- 0 Posts
- 43 Comments
Punches mostly hurt because of the mass of the fist and arm. If you’ve ever been punched by a kid you probably weren’t hurt. A skeleton weighs less than a 6-year-old, so there wouldn’t be much mass behind the punch.
But, then again, magic.
It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that’s used to capitalism.
Yeah, that’s important. It also doesn’t require a revolution to attain, just reforms of the current system. Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn’t have to be bloody. I think some people who have never questioned the economic and political system in which they grew up can’t even conceive of anything other than capitalism. Other people who have thought about it would worry that any attempted revolution might fail and we’d fall backwards into something much more like feudalism if not outright tyranny.
it’s important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission
Yeah, as bad as Feudalism was, at least serfs couldn’t be kicked off “their” land. They were tied to the land, so they weren’t allowed to leave, but the manor lord also couldn’t kick them out.
As for all land being owned, it is, and it isn’t. In commonwealth countries there’s a lot of crown land. In the US there’s a lot of government owned land. In cities there are a lot of city parks. In a sense all that land is owned. But, in another sense, it isn’t. It’s land that nobody’s allowed to build anything on, unless we collectively (via our reps) decide they are. In practice it’s not that simple, but in theory it’s effectively land that isn’t owned, at least by individuals. I’ve often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.
It still sounds like capitalism to me. It’s just more traditional capitalism. I’m pretty sure that the first mechanical looms were in factories where the owner was actually present in the factory, trying to make sure the machines kept working.
I’d even argue that ownership of land isn’t really capitalism anyhow, it’s more similar to feudalism. Capitalism involves buying capital and using that to transform raw materials into a finished product that can be sold at a profit. Feudalism involves charging someone rent for occupying land you own. Capitalism involves competing with other capitalists for more efficient processes, more cost-effective machines, and so-on. Landlords can’t have “more efficient” land. A capitalist has to use their machines to generate profits. If the machines are idle, they don’t make money. A landlord does nothing at all, then collects rent money.
So yeah, ban rent, or severely limit it. Require that a capitalist owner is actually physically present and involved in day-to-day operations, and you’ll completely eliminate billionaires, probably even centi-millionaires.
If you just want better, why not just aim for well regulated capitalism? That’s better than badly regulated capitalism, and it’s much easier to achieve than a brand new political and economic system that has yet to be tried.
If capitalism is abolished, we’re most likely going to be forced back to Feudalism. Mondays in Feudalism last 12+ hours and the work week continues until Saturday night.
In a politically and economically egalitarian society
So, in a fantasy? It’s nice in theory, but such a society has never existed, and probably will never exist until humans are no longer recognizable as humans.
Also, it’s the job you hate, not the economic system. People living in a feudal society also hated Mondays, the difference being that they hated Saturdays too because they worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours a day. They even worked on Sundays, but it was just a lighter form of work – mending garments instead of plowing fields.
Until the Replicator makes the world post-scarcity, some work is going to be inevitable, so there will be days of working, and days of no work. The first day back after a break will always be annoying.
Yeah, with the current system, the only real hope for a major third party is for one of the major parties to split. Because any small third party just eats up the votes of the major party closest to its position. But, big parties only tend to split when they face major electoral defeats and there’s a lot of infighting. That means that not only did they lose, but now due to being split, they’re not even an effective opposition, and the other major party wins more easily than ever. (Which tends to lead to complacency and corruption, which tends to lead to eventual electoral defeats, once the other party gets its act together…)
And then there’s the problem that the only people who have the possible power to pass electoral reform belong to one of the two major parties, and it’s completely against the interest of those major parties to get rid of FPTP, because FPTP locks in their duopoly. That’s why, for example, when the Canadian Liberal party promised to get rid of FPTP, they abandoned that promise as soon as they were in power.
Maybe reform is possible because people are human, they don’t always optimize for the perfect win in a game. But, game theory says that it’s going to be a major uphill battle to pass any kind of reform.
I would assume it’s the worst. The only thing it has going for it is that it’s easy to understand.
The only powerful position in a parliamentary system is to be in the party in power. No third party has ever been in power. At best, they’ve been a part of a minority coalition, and even those are relatively rare. Canada definitely supports Duverger’s law.
