new | show | ask | jobs Github

philipallstar 2 days ago

Meaning it's not permanent.

▲

rbanffy a day ago | parent | next [-]

You can also get killed by a meteor. It’s just unlikely.

▲

saagarjha 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The idea is that it becomes permanent in the future.

▲

naravara 2 days ago | parent [-]

The more abstract the “wealth” becomes the less it means in practical terms. The class dynamics around money mostly has to do with the State actively preserving and protecting claims over assets. If that same wealth becomes sufficiently concentrated with an overclass that it leeches away the competence and legitimacy of the State, then the underclass has other means of correcting the gap and establishing a more sustainable equilibrium.

▲

cybercatgurrl a day ago | parent | next [-]

you hit the nail on the head. the less wealthy a government the more poor its poorest citizens are because it doesn’t have the money to invest in their wellbeing. the solution has and always will be taxes

▲

bitmasher9 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The traditional means of reestablishing equilibrium are becoming more and more infeasible as state defenses and tactics improve. We are rapidly approaching a time when the asymmetric attacks on state protections traditionally used are less effective than the information asymmetry that the state can enforce. Hong Kong is a great example of these defenses leveraged effectively.

	▲	naravara 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s possible, but I know people felt the same during prior technological revolutions like the advent of broadcast media (which fascist movements took too with great enthusiasm). I think people are clever, we learn from every failure and adapt.