My wife says that you can do everything with your thumb on an iPhone 6. You double tap the home button and that brings the screen down so you can reach everything. Will that work for you?
But I've been thinking of ditching Apple anyhow. So I'll be looking into decent Android phones. Or dig the old Nokia brick out of storage and go caveman.
I'd also like a clear refutation of that book. I've only read two Rand books: Anthem and Capitalism. I loved Anthem in spite of its anti-government bullshit because of my libertarian side but my socialist side overrides all of it and that's where my criticism of her lies.
I'm sorry I can't offer anything with regard to Atlas since I haven't read it but it's clearly rooted in her ridiculous philosophy of capitalist moralism. It doesn't stand up to even the most elementary scrutiny and once you apply any of it to real life you find that society would collapse in less than a year.
Which is why it wouldn't happen. Interns and entry level grads are doing testing; they hire PhDs specifically for doing the kind of research they were doing at university. But the original comment wasn't serious anyway, just making a point.
That's a terrible analogy. We're talking about the difference between a small community and digital information technology in the era of ubiquitous networks. For one, the level of detail is absurdly lopsided; we're comparing high definition audio and video with what, someone's diary at worst? The records kept are essentially incomparable. Second, there is just no comparing a small close knit community to the entire world and instantaneous access.
No one is saying that people don't have a right to their memories. Even communities have the right to remember things collectively. But imagine if you couldn't get a job in your small town because everyone whispered about you being a child molester or something. You couldn't get housing. No one would talk to you. You had to beg for food. My example is a bit extreme but it illustrates the example well because some of these things happen on a massive scale to people whose potential employers web search them.
I'm totally fine with your exciting-as-fuck politics but it will be difficult to get people to that point any time soon, me thinks. I think the problem is that when you say things like "these things don't work" you're glossing over the key to why they don't work: people aren't organized. That's it. It may not be glamorous or fun like tossing over the pigmobile but it's proven to work every single time throughout history.
Let's look at boycotts. The problem with boycotts isn't that they're not effective; they can be. My family participated in a successful one against Iceland's whaling policies in the 80s and even though I was young, I never forgot why we did it and that it was right. So what's the problem? They ignore institutional structures that persist despite our actions. If one particular corporation strays too far, boycott pressure is effective. Don't forget how it played into bringing down South African apartheid.
My point here is that we don't need to go looking for new solutions. Good old fashioned organizing works. It does combat LG's bought politicians--remember my friend, we still have democratic institutions and we can vote anyone we want into office. People don't like to be reminded of what really works, I think. We need socialism. We need to vote them into office and make good privacy laws. That's that. No need to reinvent the wheel. Then we can talk about an informal technocracy democratically dissolving the state into libertarian socialist anarcho-communism.
It does. The "freedom of assembly" is very powerful, even if it doesn't get as much attention as the freedom
of speech or the press. Seeing that there are others that share your outrage is an amazing motivator, as it shows, in a very personal way, that you don't have to accomplish everything yourself. Even better, it becomes easier to get others to join in and help as the group grows. Many are reluctant to be a first-mover, but will join a group once they see they will have the support of allies.
Unfortunately, FVEY agencies are not stupid. Mapping relationships to find the focal points that start or enable this kind of social organizing so they can be disrupted is a very good strategy. Even just the phone call-record and COTRAVELER[1] are likely enough to be able to find the leaders/organizers among any particular group. If you add in a few of the other tools we've seen recently, it must have been trivial to create a modern variant of COINTELPRO. Compared to the FBI's efforts under Hoover, GCHQ's "JTRIG"[2] is probably a lot easier and far more effective.
So yes, I totally agree - good old-fashioned organizing is something we need, and we need it fast. More importantly, we need it as a sustained effort to focus on a couple key topics, and we might actually see some progress.
