Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bobzibub 4405 days ago
While we, the techno intelligencia, discuss how to manage technological change against the powerful security state, it is probably the case that the more desperate will just start shooting oligarchs despite the vast security apparatus designed to protect them. Once they realize they're not secure, they'll decide to cede power. The question is who will be able to negotiate this transition in a transparent and positive way when politicians are already corrupted by them?

I in no way advocate violence, (except occasional lapses of thought on the hockey rink). I just think that these events will occur: If there are millions of people that the state believes are refuse, many will turn to crime to eat and as the social contract is broken, some of these people will tend towards violence against those who run (what were once democratic) countries. The oligarchs are a natural enemy to the "refuse" of society because they do have a large hand in their plight. Consider: They generally advocate for trade pacts which lower the wages of low skill workers. They extract high rents for education so many cannot better themselves. They pay as little and hire as few as humanly possible. The only aspect of their operations that they would have in a first world country are point where they receive customers' money. To many of them, their ideal is that both the production and the profits are off shore. None of this endears them to millions of the poor. So that, unfortunately is how things change. Please prove me wrong.

1 comments

It is for this reason that I'm a fan of the masses being armed. Without weapons, they can never revolt. True, one could manufacture weapons, but a good side arm and long riffle go a long way.

I see violence as a sad, but necessary thing. The history of man is one of warring between to groups. Once the rich/super rich become so powerful that they basically enslave the rest of us, there has to be a war. There is no society in the world that hasn't had a war of some kind.

It is true that one could, in theory, use non cooperation to dismantle the existing apparatus of state. The difficulty lies in the fact that the "refuse" are already disenfranchised. In the techno world of the future, they are not needed on any level. They are not consumers, therefore no one should care. Without a good portion of the elite siding with them, their non-conformism won't help. Even with India, the government of England and its citizenry were tired of empire anyway. India wasn't worth the effort to them. It is unlikely that we'll see the same from the elite anytime soon. They are on the uptick now.

Oddly Marx is right. There will be a class war. A new synthesis will be struct. In the mean time, sadly, people will die or be wounded. The best thing to do is prepare for it and try to mitigate it.

I don't think there needs to be war. I don't think government is the enemy--it is the corruption within government. People fighting the state directly will only accomplish a bloody mess.

Maybe only Lawrence Lessig can save us all now?