good_sir_ant

I always enjoy posts like this. When the comments flow in, you can identify the steadfast obliviousness the urbanites have around how the other 99% of the world approaches work. Just the reactions to a different opinion (which more aligns to one formed outside of silicon valley) illustrate a built-in intolerance to anything resembling reality, difficult as it may be.

This was a Keynesian idea, and it did not manifest, nor will it manifest.

People will only work for leisure if they value leisure. What's changed over the past century is that we have more choice in what that leisure is should we choose to do it.

Output is essential. Automation will increase our output and free more people from manual work. Will the transition be smooth? not likely. But it will be better. None of these jobs would automate if the automation wasn't worth it overall.

Sure, high pressure. Has nothing to do with the fact that India ranks 136 on the Freedom Index, let alone it's other issues.

Decriminalization of drugs would have to come with a massive restructuring of our social programs. You could get into a lot of trouble by financially supporting people who become addicted beyond their control.

The best 'gaming investment' I ever made was to take 2000 bucks and instead of building a new dynamite pc, I bought one of the best 1080p plasmas you could buy 3 years ago, and a ps4. I haven't looked back.

Consoles have come a long way, and the visual fidelity of a truly great quality display is a much better investment than a machine that can power a mediocre display at higher resolutions.

This is coming from someone who was gaming on ultra on 1440p for 5 years before switching back to consoles. It feels good to be back on the couch.

Ah, the ample parallels you could draw with this and freedom.

The article's main argument is that the ISPs are selling something that doesn't belong to them, but to the consumer.

I don't like the idea of my personal information being sold, but how could you state this as fact? Shouldn't it be up to the consumer to choose to do business with a company that sells your personal info vs a company that does not?

Long term though... bans, tarriffs, protections of any kind are all ill conceived. You will absolutely get a boost in wages, but the cost is quite significant. Shortening supply artificially always raises prices, and ends up meaning the same amount of output costs more to achieve than it otherwise would without the restrictions. Why would any economy want entertain that for too long?

I've read my share of socio-economic philosophizing, but did anyone else find this a slog to read through?

Most tech grunts will never admit that the idea of 'central planning', or 'regulations', are flawed beyond benefit, as far as we yet are able to implement them, especially in the 'motherland'. When you we start shaking this idea that these restrictions actually benefit anybody besides the ones making the restrictions.

I understand your viewpoint and from a moral perpective, I agree with it. But how can you assert the US, or western civilization as a whole, is consistent in it's protection of freedom of speech? Your first sentence illustrates that example perfectly.

Personally, I think shouting 'fire' in a theater should be 'free and legal' for a few key reasons.

First, it allows the morality of individuals in a society, not the morality of a few in power, to be the consequences of another's action. Second, if a bigot refuses service, shout's slurs, or yells 'fire' in a theater, it may hurt my feelings, but you bet your ass I want that information. By silencing people whose morals i disagree with, you don't change their morality. You only shield it from me, so now I don't know about it.

Very good point, and many don't realize the restrictions we already face, even in the United States.

It's really hard to say how our world will look in the coming decades...

On one hand, we have all this explosively liberating technology, cheap and powerful, that is changing the way we communicate and share information. On the other hand, you see the 'natural' result of all this power moving towards the individual: states and governments gripping tighter than ever to control it and maintain their elevated status.

It serves to illustrate how asinine our arguments over 'appropriate' speech are. The result of any kind of forced censorship is the same no matter what the content of the speech is : less freedom.

Enabling free(er) competition into the medical marketplace for doctors would probably be the single most effective maneuver.

That and letting machines begin replacing human doctors...

Good to know medical licensing is there to ensure our well-being, in addition to streamlining the entire medical marketplace.

/s