SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
khallow (3766)
Here's an example from the UN story:
[AC:] It is simple. Everyone gets a clean environment (free from lead, etc.) with safe clean drinking water.
The standards for what counts as safe have already been established. Here are water regulations for the US. Similar standards exist for other known toxins. Our issue is that you only get a safe clean environment if you can afford it. And, even then, the multi-million dollar houses in West LA turned out to be sitting on toxic waste that seeped over from the 'other' side of town / the toxic dumping predated turning formerly industrial areas into residential areas.
In other words, we want X so make a right to have X. Doesn't sound like the poster even cares how to do it or whether it'll even work because of course, it'll just work out of the box like all our other rights do. [Edit: cooler prose]
While I discussed that a bunch there, here's a summary of why I think just creating a right to something won't work.
In turgid's journal, we have an even sillier example:
[AC:] We have scarcity because right wingers like you desperately want the scarcity to exist. Your only objective is to exploit the working class as much as possible. To use the OP's analogy, you right wingers are the Ferengi.
Just like the Ferengi, you're not interested in scientific and technological progress that would raise the quality of life, reduce scarcity, and improve environmental conditions. Instead, you defend rent-seeking parasites who actively oppose scientific and technological advancements. A fine example is the fossil fuel industry, which should become obsolete as new technology develops and matures. Instead of allowing scientific progress to proceed, the fossil fuel industry engages in misinformation to protect a dying business model and oppose newer and better technologies.
We need less right wing rent-seeking parasites. We need to move past the lie that people are poor because they haven't worked hard enough, when the wealthiest members of our society tend to either inherit their wealth or build it through the exploitation of others. Left to your own devices, right wing psychopaths like you will cut corners with things like safety in factories, all the while demanding workers put in more labor for less pay. You right wingers are sick individuals, happy to let others languish in scarcity and work in dangerous conditions, all so you can line your pockets with more money.
There's a reason that Starfleet officers are warned about the Ferengi when they're at the Academy.
If only we could do something about the rightwingers, then we'd have post-scarcity right now.
What's missed in that verbiage is that you don't live in a society capable of either delivering a nebulous right to "access" to something nor supporting a post-scarcity economy. The cart is before the horse.
It's not rich people or failwingers holding you back. It's reality. That's why you didn't get your lollipop.
I think it's time to dispute such magic thinking. Our world didn't come easily. Just since civilization started, there have been hundreds of generations toiling - making our world what it is. But now, it's supposed to be simple. Just deliver the lollipops.
Well, just like those hundreds of other generations, you'll have to work for it. Maybe someday we'll never have to work to make our world a better place, but that hasn't happened yet.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 19 2021, @02:16PM
Work and relationships both take work to work. You want a friend, then work for it. In the event that you don't want to put forth the effort toward being a friend, you're not going to have any real friends. You want a fancy new car/house/yacht or just a new computer? Work for it. In the event that you don't want to put forth the effort to acquire said item, then you're not going to get said item. Don't sit there and wait for someone to hand you a giant pile of money, because that's not going to happen. You may never get exactly what you want. Assuming you actually try, you'll be much better off than the alternative, though. There are lots of things I see and drool over/wish I could afford. Just because I can't afford an Aston Martin or a $10k desktop (because reasons), doesn't mean I can't be happy with what I can afford.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:05PM (10 children)
We would already be living in a post-scarcity communist utopia by now if it wasn't for you meddling capitalists and right wingers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:33PM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:30PM (8 children)
You jest but.....
If Capitalism is so magical and efficient why does so much food get tossed in the landfill? Why does the "greatest country on Earth" have so much poverty and the highest amount of prisoners per capita? As ben crapiro would say, curious!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:56PM
I think it's interesting how people think post scarcity will be about efficiency.
Why cherry pick those particular statistics? Prisons is just a US thing. It's wrong, but it's not changing anytime soon. And poverty is relative. Even if we multiplied the wealth of everyone in the US by 100, it would still have the same poverty rate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:31PM
Food goes to landfills, on average, because of government interference.
No, really. This is how it works:
Government: "Holy fuck, famines are bad! Uh, sure, they're humanitarian tragedies and all that, but they also result in people being voted out of office, and that sucks! Wait, we have a cunning plan ... pay farmers to boost productivity above and beyond what they could hope to sell in a good year, in the hopes that, in bad years, there'll still be enough for everyone."