I am not sure this is possible as long as "most" people still have food and a roof over their head. Groups start to form and ideas start to spread, but these efforts inevitably get distracted[3] or sidetracked with off-topic political minutia or divide-and-conquer wedge issues. Unfortunately, I suspect that technology will make organizing people effectively impossible until this mess impacts them personally in big, obvious, painful and/or expensive ways.
Of course, I would absolutely love to be proven wrong sbout this entire topic...
White people love to talk about South Africa. But white people had fuck-all to do with South Africa. The thing that stopped Apartheid wasn't a boycott, it was sustained armed and unarmed struggle on behalf of the black majority in South Africa. It was Nelson Mandela's property destruction, sabotage, and open contemplation of guerrilla warfare.
>It does combat LG's bought politicians--remember my friend, we still have democratic institutions and we can vote anyone we want into office. People don't like to be reminded of what really works, I think. We need socialism. We need to vote them into office and make good privacy laws. That's that. No need to reinvent the wheel. Then we can talk about an informal technocracy democratically dissolving the state into libertarian socialist anarcho-communism.
I have to think this is sarcasm. But it's well-done though. Anarchist communism via liberal reform? Classic. The 'good old-fashioned organizing works' is such a great layer on top of that.
He already pointed out that voting or writing to "your" representatives doesn't work, but ypu're still calling for some sort of democratic solution. Please stop.
Actually it's interesting to watch you take the contrary position on an internet forum, but without a concrete call to action. That was his point: what are you going to _do_?
I work on a solution to this particular problem every day. I don't just write on the internet about it.
My "solution" is to wake people up to the fact that we should not have rulers at all. That's the only way to achieve a non-nightmarish future in the long term.
People see tyranny creeping up all over the West, for example, but it doesn't occur to them that instead of asking our rulers to please not oppress us, we should stop believing in their authority altogether.
Rulers monitor us to cement their power over us, but in a free society without political power, with free-flowing information available to all, companies would have to be careful about what they do, lest they lose their customers, ie. their income.
And, how would we make that happen? How, once you remove the rulers, do you prevent new ones from rising up? How do you prevent companies from flooding customer under a wealth of irrelevant information? How do you prevent things like cartels, now that there is no regulator?
It's all well and good to postulate a free society, but do you have any idea what a free society actually looks like? (Neither do I, by the way.)
A tiny elite can't rule over millions if the millions are opposed to being ruled at all. Today, no one sees governments as the rulers they are, but everyone considers dictatorships illegitimate.
But from our point of view, what's the practical difference between being forced to comply with a King's royal edicts and being forced to comply with a bunch of politicians'?
Cartels can't be maintained in a free society. We know everyone participating in one is a scumbag, and the more lucrative the cartel's position is, the more motivated the participants are to betray the others (because there's lots of room for competing on price and taking away all the captive customers, thus making shitloads of money).
Or, the rest of the cartel can launch a denigration campaign against the defector, or poach the defector's employees, or other shady means that money can buy, even in a "free society". And of course, I wouldn't rule out outright criminal behaviour. I recall being told about a board meeting where they discussed triggering an "accident" to get rid of polluting chemicals, because it was cheaper than abiding to the countries safety laws. Totally illegal, very expensive if they get caught (both for the company and the board submerse themselves), but still within the bounds of a cynical cost/benefit analysis.
Cartels are a difficult thing to break. The light bulb cartel for instance still exist, even though it has officially been dissolved: light bulbs still only last a couple thousand hours, despite the existence of designs that can last 10 times longer. (Heck, that's one of the few things the centrally planned economy of the USSR got right: long lived light bulbs.)
Strength lies in numbers. Fascists knew that, popular movement know that, and cartels know that. Betraying the cartel is to fin yourself alone. The financial incentive may not overcome the need to be part of the same team. And sometimes, as is the case in the light bulb industry, it is not clear that you could actually take away the cartel's customers: light bulbs are fairly cheap, at face value. It's the planned obsolescence that's the real cost, and that cost is not disclosed to the customer.
