5 ms·

This is a very hard conversation to have on HN. It is impossible to consider that the whole of society has been created and planned in advance. To think that

This is a very hard conversation to have on HN. It is impossible to consider that the whole of society has been created and planned in advance. To think that the upper classes manage everyone (they always did), that the schooling system produces people that are incapable of seeing the outside the box (and yet believe that they are free, nay - they 'know' it), that finance is the main weapon in the wealth extraction, that it is planned for us to move to technocracy (with a bio-medical-wallet-etc-id, tracked everywhere in spy-cities, not allowed to even leave your 110sqft micro-flat unless the computer says so), that all the disasters we face have resulted in incremental steps towards this aim (911, covid). Its a lot to consider! That we have been harnessed and put to work creating someone else's heaven on earth (and hardcore slavery for the rest) is a bitter pill to swallow. And the techies here have recently been the greatest driver of this change. Their livelihoods do depend on it. Anyway, good on you, for bringing some of these issues up.

bilbo0s 5y ago
Not that I disagree with the underlying ideas, but I'd argue we're not slaves. I'll concede that in practice we can definitely be thought something more akin to peasants, but what we live in today is not slavery. Now, is being a peasant, with all the concomitant limitations on one's livelihood any better than being a slave to the mental health of the bright and ambitious? Perhaps not, but it would be significantly more deleterious to their physical health. I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.
- verisimi 5y ago
  If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia. But that is not really the nub of it. Slavery is really a mental state - having been through the system we have been propagandised that the government is a good thing, it's the right way to manage ourselves - anything else is very bad. This is the creation of the slave mentality, putting the policeman inside your head, so that you feel highly uncomfortable just considering non-standard ideas - they are thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime egs: that news is just another show, a serious type of advert. That pharmaceutical companies will run world wide campaigns, seconding governments, drafting laws, to poison millions - this will fill up their pipeline with sickness for the coming decades.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    > If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia. The government uses your money to build infrastructure that makes the land the rich own more valuable. The government itself is also a victim.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    There will always be someone more powerful than you. I prefer that I can elect the leaders of the most powerful group. This is why anarchy doesn't make any sense: The government is simply the most powerful violent group. As long as violence exists, any anarchic arrangement is inherently unstable.
    - verisimi 5y ago
      "The government is simply the most powerful violent group." 100% right. But let's not lie to ourselves that this is also morally right. You may kid yourself that you are freely doing something meaningful when you vote to be governed by someone else, but the reality is that is based in fear (of others or the government). You don't in fact need governance when you meet family members for social occasions. This natural behaviour can scale up. But no, I don't think we are heading towards freedom. I think government is too powerful. Government would create the anarchic situations to allow for the strong paternal government response. In fact, this is how it has so much power now! It creates the objects of fear, and proposes a responses that just happen to require more from its citizens. More money, more control, etc. Its a one-way street. Unfortunately, you cannot comply your way out of tyranny - so we are heading towards greater slavery and greater governmental control. This is because people are unable to take responsibility for their decisions - they don't even know what right and wrong are ffs. (Do not do unto others..)
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Maybe you think of it as slavery, but in reality, it's the very definition of peasantry. Slavery is you get no money. And by the way, if you disagree with it, the power holder beats the tar out of you. Or maybe s/he just kills you and gets another slave. Whatever's most convenient at the time/place. Other than money, there are also a host of other differences between how we live and slavery. Including the fact that slaves don't choose their masters. There is no right to leave. Less than expected productivity results in severe beatings. And on and on and on. Again, peasantry is its own special form of perdition. No need to exaggerate to get that point across. I was only saying that it's clearly not slavery.
- alpha_squared 5y ago
  > I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important. I'm actually unsure what this means. I take it to imnply that physical health is more important, but I'm not convinced of that. Physical health impacts the individual and loved ones (via emotional labor and support). Mental health impacts the community (mass shootings); it's hard to predict the outcome of poor mental health per individual but it's clear on the whole that it's often the community that pays for it.
ActorNightly 5y ago