Farmers: "What, you mean I can sell as much of whatever as I can grow, guaran-damn-teed? And they're coming out with more productive cultivars and artificial manures and stuff? Boys, start up the big tractor, we're seeding today!"
Government: "Yes, that's a goooood farmer. Here, we'll buy your surplus. Even after we donate a bunch to third world kleptocrats, we'll still have lots to throw away, and we'll tighten all sorts of loops under the guise of food safety that's totally bogus, so keep 'em coming!"
Consumer: "Yay, cheap food! Yumyum! Government's doing OK! I'll bitch about something else this week!"
Greatest country on earth poverty:
Greatest is a matter of opinion. Poverty measurements depends strongly on what you mean. If you're talking about absolute poverty (where is food coming from? We're about to die of cold without a fire tonight. Our clothes are rags and our hovel is splinters) then the USA has vanishingly tiny levels of absolute poverty. Seriously, it's not even a concern beyond a tiny, tiny minority, many of whom are living on the streets and nonetheless are more secure in terms of food, clothing and shelter than you would think. If you're talking relative poverty, then it just comes down to where you draw the line and how you relate it to a gini coefficient. The US actually has a pretty high standard of living.
Highest per capita incarceration rate:
Back to government and warped incentives, but pretty much fuck-all to do with capitalism. Capitalism unmodulated by people wringing their hands about crack babies dealing smack would have legal drugs, and no insane DEA-based drive to corral people. But ... yeah, here we are. Nothing to do with capitalism as such.
Uh, but nice shade-throwing. Love the wrist action on that one. Try hand cream next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:25AM
Looks like the net of reason caught two clownfish. Too small thought, toss em back so they can grow some more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:25AM (4 children)
Ha take that capitalism! It would never happen under communism!*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Because you cannot throw away food that isn't there when everyone is already dying of starvation.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:55AM (3 children)
So when someone criticizes something and your response is a straw man, that is an indication that your viewpoint is based on belief not reality.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:18PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:08PM (1 child)
There's a great recipe for straw soup. You can cook it on fires from library books, because Russia is shutting off fuel supplies for the winter.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:07PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:38PM (28 children)
Ah yes, the "freedom" to put poison in the air I breathe.
Do you also demand the "freedom" to swing your fist regardless a whose nose is in the way?
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:44PM (27 children)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Mockingbird on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:26PM (5 children)
Put on the damned mask, khallow! Your externalities are not allowed, if they violate the rights of others.
(The irony of a libertarian complaining about "magical thinking", just boggles the mind!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:37PM (4 children)
That's why we shouldn't make that environment thing a right. Deeper rights get compromised when they're equivalent in importance to frivolous rights.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:10PM (3 children)
That is not ari, THIS is ari, and I am still upset about the backhoe deal, khallow! I have a human right not to be swindled, and you overcharged, just because you could. And you have the gall to talk about reality, from your imaginary budding capitalist Captain of Industry world? Pathetic. Let me explain to you, again, the real meaning of the Labor Theory of Value, with the Lockean Proviso.
aristarchus
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:30PM (2 children)
Sorry, that violates my human right to not give a shit. Have fun with that backhoe!
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:35PM (1 child)
The backhoe is sitting, rusting, in your backyard, khallow. Your failure to do maintenance has destroyed some usable human capital! If you only have tools to write them off on your taxes, they are not really tools, are they! I suspect you have very little actual experience of how the "real" world works, trapped as you are in your libertarian fantasies and the artificial, government sponsored, economy of a national park. Parasite, gouger, exploiter of the innocent, ruin of families! Fie upon thee, khallow! And your non-functional backhoe.
THIS is aristarchus. Says so up top.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:55AM
And, again, you're an ignant moran.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:26PM (2 children)
By your definition everything is a poison. Heard about a guy who encountered a poison car!! He put it on his head and now he dead.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:32PM (1 child)
Exactly - note that the combination of high CO2 and low oxygen would be toxic by anyone's definition since it kills people all the time. Now run that definition hard into the iceberg of absolute rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:23AM
Wow, a self own. Nice work khallow, keep it up!
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:40PM (17 children)
Irrelevant. Everything is a poison if you have too much of it. Too much water will kill us fleshy bags of mostly water too.
