4 ms·

William Gibson: “What would my superpower be? Redistribution of wealth”

20 points by kurren 11y ago

poppingtonic 11y ago
This makes such an interesting case. There a number of concepts so original and unique that they haven't been included "as a single word" in the conversations that are likely to determine what is considered relevant in world culture. There are cultural patterns that we simply don't have words for. Unless we create a truly universally granular language, that is: `Q: What is your favourite word? A: “Thing”, apparently. The harder I’m writing, the more imprecise my spoken language becomes.`
_random_ 11y ago
Anything could hide behind this phrase: from making oneself rich to communist-style "sharing" to welfare abolition.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "You don't have to take anything from anyone to provide for everyone's basic needs once we've bootstrapped to a certain point," Pretty much every resource is limited, so until we have some way of generating unlimited resources, this will not be possible.
- zo1 11y ago
  >"You don't have to take anything from anyone to provide for everyone's basic needs once we've bootstrapped to a certain point" We've been "boostrapping" for generations and decades. We are constantly sold the idea that if we "give just a little more" money to government, then all problems will be solved. And here we are countless periods later, lots of problems solved, and whole lot of new ones created (marketed) to take their place. I know you feel good, and you enjoy "the look" on peoples faces when you tell them that you think stealing is "OK" because someday in the future "we can provide for everyone's basic needs". Yeah, right. How about I tell you how much I enjoy the look on statists' faces when I question them as to why we need guns and police to enforce tax-compliance if we live in a wonderfully free (democratic?) society where everyone wants to help the poor/needy/helpless. Or countless other questions that make them admit the fundamental immorality of the state, and how it does not fit within their ideas about what they think is actually "right" and "wrong". >"You don't have to take anything from anyone to provide for everyone's basic needs once we've bootstrapped to a certain point" This can be done today, right now. With the the level of spending that most all governments spend. They can feed, clothe, shelter and medically care for every single human being on this planet, or that lives within their respective borders. Every single one. From poor starving orphans in the middle of abandoned nowhere, to cushy apartment-dwellers in big-cities. Ask yourself why it has not happened yet? Either you are not in the majority you declare to be in and the majority does not buy your ideas. Or the majority does agree with you, and has not been able to accomplish it.
ianstallings 11y ago
I'm more of a Rudy Rucker guy. Gibson was always so cynical, whereas Rucker liked to use the serendipitous nature of the universe to make things right. It's funny to me that someone like Gibson, that has fought authoritarians his whole life, would be so willing to "redistribute wealth", whatever that means. I have to say though, this fact blew me away: "What or who is the greatest love of your life? My wife of 45 years, Deborah." Maybe I'm completely off about his cynicism.
- A_COMPUTER 11y ago
  I've heard similarly inconsistent statements from Ivan Stang (Church of the Subgenius) and Robert Anton Wilson, whom I'd have not expected it from. I suppose anti-authoritarianism stops being appealing as you progress from most of your life being being in front of you to most of it being behind you.
pjbrunet 11y ago
Just a 2 cent tip: For interviews, it helps to respond to their answers. Feels more like a conversation. I realize it's easy to email 20 questions and call it a day. Been there, done that. In my experience, if you ask three questions you get as much content as asking ten questions and the individual answers are more interesting as a result. Your mileage may vary ;-)
jakeogh 11y ago
Great, he wants to steal. Two wrongs dont make a right. There are plenty if people with that superpower, and it hasn't been a good thing.
- beerbajay 11y ago
  Is it stealing for the government to take the property of convicted drug dealers, when that property has been acquired through drug sales?
  - jakeogh 11y ago
    If people want to buy/sell/use drugs then that's their business. It's not a problem government can solve. Do we own ourselves or not? Maybe you missed my point, which is this redistributioin happens often, and not in the direction that the person making the wish wanted. He's obviously not talking about some petty "drug dealers" anyway.

20 points by kurren 11y ago

This makes such an interesting case. There a number of concepts so original and unique that they haven't been included "as a single word" in the conversations that are likely to determine what is considered relevant in world culture. There are cultural patterns that we simply don't have words for. Unless we create a truly universally granular language, that is: `Q: What is your favourite word? A: “Thing”, apparently. The harder I’m writing, the more imprecise my spoken language becomes.`

_random_ 11y ago

Anything could hide behind this phrase: from making oneself rich to communist-style "sharing" to welfare abolition.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

paulhauggis 11y ago
"You don't have to take anything from anyone to provide for everyone's basic needs once we've bootstrapped to a certain point," Pretty much every resource is limited, so until we have some way of generating unlimited resources, this will not be possible.
zo1 11y ago
>"You don't have to take anything from anyone to provide for everyone's basic needs once we've bootstrapped to a certain point" We've been "boostrapping" for generations and decades. We are constantly sold the idea that if we "give just a little more" money to government, then all problems will be solved. And here we are countless periods later, lots of problems solved, and whole lot of new ones created (marketed) to take their place. I know you feel good, and you enjoy "the look" on peoples faces when you tell them that you think stealing is "OK" because someday in the future "we can provide for everyone's basic needs". Yeah, right. How about I tell you how much I enjoy the look on statists' faces when I question them as to why we need guns and police to enforce tax-compliance if we live in a wonderfully free (democratic?) society where everyone wants to help the poor/needy/helpless. Or countless other questions that make them admit the fundamental immorality of the state, and how it does not fit within their ideas about what they think is actually "right" and "wrong". >"You don't have to take anything from anyone to provide for everyone's basic needs once we've bootstrapped to a certain point" This can be done today, right now. With the the level of spending that most all governments spend. They can feed, clothe, shelter and medically care for every single human being on this planet, or that lives within their respective borders. Every single one. From poor starving orphans in the middle of abandoned nowhere, to cushy apartment-dwellers in big-cities. Ask yourself why it has not happened yet? Either you are not in the majority you declare to be in and the majority does not buy your ideas. Or the majority does agree with you, and has not been able to accomplish it.

ianstallings 11y ago

I'm more of a Rudy Rucker guy. Gibson was always so cynical, whereas Rucker liked to use the serendipitous nature of the universe to make things right. It's funny to me that someone like Gibson, that has fought authoritarians his whole life, would be so willing to "redistribute wealth", whatever that means. I have to say though, this fact blew me away: "What or who is the greatest love of your life? My wife of 45 years, Deborah." Maybe I'm completely off about his cynicism.

A_COMPUTER 11y ago
I've heard similarly inconsistent statements from Ivan Stang (Church of the Subgenius) and Robert Anton Wilson, whom I'd have not expected it from. I suppose anti-authoritarianism stops being appealing as you progress from most of your life being being in front of you to most of it being behind you.

pjbrunet 11y ago

Just a 2 cent tip: For interviews, it helps to respond to their answers. Feels more like a conversation. I realize it's easy to email 20 questions and call it a day. Been there, done that. In my experience, if you ask three questions you get as much content as asking ten questions and the individual answers are more interesting as a result. Your mileage may vary ;-)

jakeogh 11y ago

Great, he wants to steal. Two wrongs dont make a right. There are plenty if people with that superpower, and it hasn't been a good thing.

beerbajay 11y ago
Is it stealing for the government to take the property of convicted drug dealers, when that property has been acquired through drug sales?
- jakeogh 11y ago
  If people want to buy/sell/use drugs then that's their business. It's not a problem government can solve. Do we own ourselves or not? Maybe you missed my point, which is this redistributioin happens often, and not in the direction that the person making the wish wanted. He's obviously not talking about some petty "drug dealers" anyway.