use it for some ridiculous end that hurts everyone we should be able to do something about it. There are plenty of outlandish reductios that could be found from taking a maximalist negative right’s approach to uses of state power.
I don’t think anyone needs to or should bite this bullet. Of course if someone is able to accumulate a disgusting amount of wealth and use it for some ridiculous end that hurts everyone we should be able to do something about it. There are plenty of outlandish reductios that could be found from taking a maximalist negative right’s approach to uses of state power.
But he's not actually hurting anyone. As I said it's an opportunity cost lost, not a deprivation for us. It's like if a farmer ended up with a silo of corn to show for his profit and just let it rot. He's not hurting anyone or depriving anyone of anything that was rightfully theirs. Sure people could have gotten the corn. But they would have to work and produce something of value to give in exchange to the farmer, which they no longer need to do since the farmer doesn't have any corn to sell. So as I said, people aren't hurting because of what capitalists don't do with capital.
But he's not actually hurting anyone. As I said it's an opportunity cost lost, not a deprivation for us. It's like if a farmer ended up with a silo of corn to show for his profit and just let it rot. He's not hurting anyone or depriving anyone of anything that was rightfully theirs. Sure people could have gotten the corn. But they would have to work and produce something of val
I feel like there are multiple ways your position could be shown to have an unpalatable reductio, but even if we just wanted to stick to your hypothetical, if someone owned all of the staple crops in a given food supply and decided to destroy it all instead of selling it, I think we could justify intervention to prevent mass starvation.
We could also consider other situations where a negligible inconvenience could result in a huge utility gain then it seems that imposing the marginal inconvenience is justified.
On a basic level though I’m not sure I understand opportunity cost as being a morally relevant difference for the source of a utility drain. Certainly I can see that there is a certain amount of luck involved in just where you are born and what your circumstances are. That seems to indicate a sort of “built in” opportunity cost. Even if there are people born with the same opportunities as Jeff Bezos to accumulate wealth, that’s not going to track forwards or backwards generationally. And what your relative opportunities are really don’t seem to be the type of thing that could be brought into parity in principle.
So it seems like in light of that we should have some kind of plan that we come to for dealing with those differences that can be causally attributed to luck. It might be that we end up deciding on the same system that allows Bezos to build a humanoid robot factory to make pyramids, but that doesn’t seem to be prima facie justified just in light of the fact that there is no right to stop him from doing that. It doesn’t mean we have to accept any old reason to stop him, but I feel like it should still be on the table if there’s a good reason to do it.
People with immense wealth and power are dangerous and do hurt us. Epstein, Thiel, Musk, Trump? etc etc are just the beginning. Power is very very dangerous. The idea they will leave us alone (even assuming we left them alone which we wouldn't) is very hopeful.
i don't see any point in discussing whether the value of human labour is going. At least we should consider what will happen if it does happen. Personally I've no idea how anyone can think it's not going to happen but whatev.
I feel like there are multiple ways your position could be shown to have an unpalatable reductio....
I think we may mostly be talking past each other, because I don’t actually deny the intervention cases you mention. So if someone hoarded the entire food supply and threatened mass starvation, of course we’d declare martial law and intervene. That’s a clear case of deprivation like damning a river upstream, and I don’t think my view commits me to biting that bullet.
That’s the equivocation. The starvation case is a positive deprivation: people lose access to something they already rely on for survival. The “robots replace labor” case is not that. It’s a case where someone’s capital is no longer demanding my labor, but that doesn’t deprive me of the ability to trade with others, produce value, or organize production myself. In other words, it's a lost opportunity relative to a counterfactual, not a harm relative to an actual baseline.
So I don’t think the disagreement is really about whether “any old reason” justifies stopping someone, or whether luck matters at all. It’s about whether unrealized utility gains should be treated as morally equivalent to deprivation.
People with immense wealth and power are dangerous and do hurt us. Epstein, Thiel, Musk, Trump? etc etc are just the beginning. Power is very very dangerous. The idea they will leave us alone (even assuming we left them alone which we wouldn't) is very hopeful.i don't see any point in discussing whether the value of human labour is going. At least we should consider what will h
I don’t disagree that concentrated power is dangerous. History gives us plenty of examples of elites using power badly, and there’s no guarantee future elites would be saints. But that’s a different claim from “automation makes human labor economically irrelevant,” and I think those two things keep getting conflated.
On the labor point: my view is basically the one Marx sketched. Capital’s value comes from its ability to command labor. As technology replaces labor, it’s not labor that becomes worthless.... it’s capital. Once automated labor can genuinely self-replicate, everything it produces trends toward abundance, and abundance erodes price. In that world, owning machines doesn’t give you the same leverage owning factories once did, because anyone can reproduce what you have at near-zero marginal cost.
That's capital consuming itself. But that’s not a future where a small group controls everyone else through economic necessity; it’s a future where economic necessity itself is eroded.
That doesn’t mean power disappears. It just means it shifts away from production and toward coordination, coercion, politics, culture, and violence. And that is where the real danger you’re pointing to lives. Epstein, Musk, Trump, Thiel, etc. aren’t scary because they produce things efficiently. They’re dangerous to us because of influence, state capture, narrative control, institutional leverage, etc.
So when people say “the rich won’t need us anymore,” I really think that’s the wrong framing. They won’t need our labor in the narrow industrial sense... but the thing is neither will anyone else. That doesn’t make humans useless; it makes production cheap. The question then isn’t “what happens to labor value?” but instead “how do power and coordination work in a post-scarcity or low-scarcity world?”
That’s a real problem and its unprecedented in human existence at least at this scale. I just don’t think it’s solved or even better framed by treating automation as if it recreates a sort of feudal dependency rather than dissolving it.