Besides, with a bag over your head you won't die from what you exhale; you'll die from lack of oxygen.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:22PM (16 children)
Not wholly irrelevant [chemicalsafetyfacts.org] -- if you eat something in (say) a quantity smaller than a typical bite of food (plus some multiplier of body weight), and it's not rigid enough to block your airpipe, and it kills or maims you, you can use that as a valid working definition [wikipedia.org] of a poison.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:27PM (15 children)
Also irrelevant to the discussion. khallow made the assertion that exhaled air is poison, and then implied that re-breathing it would kill you. The fact is that if you have a bag over your head you will die of asphyxiation, not poison. I know I'm being pendantic but I loathe inaccuracy.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:30PM (11 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:52PM (7 children)
And khallow is already taking a run for it down the rabbit hole. Nice work, guys!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:21PM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:22PM (5 children)
Deliberate obtuseness is a common cause of someone attempting to claim they are right when they are not.
You will not die from too much CO or CO2 (aka poisoning) with a bag over your head (as you implied). You will die from too little oxygen.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:51AM (4 children)
In other words, air with too little oxygen is poisonous to humans. I can carry on this obtuseness a lot further. Keep in mind this is what was meant by DeathMonkey way back when.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:33PM (3 children)
Now you're just being a troll. Have a nice day.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @06:01PM (2 children)
Sure, executing undesirable people because they're pollution sources may seem unlikely, but much of our tyranny seemed so until it happened.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:02PM (1 child)
So what you're saying is that since people (who have a unalienable right to life) "generate environmental harm" with every breath they take, that businesses should also be allowed to generate environmental harm without restraint? And that regulating business' environmental harm is somehow tyranny and going to lead to mass executions? Spare us your ridiculous slippery slope fallacies.
I take it you'd be ok with some business dumping their waste in your backyard then? Somehow I doubt it. People like you become environmentalists when it's your environment that being fouled.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @04:32AM
You're the only one saying that!
No I think that sort of thing is a natural consequence of diluting rights with frivolous demands. The inevitable creep of government power should be considered here. And it is quite remarkable how crazed some environmentalists are. For example, there was a recent proposal [soylentnews.org] to kill in excess of 80% of humanity because overpopulation was bad.
He follows it up with
Now, BsAtHome was just talk, but not everyone is just talk. Creating a "right" to a clean environment and you give these people political cover to kill people.
Depends on whether they adequately compensated me for use of my property and followed the laws of the land. I don't need a right to a clean environment when someone is harming my property via covert dumping. That is already illegal.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:42PM (2 children)
Have a read, O obtuse one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning [wikipedia.org]
If you're trying to make a point, I suggest you try again, as this one is pretty dull.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:34PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @06:02PM
"Ah yes, the "freedom" to put poison in the air I breathe."
Not seeing a definition of poison there, u ok bucko?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:09PM (1 child)
Note how he refuses to correct himself. Truly a self important fool with more pride than wisdom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:00PM
It's just that normal people like khallow try to avoid overdoses of posts, before they reach these toxicity/dopiness levels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 28 2021, @09:43AM
Muphry Strikes Again.
If you are going to be pedantic you should at least learn to spell it and not just hang around saying so.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:50PM (15 children)
One thing that seems necessary to have post scarcity is to have vast amounts of energy. And technology to make use of that energy in ways that put people out of work. Probably also raw materials or some fantastic recycling.
We have some of that now. And we're getting better at it.
A problem that arises is that those people put out of work still need to live even though cheaper technology now takes their jobs.
So a transition to post scarcity seems to cause big problems for all of the displaced workers. It seems okay, until it is YOUR job being automated away. As a software developer, I realize that my job, at some level, is to make people's worker easier. And easier, until it gets so easy fewer people can do it. And it takes less work. Once you probably needed one hundred people to do a payroll for ten thousand workers. Not anymore.
Even if, even if, we can solve the energy, tech and raw materials obstacles to achieve post scarcity, how do we ensure people can live? In a post scarcity world, people are able to eat and get new video games without paying for them. This is a radical change from things being sold? What about things that are crafted by hand, and not just for the joy of doing it? What about people who think they should somehow be compensated for their new high fashion dress design, or the movie they just made?
