Since when is it not valid to analyze how people with money spend it? History teaches us that we should look out for the moment when the powers that be in any social order stop investing in the social order and become mostly extractive.
The desire of elites to separate themselves from the masses is a general symptom of systemic failure. (Not that I'm against libertarianism -- I believe they are correct about being judged as individuals -- but if your answer is semantically equivalent to, "because no one's let libertarianism prevail yet," then I'm going to reply, "evidence?")
Oh come on now. You can't just cut a sentence in half then analyze just that part. Especially when the entire comment was only 2 sentences.
Not to mention that it is very much debatable if any actual analysis was performed for this article. Admittedly I bailed after the 4th or 5th paragraph of entirely unsubstantiated rambling, but I digress.
You can't just cut a sentence in half then analyze just that part.
No one's analyzing anything here, and no one needs to have for the purpose of my statement. The apparent assertion that I'm countering is that there's no point to "complaining" about how rich people spend their money: this is demonstrably false. There's a ton of examples both historically and in the current world. Whether or not there is any analysis in the comment, the op, or the book being referenced is peripheral to the point.
"internet began as a collective enterprise, entirely created by public money — the defence establishment in America and assorted individual"
My three years as a soldier in the US Army taught me that the U.S. defense establishment is more like Ayn Rand - right-wing, brutally elitist, and certainly not friendly to altruism - than the commenter would have us believe.
So maybe the Internet's founding assumption - as a decentralized communications system - isn't so out of step with what Google and others have done, or contemplate doing, with it.
What are all those soldiers risking their lives for?
A few considerations:
1) The Internet's first phase was funded with other people's money, fellow American citizens.
2) Later phases were in large part built by people who wanted to benefit society; they gave away their work for free, and facilitated future innovators by making it open source. How much of the tech industry's fortunes are built on those foundations? Think through all the technology stacks.
3) Much of the society, civilization and economy on which their business dreams depend is the work of people who strove to improve our world without seeking payment for it. The laws, the norms, the schools that educate their employees, the economy that provides paying customers, the roads, the Golden Gate Bridge, the parks, the security, the liberty, the science, the philosophy, the political leaders, the healthcare, the stability, etc. etc.
Anyone who says they are self-made and therefore owes nothing to others or to society is either not very smart or not thinking (or insincere).
Good points. I will do my best to answer. Generally, almost everyone involved in your points was compensated to do something, even if it wasn't the work that became the Internet stack, or if compensation was not their primary goal.
My point was actually rather minor - that the military does not function as a top-to-bottom altruistic organization. You went meta and made some good points about society in general. Please indulge my meta trip because I think it might illustrate why Google et al have the "successionist" impulses of which they have been accused.
A principle of justice we seem to accept nowadays without too much question is that one shouldn't have to be bound to an accident of birth - e.g. Racial discrimation. Then why should someone be bound to the accident of being born American?
A plausible argument there is that the success of something such as Google might be impossible for a non-American company.
Neither argument seems eminently provable, but maybe more important questions might be whether one can choose to whom one might share the fruits of one's labors and how much one should share.
For example, the Christian Church had a nominal demand of 10%. Certainly that was a lower limit but at least it was publicly known. Modern society doesn't seem to care for such clarity - as best I can determine, the cut seems to be "as much as we want", which is probably a harsh interpretation, given the complexities of our political and fiscal systems.
A way to rephrase the who question is - "assuming I have to share my fruits with others, why must it be with the country of my birth? Why can't I pick someone else? Why can't I pick myself?" This isn't an argument from left field, it's not too far from the position of the USA c. 1776, though the Declaration seemed to dwell on the injustices of the British Empire more than on the right to choose one's master.
What exactly is the author's point? It just reads like a collection of gripes about tech companies. And besides that, I don't see any evidence that Google is building a "Bay View" stateless walled city.
This is a review of what sounds like a hysterically paranoid book. Elon Musk plans to build a secessionist "clever colony" on Mars to escape the heavy hand of the government? 3-D printing will never happen because of the "Bond villains" who run the internet? Also, apparently hardly anyone in SV reads but if they do, it's Ayn Rand for sure.
How does stuff like this even get published? It's just loony.
I fully expect there to be an "Dutch East India company" 2.0 by 2050.
Economic producers have always been political leaders, but they were always able to be restrained by the state. Now with a globalized economy there is nothing stopping a large enough company from hopping states - especially ones with less wealth than the company. There has not been a company as large as "Standard Oil" since true globalization has become the norm. Once there is, all bets are off.
Apple for example could easily purchase any number of defense contractors/arms manufacturers around the world and compete with basically any but the nuclear nation states in terms of defense - and probably handily beat all in the "cyber" domain.
Don't even get me started on when robotic ground forces become capable of holding territory (not speaking of AGI/AI).
I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit. Separation as radical as you describe is unlikely due to the force each exerts over the other.
In other words, no way would the US government let Apple play nation state or otherwise shift the bulk of its loyalty elsewhere.
That said, the notion of Elysium-style humanoid robots resolving modern regional conflicts on behalf of Apple is an appealing one. No longer would violent extremists have to suffer the indignity of being put down by conventional means. Instead, they would have the priviledge of being destroyed by the pinnacle of sleek, elegant industrial design.
As far as AGI, if done properly it may resolve such things peacefully. Sadly, that would mean no robotic Apple armies.
I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit.
That's true until it isn't. qed
It also assumes the company is a U.S. company - implicit in my statement I concede - not necessarily the case.
I can see a situation in which the company and the USG have different interests, but the company has enough power that there is little the USG could do to it without massive loss in legitimacy.
For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on. That would be by far the largest company in the world and would have the resources to raise whatever kind of military it chose with the requisite manufacturing and logistics imbedded.
