4 ms·

The concept of ownership is predicated on a party with the power of enforcement of law. If a few people ended up with everything I doubt the vast, vast majority

The concept of ownership is predicated on a party with the power of enforcement of law. If a few people ended up with everything I doubt the vast, vast majority with nothing would just say "well, sucks to be us". All the money in the world only protects you from armed mobs as long as there are people willing to accept money for said protection duties and enough deterrent from an authority to discourage the mob from simply overpowering the rich and their guards. Dystopian futures where a small number of people "have everything" seem highly unlikely if for no other reason than people can be beaten to death with stones.

Evbn 14y ago
Stones are ineffective against guns. Hence, 2nd amendment. Also, walls and moats. I don't see Chinese factory laborers rising up against rich Americans.
- ryanmolden 14y ago
  Guns run out of bullets. I don't think you are seriously thinking of what a mob of say 50k people with absolutely nothing to lose is capable of doing. The Chinese factory workers aren't rising up because the govt still has more than enough power to quell things and more than enough people benefit from the current system to "keep it in play". I was responding to a proposed future in which a very small number of people had everything and everyone was entirely subservient to them for even their most basic needs. What reason would exist for not rising up against the elites? It's not like that hasn't actually happened numerous times in recorded history. Especially if the situation was worse than it had ever been. How is any government overthrown ever if all it takes is superior weapons to hold control? I wasn't suggesting they would literally use stones, only that there are weapons that don't require the means of manufacturing to produce. I don't think people understand that there isn't anything inherently pre-determined or inherently stable in the current status quo and people, when faced with no real shot at anything in life, tend to react poorly (and violently). Money is only useful in a stable political system where rule of law exists. The richest man in Somalia probably doesn't sleep terribly well.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

Evbn 14y ago

Stones are ineffective against guns. Hence, 2nd amendment. Also, walls and moats. I don't see Chinese factory laborers rising up against rich Americans.

ryanmolden 14y ago
Guns run out of bullets. I don't think you are seriously thinking of what a mob of say 50k people with absolutely nothing to lose is capable of doing. The Chinese factory workers aren't rising up because the govt still has more than enough power to quell things and more than enough people benefit from the current system to "keep it in play". I was responding to a proposed future in which a very small number of people had everything and everyone was entirely subservient to them for even their most basic needs. What reason would exist for not rising up against the elites? It's not like that hasn't actually happened numerous times in recorded history. Especially if the situation was worse than it had ever been. How is any government overthrown ever if all it takes is superior weapons to hold control? I wasn't suggesting they would literally use stones, only that there are weapons that don't require the means of manufacturing to produce. I don't think people understand that there isn't anything inherently pre-determined or inherently stable in the current status quo and people, when faced with no real shot at anything in life, tend to react poorly (and violently). Money is only useful in a stable political system where rule of law exists. The richest man in Somalia probably doesn't sleep terribly well.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]