Knowledge is Bayesian, and while there is finite probability for what you said, the probabilities are very low based on real events. Also, the premise that finance people are just naturally evil isn't based in reality, its just fetishism.
godshatter 5y ago
Yes. Those that have the power to trick others into giving them even more power have little restraining them from doing so. It's also complicated by the fact that those who push against it haven't exactly made a name for themselves as reasonable people (at least the most vocal ones haven't) leading to derision of "freedumbs" and so forth. I mourn the dearth of different perspectives and not assuming everyone is on a "side".
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I mean, "liberty" is exactly allowing people to convince each other to exchange things. Some people might get the short end, but does that mean it's not free exchange? Or does that mean liberty itself is not an aim worth pursuing?
  - godshatter 5y ago
    In my personal opinion it is worth it to have liberty, even if so many people are fine with giving it up to others at the drop of a hat. It's too important not to have. I just wish individual independence wasn't so derided these days.
- 2Xheadpalm 5y ago
  'power to trick' - that hit the nail on the head! The oligarchs, higher level bureaucrats, politicians, extreme wealthy etc. that is the superpower, at their core, they are magicians but not in a good, fun way, more like con-man who have mastered the power to _trick_ and deceive. I came to the conclusion sometime ago, that all these people of power and position are really just charlatans, albeit extremely good ones, they are nothing to aspire to and respect, they are no better then a grifter using 'slight of hand' and deception to remove as much wealth and power from others to themselves and when all else fails, they will resort to force/war if need be. In a nutshell, nothing but liars, cheats, cowards and dishonorable megalomaniacs that put on a (good) show for us peasants to better rob us blind.
throwawayyear22 5y ago
"This is a very hard conversation to have on HN." Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals. What is more probable, that the current situation just emerged organically or that some elite group has conspired and executed flawlessly to make the world just like it is ? There are subcontractors who work for my CM in China and I doubt they are paid much. It wasn't my plan to create wage-slaves and if I paid my CM more they would just likely pocket the difference. I'll admit I contribute to to problems you describe but that's very different than having intent and control.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals. Are you sure? You don't need a conspiracy theory. All you need is compound interest. Just think about it. An asset produces returns above what you spend on consumption. I.e. you are a net winner of the financial system. But milk, eggs, cars, houses have to be built by someone and you can clearly see poor people at the construction site of your house. You don't see rich millionaires build your house. Meanwhile most people are paying into this system and they are net losers.
- verisimi 5y ago
  No. God-like abilities are not required. But lots of wealth and a clear long-term plan is. Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested to gain greater control and wealth? Wouldn't it be good to transform society in a way that is most beneficial to them? Do you think that those individuals would be pretty ruthless in their execution of their plans? And that they would also try to be secretive? Of course. Do you think that politicians can be encouraged to vote one way or another? Those on the blue team and on the reds? Given lots of money, lobbyists, etc? Or threats? I think it would be naive to think that they do not. And if you control governmental policy, what would you work on? Education - to train obedient workers? Finance? The legal system? All of those. Would you create or buy the media companies to ensure that your message is always provided, and that any negative exposure is squashed? Or get people talking about all the wrong things? Yes again. Would you seek to increase dependence on government or increase people's self-reliance? Increase dependence on government, of course! What is the direction of travel do you think? Would you even create a ready way to smear those who do raise the reality of the situation. A handy handle that allows you to dismiss those who are sharing information that you don't like. This too has been done - and the handle is 'conspiracy theorist'. This smear allows you to ignore whatever evidence might be being presented, and allow you to carry on with your day - no further investigation required! My view is that if you have a good handle on human nature, specific goals and lots of wealth, it is actually not that hard to create the fish bowl. You will have created a class (the majority) of people who are too invested (financially, emotionally, spiritually) in the unnatural system you have provided. They will go to the schools you created, learn the values you want, just like their parents. If you control the terrain, and provide the method that people use to "verify" information for themselves (and the method is accept the evidence free claims given, maybe occasionally double check something on Wikipedia) you can really go very far! No one checks anything - we are so invested in this we have to trust that "they've got this". The truth is that "they" look at you and I as cattle. And they are just executing their best herd-management procedures. And - I think - they have been running things like this for a long time.

