"The machines themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines."

- God Emperor of Dune, Frank Herbert (a prescient book on social feedback loops, my favourite in the series)

> Our main way of relating ourselves to others is like things relate themselves to things on the market. We want to exchange our own personality, or as one says sometimes, our "personality package", for something.

-- Erich Fromm ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu-7UDT0Xe4&t=1m34s )

> The danger of computers becoming like humans is not as great as the danger of humans becoming like computers.

-- Konrad Zuse

And when Picasso said that computers are useless because they only provide answers, was he just being witty, or pointing at an abyss, knowingly or not?

Ironically applies to both Kalanick & the investors!

Any of us could inflict real damage or destruction on our surroundings especially while driving but that doesn't mean we have "control" over them.

Insofar none of us would want to suffer the consequences of such acts we cannot truly say we are capable of carrying them out.

It is what we mean when we claim someone is "incapable of <x>" such as murder. It does not mean they do not physically possess the means, but rather that they lack the psychological impetus to do so.

So a person who is psychologically capable of murdering has more control over me than one who isn't, and both are less in control than, say, a tsunami? Maybe, but neither can get at things I give freely to a friend? Control is the incapability of either friendship or self-defense, in my opinion, so yes, in a way always it requires numbing or killing something or someone. Leashes transform those on both ends.

"So a person who is psychologically capable of murdering has more control over me than one who isn't,"

More relevantly, a person who is both capable and willing to restrict your freedoms, potentially even unto death, has more control over you than a person who doesn't.

This isn't abstract theory. This is a description of "government". Would you pay any attention to the people claiming to be "the government" if they didn't have credible mechanisms for backing up their demands?

It is preferable that government not be solely founded on this power relation. It shouldn't be considered "sufficient" for good government. But it is certainly "necessary".

Relevant wikipedia article on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

It's why "non-coercive government" is an oxymoron.

Note: downvotes are not a rebuttal. Not that I think that it's possible to dispute that statement by means other than "I'd like the world to work differently", but if someone were prepared to offer an argument, that would redound far more to their credit. And if you think I'm wrong, don't let me dangle in ignorance, otherwise I'm liable to keep saying such things.

The original quote does fall apart, as most quotes do, upon closer inspection.

Say you can kill a man, but irregardless of the threat to their life said man would refuse any and all of your orders, who can then be said to have 'control'?

In the end control means the ability to influence outcomes. There are many metrics, and for some choice of metric the capability of destruction is control.

The original Dune quote makes perfect sense in context. Paul was talking about destroying the spice supply by making Arrakis barren of sandworms. "Control" in this context is control of the spice, specifically being able to control there being none at all.