It's like Radio Shack. You've got questions, I have no answers.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:58PM (1 child)
Post-scarcity means consumption without limit, because without limits there is no end to wants. It is at its heart infinite, insatiable greed. Unlimited energy isn't enough to support that. It requires reversing entropy as well or else the universe would overheat and cook us alive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:10PM
Post-scarcity... if you live through it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:05PM (4 children)
This is the fly in the ointment. That technology also uses energy in ways that employ more people. We have centuries of evidence indicating that it works really well at providing more jobs than it destroys. Even now, there's a vast number of people getting employed throughout the developing world. When are we going to notice the negative effects of technological job displacement?
Thus, my counterargument is that there's no point to angsting over this until it becomes an actual problem. Instead, we should look at what actually does put people out of work and makes their lives more expensive. Key ones are regulation and labor/business policy. Things like mandatory pension payments, minimum wage, zoning to increase real estate prices, corruption/rent-seeking, and barriers to entry for new business.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:27PM (3 children)
I am all for not having regulation when business can behave itself. Unfortunately it cannot usually do so. Greed is the only driving factor these days.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:33PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:16PM (1 child)
You seem to think that it is mutually exclusive for business to be successful and also responsible.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:49PM
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:25PM
Then you start getting into problems of scale of energy use [schlockmercenary.com], for example, nuclear reactor meltdowns in the modern era.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:30AM (5 children)
Yes you do. You know like everybody does, put away the hate, fear, and pride, and all the other related bullshit that precludes universal respect
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:24PM (4 children)
Please elaborate.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:44PM (2 children)
It is a self contained comment Danny, though not exactly helpful and a little more than obvious. If only all the negative behaviors of humanity were curbed then we wouldn't have negative behaviors screwing things up! /duhurr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:18PM
Help! Help! My karma is being harshed by bad vibes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:46AM
So that's how real communism will finally be achieved!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @01:19AM
How do you elaborate something so fundamental? You don't recognize them when you feel them? Or do you just deny them altogether?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:44PM
From the article I linked to in my journal:
Not all types of scarcity are equal. Much of it in the modern world is artificial, a drain on resources and a cause of pain and strife, including war.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:13PM (9 children)
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=482203 [hsdl.org] Odd URL - it's a PDF file containing Lind's essay, just 5 pages long.
Anyway, when I hear that post scarcity drivel, I'm reminded of Lind. Who is fighting for what? It's obvious that someone wants to see an end to the existing order - but what are they after? Do they even know what they want? How many of them agree with each other?
Oh, the UN. How kind of them to award new rights to the population of a world that they are incapable of policing. For instance, slavery is alive and well in the world today. Boko Haram wants a few hundred more "wives", Boko Haram just raids a village and enslaves all the attractive women.
If the UN can't guarantee the right to life, liberty, and justice, just how in hell are they going to enforce that all the children keep their rooms clean?
Halfwits. We're surrounded by halfwits.
What was it that skinny black guy said? Listen carefully - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwSRqaZGsPw [youtube.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:28PM (1 child)
I'll bet your tone changes when we take away your welfare checks. Get a job, loser.
If you had your way, this would also happen in the US.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:13PM
Leave Runaway's VA benefits, Disability payments, and Agricultural Subsidies, and free Covid-19 shots out of this!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:39PM
Of course they can guarantee [youtu.be] those rights. It's more likely though that:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:47PM (5 children)
Fuck Joe Biden [wikipedia.org]
Let’s Go Brandon! [wikipedia.org]
Joe Biden has no problems to speak of [wikipedia.org]
Hunter Biden is a saint [wikipedia.org]
Donald Trump is the devil [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:56PM (4 children)
I'm sorry. Did you have any thoughts of your own you would like to share with us?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:24PM (3 children)
This is the evidentiary phase of an argument.
Perhaps I over-estimated the ability of some to draw their own conclusions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:10AM (1 child)
Oh, so that's what you're calling it. Some others might call it a Gish gallop. [wikipedia.org]
Believe me, I'm already drawing my own conclusions. Based on the evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:21AM
Drawing conclusions that w*k*p*d** is a reliable source, apparently, while evidence from the original links — and you know there are thousands more — showed that it is wildly, incredibly, bizarrely slanted.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:33AM
You definitely overestimated your ability to draw your own conclusions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:24PM (23 children)
Let's examine khallow's "contributions" from this thread: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=45534&page=1&cid=1187823#commentwrap [soylentnews.org].