bilbo0s 5y ago

Not that I disagree with the underlying ideas, but I'd argue we're not slaves. I'll concede that in practice we can definitely be thought something more akin to peasants, but what we live in today is not slavery. Now, is being a peasant, with all the concomitant limitations on one's livelihood any better than being a slave to the mental health of the bright and ambitious? Perhaps not, but it would be significantly more deleterious to their physical health. I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.

verisimi 5y ago
If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia. But that is not really the nub of it. Slavery is really a mental state - having been through the system we have been propagandised that the government is a good thing, it's the right way to manage ourselves - anything else is very bad. This is the creation of the slave mentality, putting the policeman inside your head, so that you feel highly uncomfortable just considering non-standard ideas - they are thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime egs: that news is just another show, a serious type of advert. That pharmaceutical companies will run world wide campaigns, seconding governments, drafting laws, to poison millions - this will fill up their pipeline with sickness for the coming decades.
- imtringued 5y ago
  > If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia. The government uses your money to build infrastructure that makes the land the rich own more valuable. The government itself is also a victim.
- xxpor 5y ago
  There will always be someone more powerful than you. I prefer that I can elect the leaders of the most powerful group. This is why anarchy doesn't make any sense: The government is simply the most powerful violent group. As long as violence exists, any anarchic arrangement is inherently unstable.
  - verisimi 5y ago
    "The government is simply the most powerful violent group." 100% right. But let's not lie to ourselves that this is also morally right. You may kid yourself that you are freely doing something meaningful when you vote to be governed by someone else, but the reality is that is based in fear (of others or the government). You don't in fact need governance when you meet family members for social occasions. This natural behaviour can scale up. But no, I don't think we are heading towards freedom. I think government is too powerful. Government would create the anarchic situations to allow for the strong paternal government response. In fact, this is how it has so much power now! It creates the objects of fear, and proposes a responses that just happen to require more from its citizens. More money, more control, etc. Its a one-way street. Unfortunately, you cannot comply your way out of tyranny - so we are heading towards greater slavery and greater governmental control. This is because people are unable to take responsibility for their decisions - they don't even know what right and wrong are ffs. (Do not do unto others..)
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Maybe you think of it as slavery, but in reality, it's the very definition of peasantry. Slavery is you get no money. And by the way, if you disagree with it, the power holder beats the tar out of you. Or maybe s/he just kills you and gets another slave. Whatever's most convenient at the time/place. Other than money, there are also a host of other differences between how we live and slavery. Including the fact that slaves don't choose their masters. There is no right to leave. Less than expected productivity results in severe beatings. And on and on and on. Again, peasantry is its own special form of perdition. No need to exaggerate to get that point across. I was only saying that it's clearly not slavery.
alpha_squared 5y ago
> I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important. I'm actually unsure what this means. I take it to imnply that physical health is more important, but I'm not convinced of that. Physical health impacts the individual and loved ones (via emotional labor and support). Mental health impacts the community (mass shootings); it's hard to predict the outcome of poor mental health per individual but it's clear on the whole that it's often the community that pays for it.

