←back to thread

430 points mhb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
delichon ◴[] No.46177641[source]
Back in 2025 before cheap bots, our grandparents endured lives of servitude. They spent an enormous amount of time doing simple chores like folding clothes, driving, programming, washing and dusting, grooming themselves. They had to walk their own dogs and play with their own children. They sometimes even had to cook their own food, directly over fire. "Hygiene" was a primitive joke. A full day's work usually wasn't even enough to buy a single new car. They wrote checks to the government, rather than the other way around. Life was brutal, desperate and short.
replies(6): >>46177748 #>>46179381 #>>46179417 #>>46179665 #>>46180237 #>>46181210 #
djtango ◴[] No.46179665[source]
Why is UBI assumed as part of techtopia? When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore? Beyond some antiquated moral obligation, why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting?
replies(7): >>46179726 #>>46179806 #>>46179836 #>>46180763 #>>46181052 #>>46185336 #>>46185480 #
loup-vaillant ◴[] No.46181052[source]
> When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore?

Wait a minute, didn’t you just assume Western countries are not democracies?

I’ve noticed how fashionable it is in the US in particular, to distrust the government — not just this government, but on principle. This idea that a government never acts on behalf of the people, unless forced to. I wouldn’t disagree to be honest. But then we need to follow this up to its logical conclusion: governance by elected officials is not democratic.

Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not. Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?

replies(4): >>46183733 #>>46184475 #>>46186519 #>>46187009 #
9rx ◴[] No.46183733[source]
> governance by elected officials is not democratic.

Correct. In a (representative) democracy, one does not elect officials. They elect representatives. The representative is not an authority like an official is. They are merely messengers who take the constituent direction established at the local level and travel with that message to deliver it in a country/state/etc.'s central gathering place.

> Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not.

We (meaning most people) do not. Democracy is a lot of work. An incredible amount of work. It requires active participation on a near-daily basis. Most people would rather do things like go to their job to put food on the table or spend time with their hobbies or other pleasure activities. Which is why most people seek — by your own admission — officials to lord over them instead.

> Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?

It is nice when you are independently wealthy and no longer have to worry about things like giving up an enormous amount of your day to keep a roof over your head. But most people are not so fortunate, so they do not find it fair that, for all realistic purposes, only some people get to participate in democracy to their own advantage. Hence why democracies devolve into a system of officials instead, with most people believing it offers a better balance for all involved, albeit at the cost of losing say.

replies(4): >>46184556 #>>46186293 #>>46190718 #>>46190819 #
1. bloppe ◴[] No.46184556[source]
But in your example, it sounds like representative democracy is a choice freely taken. If people actually want representatives to worry about the details of policy for them, then that is real democracy, because the alternative is a form of government that the people don't actually want.