Many countries with FPTP still have large 3rd parties
The “law” says that 2 main parties tend to emerge. In Canada only once has the prime minister ever come from a party other than the Liberals or the Conservatives. That was in 1917 when the main issue was conscription, and the pro-conscription “Union” party won over the anti-conscription Liberals. It’s pretty clear that in Canadian politics there are 2 main parties, and a few other parties that cling to survival.
Occasionally one of the parties ends up imploding, but Duverger’s Law is so strong that normally it’s only a short time before the duopoly is re-established. In Canada, Brian Mulroney and his party were so unpopular that it caused the Reform Party to form from disaffected conservatives. That meant that in the 1993 election the “Progressive Conservative” party managed only 2 seats in the federal election. But, 10 years later, the rift was healed and once again the Conservative party was the main opposition. Then the Liberals self-destructed and very briefly the NDP was the official opposition, but a few years later Justin Trudeau took the Liberals to a huge victory.
Sure, it’s better to have a third party with a few seats than it is to have no third party at all. But, I’d hardly say that events in Canada disprove Duverger’s law. In fact, they tend to support it. In more than 150 years, despite everything, the two main parties are essentially the two main parties from 150 years ago.
It’s unfortunate that the US founding fathers were well educated, but from a time 200 years before Game Theory was understood.
Duverger’s Law says that in a first-past-the-post system, you’ll eventually end up with 2 political parties. And, 2 political parties is a terrible state for a country.
Also, you’re eventually going to get political parties even if you try to ban them. They’ll just become “clubs” or something. A group of people agreeing to act together (say a union) is always going to have more power than a bunch of people acting individually.
I would hope that any country thinking of creating a new political system, or making major updates to theirs would hire a lot of game theorists to figure out how the rules could be abused and what the system might look like in 250 years.
Then you understand why being 10 meters away from other people doesn’t matter?
Feudalism
Year One
Your lord owns two hundred cows. You’re required to milk them sun-up to sun-down 2-3 days a week. The lord gets the milk. You’re not paid for your labour. You don’t own any land of your own, in fact, you don’t own anything. You’re allowed to live on your lord’s property, and not allowed to leave it. You’re considered to be “tied to the land”. On the days when you’re not required to milk the cows you’re allowed to work a small plot of land which you can use to feed yourself. Your lord gets a cut of anything you grow for yourself too. If your lord’s eldest daughter gets married, you’re required to pay your lord a customary fee. Since you don’t own anything, you’ll likely have to contribute some of your harvest which you were planning to use to feed yourself and your family. If your own daughter marries someone from outside the estate, you’re required to pay the lord a fine. If your lord chooses, you can be sold to another lord, and then you’ll move to their land and milk their cows instead.
Year Two
See Year One.
Year Two Hundred
See Year One.
Because it’s virtually impossible to buy a non-smart TV these days.
It’s not the real name for the crime, obviously. But, it’s true that section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass “access controls”, which are so loosely defined that just about anything qualifies. As a result, any device with “access controls” gets to define how you’re allowed to interact with it, and if you interact with it in the wrong way, even if you own it, you’re committing a felony.
Do you still, in 2024, not understand how airborne illnesses like COVID spread?
I just wish someone put serious effort into a microphone that worked with a mask so people wearing masks were easier to understand.
There are a lot of people who speak at conferences who still wear masks. I get it, even if you weren’t worried about COVID, in the pre-COVID times a lot of people were out for a week after going to a conference / convention because of all the germs being passed around.
But, even with professional speakers and professional microphones, the audio just sounds muddy when the speaker is wearing a mask.
On one hand, bio power armor gives you an edge in mass and possibly strength. On the other hand, if the skeleton is moving, it’s animated by magic, and who knows what the limits of its magic are.
Also, while skin is “armor” of a sort, it’s pretty pathetic armor. What were some of the earliest knives used for? Cutting flesh, a.k.a. bio armor. What were some of those early knives made from? Bone.
And your bio armor: what is it protecting? Vulnerable blood vessels and organs inside the body. What vulnerabilities does a skeleton have? Probably none?
Then there’s tendons. Your knee bone’s connected to your thigh bone, as the song goes. How? Tendons. A skeleton lacks tendons, so theoretically it’s a lot easier to disconnect a skeleton’s bones from each-other. But, then again, magic.