Much of that scarcity is because of inequitable distribution. Take COVID vaccines, where there genuinely is some scarcity. It's compounded by wealthy countries literally buying more vaccines than they can possibly use, then wasting and discarding significant amounts of the vaccines while poor countries have trouble getting much of the vaccines at all. Or look at water rights in the western US, where there is some scarcity. Use isn't prioritized on meeting basic needs and using water efficiently or for societal benefit. It's based on who claimed the water first. And if they want to waste that water while others who genuinely need it go without, that's how the system works now. When I'm restricted on how much rain water I can collect on my own property because someone else has the rights to the water, someone who may well not use the water for worthwhile purposes, that's unreasonable.
Then the businesses are run with the sole objective of maximizing profits, without consideration for customers, employees, society, or the environment. It's all about maximizing the profits. So yes, it's hoarding. It's not that being profitable is bad, but that the current system encourages companies to act like psychopaths for the benefit of those who can afford to invest.
At best, this ignores that we don't have anything resembling equal opportunity. This is the tired right wing argument that it's the fault of the poor that they're poor, while brushing aside any other issues. Most of the wealth that billionaires have is from rent seeking. But the wealthy have control of resources that allows them to engage in rent seeking while the poor cannot do so. Rent seeking is economic waste, but it succeeds in extracting money from the poor. That doesn't take into account exploiting cheap labor, because an excess of supply allows the wealthy to impose inhumane conditions on laborers because someone is willing to work that job. It's unethical, but helps the wealthy accumulate even more wealth.
Ah yes, you're appealing to the authority of the wealthy, that they have the wealth so they must be right. Even a first grader could make a more cogent and logical argument. As I have noted, much of the wealth accumulated by the wealthy is ill-gotten, acquired through rent seeking and exploitation. Basic fairness, upon which many laws are based, dictate that ill-gotten wealth should be returned to those from whom the wealth was taken. We shouldn't trust the wealthy to make good use of wealth acquired through exploitative and unethical means. Your "argument" fails spectacularly.
You're just repeating right wing talking points without bothering to understand why the scarcity you cite actually exists. Resources aren't scarce for everyone. Some have excesses beyond what they could ever hope to use, while others live with very little.
Because you're defending exploitation, the comparison to Ferengi is appropriate. Go ahead, write another journal because you don't like being shown that your position is asinine and easily refuted.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:04PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:00PM
I went to the store today and I'm happy to report that we're not going to hell right now. They're out of hand-baskets.
The bad news is that there's a container ship off the coast of California that's full of 'em.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:09PM (12 children)
Well said, and thankfully the world is so tilted right now that khallow's bullshit is unlikely to gain popular support. The US tried it for the last 50 years and none of the rightwing claims have come true.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:34AM (11 children)
There remains no post-scarcity economy. I've been quite interested in science and technology that has increased the quality of life, but not so interested in science and technology that doesn't do much of anything. Replacement technologies for fossil fuels have yet to fully replace fossil fuels (particularly for transportation).
Looking further in that thread, I see the ranting about the "hoarding" of wealth. Investment over the past half century indeed was very different from hoarding, lots of people who weren't traditional investors by 1970 are investors now - there's been a greatly liberalization of the stock markets, and stealing other peoples' stuff remains bad.
And snivelers remain snivelers.
Finally, there's the "The US tried it for the last 50 years and none of the rightwing claims have come true." As I've noted before, I'm not rightwing, that's just a fabrication. I don't know or care what you think rightwing claims are. What I've noticed are things like the ongoing failure of multiple US entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare for key examples). Those are indeed following the trajectory that was foretold for them decades ago. I've also noticed the power of business creation - things like the entire high tech industry happened in the last 50 years, which over the past 50 years has probably been necessary to preserve the US standard of living.
My skepticism about climate change has been borne out.
And the developing world keeps improving.
