4 ms·

Law enforcement, retained by the wealthy to shield them from the unpleasantness of the masses.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I'm confused. Why do the rich use law enforcement to interfere with the non-rich economy? I can see why they might have law enforcement (or robots) vigorously police the borders of their mansions, but that's a different question. And there is no point having law enforcement exploit the non-poor (e.g., slavery) since robots do the job just as well.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  > Why do the rich use law enforcement to interfere with the non-rich economy? Because they will see the confiscation of land and resources by the non-rich (a necessary step to establishing a new economy from which they won't be excluded) as a threat to themselves. Remember we are dealing here with irrational, imperfectly-informed people, not with perfectly-informed, perfectly-rational frictionless spherical humanoids in uniform economic motion.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Why would they care? As long as they are left with sufficient amounts to provide for their own (miniscule) consumption, they have no reason to stress. And why is confiscating land and resources a necessary step?
    - ubernostrum 11y ago
      Again, you assume perfectly-rational, perfectly-informed spherical frictionless humans. This is why you don't understand the criticism you receive, and why others do not understand you.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        You repeatedly appeal to one specific irrationality, and don't explain why that irrational behavior (as opposed to many others) will occur. Nor do you explain why redistribution is necessary. Assuming the masses can control law enforcement well enough to impose redistribution, why can't the masses also simply prevent the rich from harming them and form their own economy? Let me guess - more finely tuned irrationality? It seems like your alleged irrationalities conspire in odd ways to make your very specific policy prescription the only possible solution. [edit: my mistake on this paragraph, I did indeed confuse you with another poster.]
        ubernostrum 11y ago
        I haven't advocated any policy. Perhaps you're confused?
    - zanny 11y ago
      Except that isn't how you get rich or powerful, or stay rich and powerful. You do not give away your power, and land is power. Look no further than the middle ages and the age of serfdom to see the extreme of the power you can have owning land.

I'm confused. Why do the rich use law enforcement to interfere with the non-rich economy? I can see why they might have law enforcement (or robots) vigorously police the borders of their mansions, but that's a different question. And there is no point having law enforcement exploit the non-poor (e.g., slavery) since robots do the job just as well.

ubernostrum 11y ago
> Why do the rich use law enforcement to interfere with the non-rich economy? Because they will see the confiscation of land and resources by the non-rich (a necessary step to establishing a new economy from which they won't be excluded) as a threat to themselves. Remember we are dealing here with irrational, imperfectly-informed people, not with perfectly-informed, perfectly-rational frictionless spherical humanoids in uniform economic motion.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Why would they care? As long as they are left with sufficient amounts to provide for their own (miniscule) consumption, they have no reason to stress. And why is confiscating land and resources a necessary step?
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    Again, you assume perfectly-rational, perfectly-informed spherical frictionless humans. This is why you don't understand the criticism you receive, and why others do not understand you.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      You repeatedly appeal to one specific irrationality, and don't explain why that irrational behavior (as opposed to many others) will occur. Nor do you explain why redistribution is necessary. Assuming the masses can control law enforcement well enough to impose redistribution, why can't the masses also simply prevent the rich from harming them and form their own economy? Let me guess - more finely tuned irrationality? It seems like your alleged irrationalities conspire in odd ways to make your very specific policy prescription the only possible solution. [edit: my mistake on this paragraph, I did indeed confuse you with another poster.]
      - ubernostrum 11y ago
        I haven't advocated any policy. Perhaps you're confused?
  - zanny 11y ago
    Except that isn't how you get rich or powerful, or stay rich and powerful. You do not give away your power, and land is power. Look no further than the middle ages and the age of serfdom to see the extreme of the power you can have owning land.