Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Iffykindofguy t1_j73m3ub wrote

Reply to comment by Frumpagumpus in Future of The Lower and Middle Class Post-Singularity, and Why You Should Worry. by ttylyl

What is your point? I said I didn't see anyone happy about this. Not that it wasn't happening. I don't feel any safer because a rich individual has control than a rich corporation.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j73m8jw wrote

if their goal is to buy everything up it is sand slipping through their fingers

(so far, I am sure our legal system is going to come and save the day for us any moment now... (and by that i mean doom us))

1

Iffykindofguy t1_j73mhjx wrote

I hope so! Though I dont see any reason to believe that some individuals, especially not a libertarian, would come forward to provide like a counter AI to the businesses. They'd just make a new company and be king themselves.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j73mxjw wrote

as one of geolibertarian leanings I would say the important bit that makes a king's power tyrannical is his claim to all the land (even if only via proxy nobles) that prevent you from sustaining yourself.

But i don't agree that that is a necessary outcome of AI

1

Iffykindofguy t1_j73nvi7 wrote

There shouldnt be kings or autocrats or any individual who runs everything. There are no individuals that far ahead of everyone else that can run things well for the collective.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j73tgbw wrote

i wouldnt want to live under an autocrat but I certainly dont mind living under somebody or somebodies (oligarchy) or preferably some system if it means I get to delegate some of the responsibility for the state of things.

I also would prefer that there be multiple collectives/states and that I could choose between them as freely as possible.

1

Iffykindofguy t1_j73twuk wrote

I dont mind living under someone, a government is required. Its the only means of fighting the rich anyone has.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j73usci wrote

governments are usually filled with people of a richer persuasion, certainly it would be weird i think if they gave themselves a worse deal than their populace

I also think, to re hash a previous argument on this forum, that rich peoples wealth is somewhat overstated, it mostly manifests in the form of equity which represents control over productive assets rather than some physical wealth you could actually use to sustain yourself if you were to take it from them piecemeal and break up their companies

but I am very strongly opposed to land wealth, which is a large portion of the book value of companies and probably the single largest portion of said value of any particular kind of asset.

1

Iffykindofguy t1_j73v4k0 wrote

Usually but we are working on that. If the GOP wins all three next cycle its over though. Why would they give themselves a worse deal than their populace? Who said they would? Dont do that, its so embarrassing when people don't have a reasonable response so they have to pretend like the other persons acting extreme. They can retain their wealth and spend a little bit of it to keep the masses from turning on them. You are delusional if you think land matters more than the wealth the 1% controls right now. Short of total world wide societal collapse those days are gone.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j73xquv wrote

some wealth is justly earned, land wealth is like 99% unearned.

also like I said a plurality of their wealth is in fact land wealth when you get down to the assets behind all the various financial instruments, most loans are mortgages, student loans are quickly transformed into college campuses, even auto loans basically exist to prop up sprawl. And the remaining kind, gov debt, is in part collateralized by public lands. (and all currency comes from said debt)

1