Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Jun 2013 14:57 UTC
Legal And yes, the PRISM scandal is far, far from over. More and more information keeps leaking out, and the more gets out, the worse it gets. The companies involved have sent out official statements - often by mouth of their CEOs - and what's interesting is that not only are these official statements eerily similar to each other, using the same terms clearly designed by lawyers, they also directly contradict new reports from The New York Times. So, who is lying?
Thread beginning with comment 564293
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Re:
by orfanum on Mon 10th Jun 2013 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Re:"
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Sorry, I just do not comprehend your answer: are you for or against socialism? Your chief angst about socialists in your own country is that they are *privatising* assets, which then turn into monopolies.

So, if you are against socialism, then at least you must be in favour of this particular cadre for decoupling state and commercial interests?

If you are for socialism, which some of your reply seems to indicate, since regulating markets that turn into monopolies can be said to be state interference, why are you seemingly down on socialism generally?

I can't make up my mind whether you can't make up your mind, or that you just don't really know what you are addressing apart from some hurt sensibilities at change in your country that for whatever reason you just don't like or are not gaining any advantage from.

I don't mean this maliciously - I genuinely can't fathom where you are coming from.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Re:
by woegjiub on Mon 10th Jun 2013 16:50 in reply to "RE[7]: Re:"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

I am in support of the public ownership of all infrastructure, be it transport, police, fibre optics, or what have you.

The reason I am against complete socialism is that competition drives innovation, so unless the government is pushing development extremely hard, it is unlikely to be able to beat commercial interests in matters such as farming or technology.

My angst with the labor party is that they are not socialist enough, and are moving increasingly to the right.


Ideally, I support technocracy combined with democracy and a georgist taxation system within a strongly left-leaning single global government.
That sort of thing is unlikely to actually come about, so keeping everything left of centre and hoping we can reach post-scarcity is more realistic.
With AI and robotics only getting better, it is only a matter of time until the majority are unemployed; what is there to do, but manage business, do research, entertain and make art, in that time?
You can't rely on charity, so you need welfare, or to simply abolish currency for the most part - moving into communist territory "to each according to his needs", as opposed to the socialist "to each according to his deeds".


My point was that companies are to be trusted less than governments, because even if the government protects its people in a way similar to the AI Asimov wrote of, its entire purpose is still to protect its people.
It can be made less intrusory by altering laws.
The only purpose of a company is to make more money.
They owe customers nothing, except to provide that for which they have paid.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Re:
by orfanum on Mon 10th Jun 2013 20:35 in reply to "RE[8]: Re:"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

That's a great reply-many thanks for the clarification.

A lot of this was 'tackled' by Social Credit and other money reform systems, including those examined by Quakers in the UK In the 1920s, as well as by the German Silvio Gesell.

I say 'tackled' since Social Credit according to some views has/had an intrinsically anti-Semitic bent given its chief proponent was Major C H Douglas, and for that and other reasons the orthodox Left has usually dismissed it as a system of 'funny money'.

It was briefly reconsidered by sections of the Left in Britain in the 1970s in the face of the almost overpowering Oil Crisis coupled with the UK's industrial decline.

The most colourful character who promoted Social Credit was John Hargrave, who also saw that technology would bring unemployment aka leisure to most of the world's population, so that standard economic theory would no longer suffice. He additionally supported world government. Unfortunately he was also dismissed as a crank.

(edited for typing errors)

Edited 2013-06-10 20:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Re:
by zima on Wed 12th Jun 2013 20:43 in reply to "RE[8]: Re:"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

With AI and robotics only getting better, it is only a matter of time until the majority are unemployed; what is there to do, but manage business, do research, entertain and make art, in that time?

Realistically, large portion (the largest? most?) of the population will just watch TV...

Reply Parent Score: 2