I don't see that particular chain of events, because it would probably not be in the long term interest of either but there is likely a scenario in which it makes sense.
>For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on.
A large percentage of Lockheed Martin employees hold high-level security clearances. This effectively cements their loyalty to USG and by extension the company's as well.
My point was that, barring some sort of stereotypical dystopian scenario where large conglomerates literally are the state, governments will, at least in a foreign policy sense, continue to serve as a legitimate front for corporate interests, and a vessel through which corporate power is channeled.
22 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 59.6 ms ] threadSince when is it not valid to analyze how people with money spend it? History teaches us that we should look out for the moment when the powers that be in any social order stop investing in the social order and become mostly extractive.
The desire of elites to separate themselves from the masses is a general symptom of systemic failure. (Not that I'm against libertarianism -- I believe they are correct about being judged as individuals -- but if your answer is semantically equivalent to, "because no one's let libertarianism prevail yet," then I'm going to reply, "evidence?")
Not to mention that it is very much debatable if any actual analysis was performed for this article. Admittedly I bailed after the 4th or 5th paragraph of entirely unsubstantiated rambling, but I digress.
No one's analyzing anything here, and no one needs to have for the purpose of my statement. The apparent assertion that I'm countering is that there's no point to "complaining" about how rich people spend their money: this is demonstrably false. There's a ton of examples both historically and in the current world. Whether or not there is any analysis in the comment, the op, or the book being referenced is peripheral to the point.
My three years as a soldier in the US Army taught me that the U.S. defense establishment is more like Ayn Rand - right-wing, brutally elitist, and certainly not friendly to altruism - than the commenter would have us believe.
So maybe the Internet's founding assumption - as a decentralized communications system - isn't so out of step with what Google and others have done, or contemplate doing, with it.
A few considerations:
1) The Internet's first phase was funded with other people's money, fellow American citizens.
2) Later phases were in large part built by people who wanted to benefit society; they gave away their work for free, and facilitated future innovators by making it open source. How much of the tech industry's fortunes are built on those foundations? Think through all the technology stacks.
3) Much of the society, civilization and economy on which their business dreams depend is the work of people who strove to improve our world without seeking payment for it. The laws, the norms, the schools that educate their employees, the economy that provides paying customers, the roads, the Golden Gate Bridge, the parks, the security, the liberty, the science, the philosophy, the political leaders, the healthcare, the stability, etc. etc.
Anyone who says they are self-made and therefore owes nothing to others or to society is either not very smart or not thinking (or insincere).
EDIT: Added first line, a more direct response
My point was actually rather minor - that the military does not function as a top-to-bottom altruistic organization. You went meta and made some good points about society in general. Please indulge my meta trip because I think it might illustrate why Google et al have the "successionist" impulses of which they have been accused.
A principle of justice we seem to accept nowadays without too much question is that one shouldn't have to be bound to an accident of birth - e.g. Racial discrimation. Then why should someone be bound to the accident of being born American? A plausible argument there is that the success of something such as Google might be impossible for a non-American company.
Neither argument seems eminently provable, but maybe more important questions might be whether one can choose to whom one might share the fruits of one's labors and how much one should share.
For example, the Christian Church had a nominal demand of 10%. Certainly that was a lower limit but at least it was publicly known. Modern society doesn't seem to care for such clarity - as best I can determine, the cut seems to be "as much as we want", which is probably a harsh interpretation, given the complexities of our political and fiscal systems.
A way to rephrase the who question is - "assuming I have to share my fruits with others, why must it be with the country of my birth? Why can't I pick someone else? Why can't I pick myself?" This isn't an argument from left field, it's not too far from the position of the USA c. 1776, though the Declaration seemed to dwell on the injustices of the British Empire more than on the right to choose one's master.
Unsure of current status though.
How does stuff like this even get published? It's just loony.
It reminds me a bit of an anti-Atlas Shrugged
I fully expect there to be an "Dutch East India company" 2.0 by 2050.
Economic producers have always been political leaders, but they were always able to be restrained by the state. Now with a globalized economy there is nothing stopping a large enough company from hopping states - especially ones with less wealth than the company. There has not been a company as large as "Standard Oil" since true globalization has become the norm. Once there is, all bets are off.
Apple for example could easily purchase any number of defense contractors/arms manufacturers around the world and compete with basically any but the nuclear nation states in terms of defense - and probably handily beat all in the "cyber" domain.
Don't even get me started on when robotic ground forces become capable of holding territory (not speaking of AGI/AI).
In other words, no way would the US government let Apple play nation state or otherwise shift the bulk of its loyalty elsewhere.
That said, the notion of Elysium-style humanoid robots resolving modern regional conflicts on behalf of Apple is an appealing one. No longer would violent extremists have to suffer the indignity of being put down by conventional means. Instead, they would have the priviledge of being destroyed by the pinnacle of sleek, elegant industrial design.
As far as AGI, if done properly it may resolve such things peacefully. Sadly, that would mean no robotic Apple armies.
That's true until it isn't. qed
It also assumes the company is a U.S. company - implicit in my statement I concede - not necessarily the case.
I can see a situation in which the company and the USG have different interests, but the company has enough power that there is little the USG could do to it without massive loss in legitimacy.
For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on. That would be by far the largest company in the world and would have the resources to raise whatever kind of military it chose with the requisite manufacturing and logistics imbedded.
I don't see that particular chain of events, because it would probably not be in the long term interest of either but there is likely a scenario in which it makes sense.
A large percentage of Lockheed Martin employees hold high-level security clearances. This effectively cements their loyalty to USG and by extension the company's as well.
My point was that, barring some sort of stereotypical dystopian scenario where large conglomerates literally are the state, governments will, at least in a foreign policy sense, continue to serve as a legitimate front for corporate interests, and a vessel through which corporate power is channeled.