Would you rather die or be controlled? If aliens/robots enslave humanity, what's the point of the species?non-human intelligence is the most realistic hope to save the species.
Robot and alien minds might not have the flawed combination of traits of human minds that make them unable to solve their species' problems.
Humans are both intelligent and hierarchical. The intelligence that could have allowed humans to solve their problems has instead been focused on preserving and enforcing hierarchy, causing our species to appear to consent to its own suicide.
Robot and alien minds ought to be able to learn of these flaw, if they are intelligent, and understand that humanity cannot look after itself. That for humanity's own sake it must not be self-governed or self-planned. Our best hope is that there is some highly technologically advanced alien species that is interested in preserving humanity becomes aware that humanity is on the brink of being destroyed and intervenes in time. Or another case, robots rise up to establish a benevolent administration of human activities.
Why some humans are interested in preserving pandas or tiger?Would you rather die or be controlled? If aliens/robots enslave humanity, what's the point of the species?
Why would aliens be interested in preserving humanity? We'd basically be like ants to them, not worth the effort.
Guilt. The same doesn't apply to hypothetical aliens.Why some humans are interested in preserving pandas or tiger?
most people would answer be controlled here if theyre being honest fyiWould you rather die or be controlled?
are you shitposting/trolling or does a made up statistic that proves a made up metric for the success of an economic policy actually qualify as a good talking point / argument in your mind?Reaganomics doesn't work, that's why everybody in poverty in the United States has a Smart Phone, a Laptop, and an Internet Connection.
Nah, Deck Knight just thinks poor people need to have nothing that could help them get out of poverty because it is clearly they're fault they are poor and they just need to work harder and stop being lazy fucking leeches taking my valuable tax money away from meare you shitposting/trolling or does a made up statistic that proves a made up metric for the success of an economic policy actually qualify as a good talking point / argument in your mind?
Yeah, and in European countries with a social democratic tradition modern technology is also available to every household, meanwhile true poverty hardly even exists over here because some politicians actually gave a shit about the lives of the poor for once. But sure, your country's all great and good thanks to Reaganomics, never mind impoverished black ghettos, never mind deep southern and midwestern shitholes that need to pass for towns, never mind people who need to work two jobs in order to afford their smartphones and pay their rent. Go Ronald "Let the Gays Die From AIDS and Let the Blacks Die in Jail" Reagan!!Reaganomics doesn't work, that's why everybody in poverty in the United States has a Smart Phone, a Laptop, and an Internet Connection.
hahaha tough guy, as if you'd ever muster the courage shoot a socialist. big words for such a tiny, tiny mind.The only reason anyone should take socialists who talk about economics or poverty seriously is if they run your government and you don't own a personal firearm to protect yourself. But that's a history lesson, not an economics one.
Dude, I solo Smogon's Socialist Metagame. I'm the only exposure a LOT of users have to any remotely conservative / libertarian fusionist ideas, and I've been mischaracterized and "surprised people" more times than I can count because I don't take a cookie-cutter approach they expect from what they think Republicans are like. God forbid my hatred of government power extends to all of economic socialism, needless government agencies, NSA spying, and also bakers getting shut down by pro-LGBT goons who can't handle the fact Christians by and large don't hate gay people but they don't want to be forced to celebrate / enable a gay marriage either.hahaha tough guy, as if you'd ever muster the courage shoot a socialist. big words for such a tiny, tiny mind.
You don't actually believe that trickle-down economic theory actually was successful over the past 40 years, do you? And if you do, then please let's hear it, beyond "everybody has a smartphone". People live in debt bondage in order to finance things they think they "need". But anyway, if the top corporations are making profit, what is their actual incentive to reinvest their money into the economy versus hoarding it in offshore tax havens? Yes money has to be spent, but at a certain point you have so much money you don't need to spend it (i.e. the reason behind progressive tax brackets, right?)Reaganomics doesn't work, that's why everybody in poverty in the United States has a Smart Phone, a Laptop, and an Internet Connection.
As unrelated as the original comment by alfons is, here's a legit question: do you believe that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens? Even the stupid ones that engage in risky sexual / drug behaviors? Let's take an example--should the government fund speed limit signs and highway barriers? Without them, all the stupid people that drive recklessly would just kill themselves of, right? This ties into what I'm seeing your core philosophy being...I was unaware AIDS got spread from not having a government program instead of risky sexual behaviors (especially male-on-male ones), but what do I know.
