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 $80 million to develop a planned community in Arizona. The 25,000 acres of land is about 45 minutes west of Phoenix, in an area called the West Valley. The community, which Gates wants to turn into a "smart city," will be named Belmont.
"Belmont will create a forward-thinking community with a communication and infrastructure spine that embraces cutting-edge technology, designed around high-speed digital networks, data centers, new manufacturing technologies and distribution models, autonomous vehicles and autonomous logistics hubs," Belmont Partners, the Arizona real state investment company involved in the deal, said in a news release.
The proposed freeway I-11, which would connect the Belmont area to Las Vegas, makes the land an ideal spot for a new community, according to Ronald Schott, the executive emeritus at the Arizona Technology Council. Of the 25,000 acres, 3,800 will be used for office, retail, and commercial space. Another 470 acres will be used for public schools. That leaves enough space for 80,000 residential units.
Also at TheUSBPort, Fossbytes, CNET, and Real Estate Daily News.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:07PM (10 children)
Bill is building his own fiefdom to avoid pesky democracy [salon.com]. Or else there's a highway planned for that area sometime in the near future and he's just buying up land to scalp the government. Or both. Either way, Belmont is the name of a major investor. Bill is a one-trick pony: leveraging his existing monopoly and there is no monopoly to utilize here. So this is just going to end up another M$-style failure because there's not any way that Bill can leverage an existing monopoly into something that produces a small city.
Furthermore, the temperatures average over 100°F [usclimatedata.com] for four months out of the year and aren't that much colder for the rest. There's not even any water in the area even for drinking or flushing, not to mention crops: don't live in the desert [youtube.com].
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:47PM (8 children)
Democracy is one group dictating to another group.
Democracy gives an equal voice to unequal people.
Bill Gates bought this property through what was presumably a voluntary agreement among all interested parties; "do-as-we-agreed" capitalism a far better model for how to allocate society's resources than what is offered by democracy: "do-as-you're-told" coercive dictates.
If Bill's bet is wrong, then he and his investors will suffer diminished decision-making power (an economic loss); if he and his investors are correct, then they will enjoy greater decision making power (an economic profit). That is the beauty of capitalism: You don't get a vote for free; you have to prove yourself, and you have to do so continuously.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:55PM (2 children)
Unless you're Donald J. Trump, Jr. Or you amassed so much power that you can force society to give you more.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:11PM (1 child)
Inheritance is making a bet.
Guess what? Donald didn't lose the loan he received from his father; he multiplied it into billions.
Guess what? Choosing to make a loan to your son, or choosing to bequeath your wealth to your son, is a valid, voluntary choice; it's the choice to transfer control of your decision-making power to someone else. It's a bet like any other; had Donald Trump squandered that decision-making power, then he'd have lost that decision-making power. Instead, he proved that he was capable of making some decent decision, as evidenced by the growth of his capital.
That being said, much of Donald Trump's wealth comes from collusion with... wait for it... government; as always, the problem is governmental coercion, not individual liberty.
Of course a very wealthy individual has the power to coerce people by allocating resources to said coercion. That may be a very bad thing, but that's not an example of Capitalism, because Capitalism philosophically forbids coercion; all interaction must be voluntary (otherwise property rights would be meaningless).
This is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy; this is a recognition of an objective, hard-nosed philosophical boundary.
A monopoly that grows solely from voluntary interaction (e.g., a business) is going to be a much more benign shape than a monopoly that grows even slightly from involuntary interaction (e.g., a government). We all know that a monopoly is probably a bad idea, so why in the world would anyone want to place society's checks and balances in the form of a centralized State, especially one that is founded on the philosophy of "do-as-I-say" coercion? It makes no sense!
It would be a far better idea to achieve a separation of powers through competition within a market founded on the culturally internalized principle of voluntary interaction. Long live Capitalism; it is and will always be our savior—it is what has made mankind so mindbogglingly productive, despite that ancient parasite that one calls "government".
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @08:24PM
Yeah, but multiplying a loan into billions of debt is not all that hard. What is difficult is hiding it from your creditors. And from the American people. In fact, some say that The Donald only ran for POTUS in order to avoid being jailed or snuffed for his massive racket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:58PM (4 children)
I'm not sure you're trying to troll or you're being serious but I'll bite...
Democracy is neither of these things. It is a mechanism that tries to make different groups with different agendas and different wants, live together in a relative peaceful way. It enables a 'changing of the guard': "today you are in power, but if you fuck me over a bit too much, I will do that to you when it's my turn." Therefore, the system of "Democracy" attempts to even out extremes and tone it down because you're supposed to work together, specifically because there is this possible changing of the guard. It's got nothing to do with dictating or anything else, quite the contrary.
All that being said: the US is not a democracy; in fact, any less-than-7-political-options-country is not a democracy but a plutocracy/potemkin democracy. You can only have a working democracy in a system where different coalitions must built after every elections to ensure that these representatives of yours do indeed work together with all others, even the ones that are minute, in order to build majorities, instead of them demonizing the other side and bide their time until it's their turn at the wheel again.
On top of that, any system where you actively go after 'the other guy(s)' is not a system that is worthy of any admiration, at all. It's not because the majority of people think we should do X that a) X is a good thing to do and b) we should actually do it. Sometimes the populace is dumb... and based on your comment, I think you belong to the dumb group.
Stop peddling this stupid shite that democracy is about dictatorship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:39PM (3 children)
Capitalism is the philosophy driven by the desire to create a society with 2 characteristics:
Voluntary. Every interaction between individuals should be voluntary, where "voluntary" is defined by contractual agreement in advance of that interaction; that is, society's resources need to be allocated according to agreement, not mandate or dictate. From this comes property rights, law by contracts (rather than by legislation), etc.
Evolutionary. The shape of society should be robust in the face of the dynamic conditions of the environment in which the society exists; society should be constructed so as to take advantage of the Universe's most pervasive and creative, fundamental process: Evolution by variation and selection; under capitalism, variation is manifested as supplier competition, and selection is manifested as consumer choice. This process was first identified as "The Invisible Hand", a phenomenon the produces results that look like the work of an Intelligent Designer, but are in fact results that can emerge without anyone realizing it, in a completely mindless fashion, without the need for a Dear Leader.
From this comes innovation, stability, the price mechanism (for finding the costs of goods/services), etc. Society is not something you design; society is something you find, and the search never ends.
Capitalism implies your vote becomes stronger if your past votes have been productive for society; it grows weaker if your past votes have been unproductive for society.
Perhaps most importantly, Capitalism not only recognizes but explicitly incorporates the notion of self-interest. Democracy doesn't; a welfare recipient has a conflict of interest when "spending" his freely gotten vote; democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Democracy is just not founded on a realistic understanding of the world. Democracy is a sham.
(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.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:47PM
Ok, so what? That's what democracy is about. Doing what you choose to do. If Gates is really choosing to build a "fiefdom", then that's his choice. And if people want to live in that, it'll be their choice as well.
Even if you were accurate here, the developer will have monopoly control on a fair bit of stuff here such as utility access, conditions of the home owners association, and probably rent for the commercial property.