So claiming that "The US tried it for the last 50 years and none of the rightwing claims have come true." seems not to apply to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:02AM (10 children)
Cause you are stupid and only operate on confirmation bias. Truly you don't understand others, but most of us understand your slavish adherence to feudalism. The real breakthroughs as always came from scientists while capitalists took credit. Musk, Gates, and Bezos are prime examples of your pathology.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:07PM (9 children)
I'll note on the last statement, scientists invariably do nothing without funding. All three examples of my "pathology" were instrumental in the creation of their businesses. No scientist was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:48PM (1 child)
Said the corporate shill . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:26PM
Said the commie shill . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @06:32PM (6 children)
In fact, we could extend this to the arts.
Science and the arts, down to someone having the time to figure out how to make this fire thing useful, or drumming on a hollow log for the tribal pre-orgy dance, have always depended on some sort of patronage. In rare cases individuals with the wherewithal to support themselves have done it for the yuks, but all that happened was that they rolled patron and creator into the same by a confluence of capability and opportunity. Otherwise, everyone from the wedding singer to the rockstar is up against the pleasure of those who pay for them. In science, it's down to who's paying for the construction of all those laboratories and seminar rooms.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @04:38AM (5 children)
I doubt that. And not true now when most art is mass consumed.
You're using a definition of patronage which is inappropriate. Scientists aren't producing a mass consumed product or a gig. It's a very different sort of relationship than the rock star who earns their income from concerts and sales of music, or a wedding singer who earns their income from multiple gigs each to a different customer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @04:05PM (4 children)
"I doubt that. And not true now when most art is mass consumed."
Actually it's more true than ever, precisely because of mass consumption because the patronage of a large audience, moderated and modulated by the actions of various middlemen such as labels and publishers and promoters is exactly where the support for your art comes from. The same applies to journalists and other writers. Patronage doesn't mean Lord Fartsmuch of Windy Towers tosses a few scraps of silver at a shivering artist; it's a range that includes a village passing a hat for a strolling minstrel, and a screaming horde of tweens raiding mom's purse for funds for a ticket to a heartthrob's show.
"You're using a definition of patronage which is inappropriate."
Fine. Pick a different word. Largesse on the parts of audiences, would-be users and curators. Funds provided without immediately remunerative responses in exchange for services of people who traffick in ideas. As a class of transaction it is functionally patronage - but if you want to call it mass sugardaddying, that works too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @06:43PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @10:48PM (2 children)
I want create idea-stuff.
I lack ability to do it and feed myself.
I turn to people with (some) money and say: "Hey, yo, I can paint your portrait/futz around with dyes/write your porn/investigate the stars/play at your mom's funeral."
They hand over money, before during or after. To them it's a source of amusement/prestige/diversion. It may or may not be valuable after the fact (astronomy - navigation, marble carvings - respect) but in the moment it is functionally throwing money at someone playing with ideas. It is a gift, as much patronage as when the patrons of Rome gifted their clientes with small change. The dynamic is functionally the same whether it's Rapper mcStrivy cranking out rhymes for the label, or Professor Stripypants working for DARPA. At best it's payment for services rendered, but with a risk that the services won't lead where intended.
This is patronage. You say that they are "very different sorts of economic interactions" but how? What exactly is the functional difference between particle physicists going to beg for billions, or the busker touching the brim of his cap when someone tosses coins in his cap? The end result might vary in terms of cultural versus technological developments, but even there is overlap.
You seem to say that it's the scale of the funding group, but even there it's illusionary because as a general rule professional artists work for one client at a time, and in the specific case of music it's a label's manager.
Returning to the topic of scientists, this is specifically important because patronage, whether through groovy kickstarter or Gates Foundation, is central to the ability of the scientists to actually achieve anything, and a reflection on that fact is important for anyone who wants scientists to ... y'know, science it all up in favour of a scientific benefit. Same applies to those wanting deadmau5 to throw down those sweet trax.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @11:36PM
How is the number of people involved and their intent. There's a huge difference between mass funding and funding from a single sugar daddy. There's a similar difference between funding with detailed goals and funding from sources that don't really care what you do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 25 2021, @01:31AM
This is the peril of getting funding from an apathetic government source. There's no serious reason why these guys were defunded, but there was no serious reason why they were funded in the first place. The funding was more about the theater of appearing to care about science than actually coming up with a fusion power revolution. And thus, it comes and goes without reason.
Meanwhile, a rock star gets paid for results. Their fans are buying real world product, not merely appearing to care about music.