ActorNightly 5y ago

Knowledge is Bayesian, and while there is finite probability for what you said, the probabilities are very low based on real events. Also, the premise that finance people are just naturally evil isn't based in reality, its just fetishism.

godshatter 5y ago

Yes. Those that have the power to trick others into giving them even more power have little restraining them from doing so. It's also complicated by the fact that those who push against it haven't exactly made a name for themselves as reasonable people (at least the most vocal ones haven't) leading to derision of "freedumbs" and so forth. I mourn the dearth of different perspectives and not assuming everyone is on a "side".

thegrimmest 5y ago
I mean, "liberty" is exactly allowing people to convince each other to exchange things. Some people might get the short end, but does that mean it's not free exchange? Or does that mean liberty itself is not an aim worth pursuing?
- godshatter 5y ago
  In my personal opinion it is worth it to have liberty, even if so many people are fine with giving it up to others at the drop of a hat. It's too important not to have. I just wish individual independence wasn't so derided these days.
2Xheadpalm 5y ago
'power to trick' - that hit the nail on the head! The oligarchs, higher level bureaucrats, politicians, extreme wealthy etc. that is the superpower, at their core, they are magicians but not in a good, fun way, more like con-man who have mastered the power to _trick_ and deceive. I came to the conclusion sometime ago, that all these people of power and position are really just charlatans, albeit extremely good ones, they are nothing to aspire to and respect, they are no better then a grifter using 'slight of hand' and deception to remove as much wealth and power from others to themselves and when all else fails, they will resort to force/war if need be. In a nutshell, nothing but liars, cheats, cowards and dishonorable megalomaniacs that put on a (good) show for us peasants to better rob us blind.

throwawayyear22 5y ago

"This is a very hard conversation to have on HN." Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals. What is more probable, that the current situation just emerged organically or that some elite group has conspired and executed flawlessly to make the world just like it is ? There are subcontractors who work for my CM in China and I doubt they are paid much. It wasn't my plan to create wage-slaves and if I paid my CM more they would just likely pocket the difference. I'll admit I contribute to to problems you describe but that's very different than having intent and control.

imtringued 5y ago
>Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals. Are you sure? You don't need a conspiracy theory. All you need is compound interest. Just think about it. An asset produces returns above what you spend on consumption. I.e. you are a net winner of the financial system. But milk, eggs, cars, houses have to be built by someone and you can clearly see poor people at the construction site of your house. You don't see rich millionaires build your house. Meanwhile most people are paying into this system and they are net losers.
verisimi 5y ago
No. God-like abilities are not required. But lots of wealth and a clear long-term plan is. Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested to gain greater control and wealth? Wouldn't it be good to transform society in a way that is most beneficial to them? Do you think that those individuals would be pretty ruthless in their execution of their plans? And that they would also try to be secretive? Of course. Do you think that politicians can be encouraged to vote one way or another? Those on the blue team and on the reds? Given lots of money, lobbyists, etc? Or threats? I think it would be naive to think that they do not. And if you control governmental policy, what would you work on? Education - to train obedient workers? Finance? The legal system? All of those. Would you create or buy the media companies to ensure that your message is always provided, and that any negative exposure is squashed? Or get people talking about all the wrong things? Yes again. Would you seek to increase dependence on government or increase people's self-reliance? Increase dependence on government, of course! What is the direction of travel do you think? Would you even create a ready way to smear those who do raise the reality of the situation. A handy handle that allows you to dismiss those who are sharing information that you don't like. This too has been done - and the handle is 'conspiracy theorist'. This smear allows you to ignore whatever evidence might be being presented, and allow you to carry on with your day - no further investigation required! My view is that if you have a good handle on human nature, specific goals and lots of wealth, it is actually not that hard to create the fish bowl. You will have created a class (the majority) of people who are too invested (financially, emotionally, spiritually) in the unnatural system you have provided. They will go to the schools you created, learn the values you want, just like their parents. If you control the terrain, and provide the method that people use to "verify" information for themselves (and the method is accept the evidence free claims given, maybe occasionally double check something on Wikipedia) you can really go very far! No one checks anything - we are so invested in this we have to trust that "they've got this". The truth is that "they" look at you and I as cattle. And they are just executing their best herd-management procedures. And - I think - they have been running things like this for a long time.