You can only make your purchase decisions based on what you know. If the cartel is based on deceit, rather than on price regulation, it can be difficult to convince people based on durability concerns. People don't care about sustainability, because of hyperbolic discounting. (Why do you think we're trashing on the planet with little regard for future generations? It's not because of our rulers. It's because we just don't care about the future as much as we should.)
How would the remaining cartel members cause harm to the defector by badmouthing him?
If the guy is selling X for half the cartel price, and can point to the cartel members and tell people how they've been screwed by them, what do people care aboit what the cartel scum is saying anymore? Nothing. They'll just buy X for 50% cheaper. You know you would too.
Who are trashing the planet? Ordinary people, or big corporations who've paid politicians off to let them pollute? What about militaries all over the world? Do you really think ordinary people are the problem here, or govts the solution? Really?
It's not just about price. It's about quality, durability, planned obsolescence or lack thereof, external costs (like pollution overseas or child labour). Many important things that are often hidden from the customer, preventing a fair evaluation of the true price: total cost of ownership, including external costs.
> Who are trashing the planet?
Everyone of course. Some people more than others, and as you suggested, some people are more responsible than others. But in the end, we're all caught up in this system. Heck even writing and reading this comment takes energy, and sits on top of one of the most polluting industries (computing).
"It" what isn't about the price? If you feel like pointing out that cartels are more specifically about the profits (increased through raising the price), I'm afraid that's an irrelevant distraction.
We both know how cartels work. I pointed out that cartels don't last without state support. You don't feel like accepting that, just like you still haven't addressed my point about rulers.
Cartels are created and maintained by governments through prohibitively costly licences that are just denied to pesky outsiders that would actually compete with the other producers.
We're not going to get anywhere if you keep side-tracking the conversation, but that's exactly what staunch statists always do. Why? Because they can't handle reality.
What are some historical examples of "waking" people up to a "fact?"
I'm not so sure lack of belief is enough to dissipate authority. As the old saying goes, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. Within my lifetime, the surest way to invite a tiny war into your life is act as if political and/or legal authority doesn't exist. Hell, just implying that authority should change was enough to get projectiles and tear gas loosed in Ferguson MO.
If a large enough percentage of people decide to disregard govts and forcefully defend themselves against their enforcers if necessary, then govts just cease to function and exist. I'm not saying we're there now, or even near a point where that's feasible, but it is one way out.
Good luck trying to convince people to merely get rid of their government. We need an alternative, and the mere lack of government is not it. It will be perceived as chaos, and few people actually want chaos.
In other words, even if we don't want rulers we still need rules. We need a system. Actually, we will have a system, anyway. even "no system" is a system. It's just not clear how it would actually work at the moment (possibilities ranges from "Libertarian Utopia" to "mob rule", including "gang rule" and "local warlords").
We keep having to tell people that having no ruleRs doesn't mean having no ruleS. If by "no system" you mean "freedom", that's fine with me. Sure, we need rules and negative consequences for breaking them, but that does not require rulers.
You're different from that straw-man libertarian I once met.
"Freedom" is an ideal, not a mechanism. The question is, which mechanism promotes freedom?
Personally, I currently bet on democracy. Not representative governments, but democracy, which we don't currently have. Like in ancient Athens, where people where chosen by random trial, instead of elections. (Plus a host of checks and balances, before during, and after whatever short mandate was given.)
Freedom just means that no one forcefully intervenes in your life, assuming that you're not harming anyone yourself, of course.
Demoracy is just mob rule. You'll find it unacceptable any time you're being forced to comply with what the majority wants. You know most people are idiots, right? You don't want idiots making decisions that affect your life. Does that help?
Wow, your comment is grayed out like it was downvoted but you've only asked MS to liberate an OS, which is something that should be supported. True hacker spirit there.
HN doesn't like subtext. Of course, it's terribly impractical to ask MS to release the XP source code, and that might even exacerbate the ongoing need for security patches. But look at all the millions being spent now, and imagine how different the situation would be if these enterprises were able to choose a free and open source OS from the start.
