AP: Technology destroying jobs faster than it's creating them.

[The Minsky Moment]

... the imminent annhiliation of the entire legal profession by robots.

Now there's an idea I can get behind.

Remind me: what was Dick Nixon's job after he lost the 1960 election?

 

[Eddie Teach]

Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?

Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.

In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.

[Admiral Yi]

In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.

Automatic weapons.

[The Brain]

Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?

Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.

In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.

In a scenario where the labor of the unskilled masses isn't worth anything significant the masses are unlikely to have significant fighting power compared to the other side.

[Eddie Teach]

The masses wouldn't be completely unskilled, there would be plenty of people in their ranks because of ideology, family connections, or simply their skills were made redundant. The haves might win the struggle, but they'd still be better off in a modern society where they share a portion of their wealth in exchange for stability.

[The Brain]

The masses wouldn't be completely unskilled, there would be plenty of people in their ranks because of ideology, family connections, or simply their skills were made redundant. The haves might win the struggle, but they'd still be better off in a modern society where they share a portion of their wealth in exchange for stability.

Hence"If the rich don't give them food ..." in reply #86. I think it's likely the rich will since they do today.

[Eddie Teach]

That appears to contradict your statement in reply #80.

[The Brain]

That appears to contradict your statement in reply #80.

Yeah? You're gay.

[Neil]

... the imminent annhiliation of the entire legal profession by robots.

Now there's an idea I can get behind.

Remind me: what was Dick Nixon's job after he lost the 1960 election?

Not to mention before the war.

I'm just saying:  I don't like your priesthood and I think it's a bad thing.

[Neil]

That's always been true, but rebellions from below have often been rather deadly for the rich.  Even the anarchist craze of the 19th century made their mark.

Arms procurement and ammunition resupply would be orders of magnitude easier for the haves than for the have nots.

But the have-nots aren't fighting a war.  They're just trying to kill some haves.

[crazy canuck]

Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?

Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.

In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.

In a scenario where the labor of the unskilled masses isn't worth anything significant the masses are unlikely to have significant fighting power compared to the other side.

You forget that the unskilled masses in the US are already armed to the teeth.  You know - to keep their government honest so that this sort of thing doesnt happen.

[garbon]

USA!

[Admiral Yi]

But the have-nots aren't fighting a war.  They're just trying to kill some haves.

They're trying to seize resources.

[The Brain]

Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?

Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.

In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.

In a scenario where the labor of the unskilled masses isn't worth anything significant the masses are unlikely to have significant fighting power compared to the other side.

You forget that the unskilled masses in the US are already armed to the teeth.  You know - to keep their government honest so that this sort of thing doesnt happen.

If they pose a threat against the rich then it seems likely that they could find jobs protecting the rich.

[Neil]

But the have-nots aren't fighting a war.  They're just trying to kill some haves.

They're trying to seize resources.

I'm not so sure.  That wasn't really the case with the Anarchists.  Sure, they had some kind of political ideal, but the practical effect of their movement was all about the murders.