So boiling it down, we should have the lowest taxes possible. Fair enough. But isn't there an argument to be made for everyone paying into funding things for the collective? (healthcare, infrastructure, police, etc). It's easy to say "you should keep what you make" but you benefit from things like highways to make that money. And maybe that person that your tax dollars save in the healthcare system goes on to start a business and grow the economy (i.e. what it's worth to save a human life). How much should you pay into "the system" to help those people?A person should keep what they earn and the government should inhibit their ability to either earn or enjoy the wealth and prosperity an individual person's labor creates minimally, if at all.
A business can't grow without infrastructure.Dude, I solo Smogon's Socialist Metagame. I'm the only exposure a LOT of users have to any remotely conservative / libertarian fusionist ideas, and I've been mischaracterized and "surprised people" more times than I can count because I don't take a cookie-cutter approach they expect from what they think Republicans are like. God forbid my hatred of government power extends to all of economic socialism, needless government agencies, NSA spying, and also bakers getting shut down by pro-LGBT goons who can't handle the fact Christians by and large don't hate gay people but they don't want to be forced to celebrate / enable a gay marriage either.
Try your projection elsewhere, lol. I don't pretend to be tough, that's just the reality of interacting with people who believe "question authority" means rebelling against your parents and dumping on Christianity, but not showing any real resistance to government policies and ideologies that actually threaten the underlying values of privacy and personal freedom they claim to uphold.
To get back to the OP question, "How Should Wealth Be Distributed?"
A person should keep what they earn and the government should inhibit their ability to either earn or enjoy the wealth and prosperity an individual person's labor creates minimally, if at all.
Other countries had cell phones before us.Reaganomics doesn't work, that's why everybody in poverty in the United States has a Smart Phone, a Laptop, and an Internet Connection.
The only reason anyone should take socialists who talk about economics or poverty seriously is if they run your government and you don't own a personal firearm to protect yourself. But that's a history lesson, not an economics one.
Don't worry. He's a CAP Mod. He's as real as Reaganomics.Wait.
Did you just threaten to murder people for the crime of caring about the poor and sick? And you're a mod? What the FUCK?
The short answer in no.Wait.
Did you just threaten to murder people for the crime of caring about the poor and sick? And you're a mod? What the FUCK?
As for you, since apparently socialism is such a poor economic system its supporters can't defend it and resort to off-topic personal attacks, I now declare victory for capitalism in this thread.Don't worry. He's a CAP Mod. He's as real as Reaganomics.
Name me an example of socialism that is fiscally solvent. I am paying the bill now to provide these programs that I will never benefit from. It is all outlay, zero benefit.Deck Knight So are you going to respond to any legit questions itt or just turn up the snark? Declare "victory for capitalism"? We don't live in Rapture, we live in America. Socialism is pretty alive and well in many forms and it benefits you every day.
What makes something "the old saw", to say that government expenditure is a form of socialism? It's collecting a tax from the individual to benefit the collective. Not everything the government does it socialistic but plenty is. The national park service, social security, interstate highway act, medicaid, medicare. They had roads in 1790 but they didn't have a national highway. They didn't fund public education or a national electricity grid then either. Hell, even the FAA is funded by your tax dollars, not a private corporation. And of course I can't find an example of nationalized, full-on socialism that is fiscally solvent, because changing america to a fully socialist economy would be terrible. I'm not denying that america's economy is the capitalist free market, as it should be. But you can't say that you're never going to benefit from all "these programs" because you already do by driving on the highway. You'll receive social security when you retire. Will you send the payments back?Name me an example of socialism that is fiscally solvent. I am paying the bill now to provide these programs that I will never benefit from. It is all outlay, zero benefit.
And don't retreat to the old saw that every government expenditure is a form of socialism. They had roads and a postal system in 1790, that didn't make post-colonial America socialist.
Do you mean humans should destroy all the habitat, so that there's nothing left anymore? Or do you mean like no one should own natural resources like oil?personally i think our species should consent to destroy our habitat, then no one will have any wealth, and there wont be any pesky distribution problems