3 ms·
>automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals, this has been true for 100 years, and somehow "the state system" has done ju
by bilbo0s 7y ago
>automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals, this has been true for 100 years, and somehow "the state system" has done just fine; strengthened even in that period of time.
Yep.
States figured out how to turn automobiles into tanks, essentially strengthening their power. Yet the article implicitly posits that somehow the same won't happen with microprocessors and nanomachines? The entire article seems a bit fanciful. States aren't going anywhere.
- rlayton2 7y agoYeah, this is a common fallacy, I'm sure there would be a name for it. Basically "my strategy will work, assuming my opponent doesn't act at all", and ignores the fact the opponent is a capable, well resourced entity. Many bitcoin proponents have the same fallacy - i.e. "this is better than banks, therefore banks are obsolete", ignoring the fact that banks will work with new technology as it suits them.
- grawprog 7y ago>States figured out how to turn automobiles into tanks So did this disgruntled citizen: https://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA https://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA
- bilbo0s 7y agoAnd which tank is superior? The "killdoser", designed and built by the non-state actor inside the US nation state? Or the M1 Abrams, designed and built by the US nation state itself? Even if you build yourself a "killdozer", you are powerless against the US state. Because the tanks that the US nation state built substantially increased the strength and power of that nation state years ago.