Posts in total: 50
Care to explain why this is wrong?
The simplest solution to this would be to tax the robots.
Then again, maybe people whose jobs get taken by robots wouldn't be doomed because when robots are able to mass-produce goods, prices get much cheaper, so even the people who lose their jobs to robots and are forced to work other jobs could still afford the goods since the prices would be low due to high supply.
Regarding your argument with Omar concerning whether or not taxes are a socialistic policy.
Robots are pure capitalism, but also the antithesis of human society.
Eventually as robot society develops and self evolves, they will only need bother to manufacture stuff for themselves. rendering humans a redundant and inferior species. Unless they see benefit in doing otherwise of course.
We have probably been the architects of our own downfall, though that would appear to have been an inevitability or a forgone evolutionary conclusion.
Is it the stuff of sci-fi or the stuff of universal consequence?
No robot would survive the purge of socialism.
Socialism is anti technology.
Robots are socialism becuase people can get them by taking from the rich
Can you explain?
Technology was probably inevitable and is also probably un stoppable.
We are already enslaved to technology and I don't envisage an evolutionary reversal of that situation. Maybe the occasional temporary glitch or slowing down of the process, but I don't think there's is any chance of going back now.
Fragile, Earthbound Organic systems have done their bit and now it's probably the turn of robots/technology to take up the evolutionary baton..
all you need to do to slow down technology is to put hyper-productive smart people in cages for reasons of egalitarianism and wealth equality.
Not how this works, you made a claim against Omar and instead of giving any evidence nor reasoning all you said was
" WRONG "
I am not making a claim at all, at least yet. Therefore it's your job to back up the claim you've made against Omar.
He hasn't provided any evidence as it was HIS claim about taxes
Omar showed you evidence through the definitions of capitalism and socialism and then gave reasoning as to how this connects to taxes.
Give us your reasons for your disagreement instead of just stating " WRONG "
The definitions proved nothing
Please elaborate? How do these definitions not prove anything when the definition of socialism he used literally talked about the redistribution of wealth which are taxes?
Look at the defintions, what does it explain?
- Omar.Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.Money is given to the government in the form of taxes which is distributed as they see fit. That is a socialist policy. Not a capitalist one.
It explains nothing
Aright very obviously you're ignoring the entire definition.
I mean I even bolded the important phrases to keep a lookout for.
Since you obviously aren't listening to are arguments there is no use discussing this with you.
Yep. A temporary glitch or slowing down of the process.
Though "hyper-productive smart people" create the technology that enslaves the masses.
So how long would the masses be prepared to keep the cages locked for.
All true followers of egalitarianism must go the route of Pol Pot if they are serious about lasting equality.
I'm certain that Pol Pot would have wanted a smartphone, had they been available at the time.
Pol Pot knows it is good to be the king.
Pol Pot was also a total hypocrite.
A product of the Cambodian privileged elite, with a head full of ideological nonsense.
That's the norm for most leaders with low accountability.