SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the first-home-is-reserved-for-Winston-Smith dept.
Bill Gates is Buying Land in Arizona to Build a "Smart City"
An investment firm run by Bill Gates has put down $80 million to develop a planned community in Arizona. The 25,000 acres of land is about 45 minutes west of Phoenix, in an area called the West Valley. The community, which Gates wants to turn into a "smart city," will be named Belmont.
"Belmont will create a forward-thinking community with a communication and infrastructure spine that embraces cutting-edge technology, designed around high-speed digital networks, data centers, new manufacturing technologies and distribution models, autonomous vehicles and autonomous logistics hubs," Belmont Partners, the Arizona real state investment company involved in the deal, said in a news release.
The proposed freeway I-11, which would connect the Belmont area to Las Vegas, makes the land an ideal spot for a new community, according to Ronald Schott, the executive emeritus at the Arizona Technology Council. Of the 25,000 acres, 3,800 will be used for office, retail, and commercial space. Another 470 acres will be used for public schools. That leaves enough space for 80,000 residential units.
Also at TheUSBPort, Fossbytes, CNET, and Real Estate Daily News.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @04:54PM (2 children)
What a load of bollocks you spew.
First of, you're dragging in Capitalism here, we were talking about Democracy pur sang.
Now, for what you were spewing:
That's a nice little libertarian utopia you got going there. Certain individual-to-individual interaction *must* be mandated for society to work appropriately and productively. A simple example is car insurance: while it may not look like it, it certainly is an individual-to-individual interaction that is mandated by law. It is there to assist either party in the event that one (e.g.) hits the other in the city, which no doubt will happen to you at some point. It 'insures' you against the other and vice versa. Wouldn't want the other guy to not have insurance now, would you? What makes you think you'll ever see the money if the other person has no insurance, is insolvent or just flees from your/everyones grasp while you also (as I would assume) have no insurance? You want your car to be fixed at the other person's expense, no?
Property rights, law by contract and the likes do come from legislation, by the way. If there is no law that says "taking something that belongs to someone else, without their consent is wrong and we will discourage you by imposing harsh penalties", everyone would be stealing everything. I feel an argument coming about how you'd defend your property with some form of armaments and I wish you plenty of luck with your weapons once you decide to take on BoA, or JPMorgan, or AT&T, Verizon or any other Capitalism Company out there that is looking out for themselves only, which will also be deploying armed guards with a mandate to kill anyone who even looks at them strangely soon after the first one of you loonies decide to take 'the law into their own hands'.
And after all, isn't your precious capitalism supposed to react rather well to (dis-)incentives? However, that's not how any society works, nor how any society would be a productive one. You need legislation, you need mandates, you need to force people to do or not do certain things because left to their own, they'd never do/not do them - because they're dumb. After all, you ought to eat your veggies whether you want to or not, just like your parents laid down 'the law' on that for you and how you lay down that law for your kids...
While I agree that evolution as a system is a good thing, when applied to an economic system, it does need corrective action from time to time and legislation is frequently the only mechanism that is available to do so. If, through your precious evolution, the market is reduced to a single supplier, your precious evolution ceases and everyone suffers. There is no more competition and surely that is a bad idea if you argue for evolution which is driven by your oh-so-craved competition. Your particular interpretation of how capitalism matches evolution is a system where evolution tries to erase itself which I'll point out is a contradiction in your argumentation. I recommend both "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "The ancestors long tail" if you want to learn more about this evolution you speak of, which I think you ought to...
After all, if you do not believe in corrective action, do you never correct your kids (for all that is good, please tell me your kind did/does/will not procreate...)? Do you let your precious evolution to raise your (hypothetical - please goodness, be hypothetical) kid?
Just like a child, the market needs correcting and, occassionally, a hard whack with a flat hand against its (upper or lower) cheek, because it's been doing naughty stuff it ought not to have been doing. With "Evolution" as exhibited in the natural world, we do not have the ability to whack it with our hands (barring genetic engineering and selective breeding), but with market systems, we do have that option and not exercising it, would be idiotic.
Capitalism says nothing at all about votes, capitalism says things about (its desires for) a particular type of market. Your intention to blend your particular interpretation of capitalism into a political system comes every so close to facism. For giggles, look up what facism actually is, you'll be surprised how frightfully close your USA is to it. I'm no talking brown-shirts or anything... just look it up and check the boxes for things that apply, you'll be surprised.
It's ok to think that, but then never, ever, ever try to take any form of moral high-ground, because what you are advocating is that we should not strive to make a better society, that we should try to fuck over every single other person out there... What you're advocating for is that we should not try to overcome some inate and, evolutionarily speaking, historically-but-no-longer-valuable qualities. If that is your position, you need to own that!
That particular position would be very telling about you as an individual, and then you would not seem like an individual I'd like to spend a lot of time with.
I seem to also recall something about "striving for a more perfect union" but based on your drivle, I guess that was lost on you in Civics 101.
Mods, FFS, who let know-it-all sixteen year-olds on Soylent today? Can't they go back to FB where they can 'debate' this with folks that are their own age...?
Kiddo, get a job, move out of the house and do all the things you want to do now that you still know better than everyone else! Because once you get old like me, apparently you don't know anything anymore...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:26PM
Last I checked, government is composed of men, not angels.
So, either your legislation is magical, or there are other forces in play.
Here's some food for thought: There never has existed One World Government; nation states exist in anarchy—and thank the Universe they do; their competition among themselves is the ultimate separation of powers; their competition is the truest form of checks and balances.
You suffer from magical thinking.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:47PM
screw you and your insurance! mandated insurance is just another example of things that made more sense in a less tech advanced era. if someone hits anyone now all you would have to do is take some video or pics and give it to the pigs, if they aren't too busy stealing for the insurance companies. every sack of crap working for insurance companies is a parasite and should be shot into the ocean with a cannon.