That's the deep flaw of conflating these two approaches under the label of "patronage". One approach results in real world change, the other doesn't.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:09PM (4 children)
The obvious solution is to make enough vaccine that everyone is buying more than they can possibly use. You're welcome.
Given how this is subverted all the way up to the federal level, why wouldn't your prioritization scheme be similarly subverted? At least now, someone in charge of the water has incentive to use it better.
It's merely your opinion that said accumulation is of that sort. My take is that if you want something to stop, like stealing wealth through government-backed schemes, then you have to stop it, not come up with yet another cycle through of it.
As to your last remark about "trust", there is no trust involved. The incentives are already set up so that good uses are more profitable than the bad.
I hope someone then decides to write a post explaining why those scarcities actually exist, rather than merely making this state of ignorance worse!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:27AM (3 children)
Ignorance is your jam buddy! Why so serious?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:43PM (2 children)
I keep seeing this catchphrase. What is the why-so-serious thing about?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:26PM (1 child)
Don't worry, the government will take care of you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @03:48PM
And when you reach the mandatory age of decommission (currently: 75), they will issue you a lifetime supply of fentanyl, and relocate you to a re-indoctrination home with free wifi.
Or an all-access pass to the latest Alec Baldwin movie set.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:27PM (2 children)
Turns out khallow was right. So the goalposts had to be moved. No, profit motive is not money hoarding. That's just your ignorance talking. And I see the usual blather about psychopaths/sociopaths. Don't you have something better to do than pop psychology in an economics thread?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:14PM (1 child)
Interesting, so you're one of the dirty sock puppeting cowards. That or you're the secretlove spawn of Prince Charles and Golgotha. Please take a minute to reflect on how sad your life is that you must sock puppet to create a sense of popularity for yourself. Really doesn't help your case of not being a sociopath. People > $$$$, get it yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:36PM
> People > $$$$, get it yet?
So says someone who's never been robbed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:55PM
The UN should also declare not getting raped to be a human right.
They could even send in UN Peacekeepers to enforce... Oh wait.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:38AM
:-) Carry on, gentlemen... [youtu.be]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:29AM (6 children)
Khallow, do you understand that Trump instigated an insurrection against the United States in order to overthrow democracy?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:08PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:10PM (3 children)
QED
Khallow still alt-right compromised
"It's reality" : you're clearly not mentally fit to be making such proclamations
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:51PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:14PM (1 child)
Aww political hack projecting again. How cute!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:01PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:39PM
No, that was Alyssa Milano. [deadline.com]
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:21PM (14 children)
What's so wrong with having a clean environment? I demand a clean environment. It's where I live. I don't want my health compromised for arbitrary and unjust reasons. Apart from anything else, that costs me money in terms of time off sick and costs me in healthcare/treatment I'd otherwise not have to pay for.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:21PM (4 children)
You've apparently never noticed how messy nature is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:44PM (3 children)
You apparently don't understand evolution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:11PM (2 children)
And shit gets cleaner, every time you run it through you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:27PM (1 child)
And you think you're being witty.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:12PM
You'll never know.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:13PM (8 children)
Depends. What's the price tag? If your clean environment kills more people than it saves, then you probably shouldn't have it.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:27PM (7 children)
Why would a clean environment kill people?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @04:42AM (4 children)
Because the process used to create the clean environment can kill people. For a glaring example, when the Khmer Rouge emptied the cities of Cambodia, they reduced pollution from those cities and killed a million people or so in the process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @07:02AM (2 children)
You are Roger Irrelevant. Completely hatstand.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @03:53PM
Oh, what sad times are these! There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @06:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23 2021, @03:20AM
The Khmer Rouge just so happened to be Communists murdering millions of people.
But don't worry. Rest assured that it was not real communism each time that the Communists do that.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23 2021, @02:56AM
The premise is apparently that a clean environment keeps people alive, while a dirty one kills people. You've made too many naïve, knee-jerk leaps of faith, to even be taken seriously.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 24 2021, @01:07PM
Second, were the US corn ethanol subsidies of the 2000s decade. In addition, to using something like 1.1 barrels of oil to create 1 barrel of oil equivalent, it drove up the price of food globally. That kills people too. While it's common for people to claim this is not an example of a environment policy gone wrong, supporters didn't rationalize this on the basis of how much money it'd make for corn growers and Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM), but on how it'd help the environment.