Besides, fascism grows by the day everywhere around the world, in rich and intelectualized societies no less (or moreso.) The 60's have called and want their ideals back. The saddest part? People who lived through that are getting beyond old any day now. And when their first-hand reminiscence has gone? It'll fall upon the 80's children and oh! how soon we forget. There are those who'll stand by Stallman, Wozniak and those who'll stand by Jobs, Gates, Bezos or Graham but I'm just being mean-spirited now. Well really, the first three off the latter group look starkly more like your run-of-the-mill fascist if creatively visualized not in the private but in the public sphere, being granted whimsical wishes by an unprincipled society.
It all boils down to MIT vs. GPL for us, doesn't it? Hacker, know thyself.
Fascism is 'you have to know somebody or be approved or you get the stick for being troublesome to the ruling parties'. While entrenching power in individuals who could pull up the drawbridge and go more controlled with regulatory capture it would be fair to say it is not start up culture at that point, not as a No True Scottsman sense. This is not a dodge of any hypothetical guilt. The policies and ethos may have lead to that outcome but the phases are very distinct - there is a difference between a family passing on their trade and a caste system even if the first may eventually lead to the later.
I’m South American, and I’m curious about what you mean by this.
Also, I wouldn't call the Bay Area "minimal-regulation".
I doubt it. What's your evidence for this?
> South American politics bending over to the american way of life--a foregone notion
What does this mean?
I was just about to edit that comment to make it more explicit, that the american way of life is the foregone notion, not bending over to the US. People keep bending over to the US, the right-wing of South America has mostly always done that, and what it means is that they think the American Way of doing politics brings prosperity and a good economy. And what I mean by foregone notion is that the current good economy of the US is an illusion. The society is sick and degrading. The economy keeps going strong, apparently. But it can't last, because a weak society can't make an economy strong, disillusioned young people can't keep creating extraordinary value for much longer (5, 10 years?) The economy is still good because of inertia, but something is broken in good old America, what used to work in the golden age of the past century isn't holding up well behind the stages, even if the show appears to go on for now.
Far-right does not mean libertarianism. To use the word in that way while knowing its authoritarian connotations is insincere.
> People outside the US are being deluded into thinking libertarianism will solve economic woes, among other harebrained solutions.
What is "delusional" and "harebrained" about libertarian policies?
> People keep bending over to the US, the right-wing of South America has mostly always done that, and what it means is that they think the American Way of doing politics brings prosperity and a good economy.
What constitutes "the right-wing of South America"? What do you mean by "the American Way"?
> The society is sick and degrading.
Can you be more specific?
Think of all those FAANG engineers and startup founders who aren’t going to go quietly from their upper middle class incomes and RSUs/ISOs, regardless of the cost to society.
Their big data sets coupled with their algorithms used for sorting and targeting people based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, political beliefs, etc. could be used to enable the most powerful fascist dictator in history.
It wouldn't be the first time it happened:
Like all powerful technology, I don't think trying to ban it is the answer. Rather, stronger regulation over how it's allowed to be used.
So you don't think weapons of mass destruction should be banned?
How do you think we should regulate these tools?
Im worried that lawmakers cannot/will not truly appreciate the imminent danger of having billions of the most detailed psychological profiles in history stored in a hackable database until a major attack occurs.
In a police state, it’s good to be the police.
The more you have to offer to totalitarianism, the more reason to be coerced in all sorts of ways. Loyalty is not enough, even the most loyal must be broken on principle. In the end, one might end up doing stuff so loved ones don't get horribly tortured, while pretending to do it for X and Y reasons, but it won't really be for those reasons (anymore). And that will fester and eat at a person, some way or another.
Even Stalin and Hitler both kinda ended like dogs. None of them were ever as happy and genuinely proud (by genuine I mean not in some alienated, hysterical, infantile way) as, say, Sophie Scholl, even though she was imprisoned and murdered. They did get the shitty end of the deal, in a sense. They could kill people, but that didn't make themselves more alive. And they were damaged long before they damaged anyone else, that goes with the territory. You don't even get to be a "police state cop", not a small time one, and not a leader, with intact humanity.
> Hobbes was the true, though never fully recognized, philosopher of the bourgeoisie because he realized that acquisition of wealth conceived as a never-ending process can be guaranteed only by the seizure of political power, for the accumulating process must sooner or later force open all existing territorial limits. He foresaw that a society which had entered the path of never-ending acquisition had to engineer a dynamic political organization capable of a corresponding never-ending process of power generation. He even, through sheer force of imagination, was able to outline the main psychological traits of the new type of man who would fit into such a society and its tyrannical body politic. He foresaw the necessary idolatry of power itself by this new human type, that he would be flattered at being called a power-thirsty animal, although actually society would force him to surrender all his natural forces, his virtues and his vices, and would make him the poor meek little fellow who has not even the right to rise against tyranny, and who, far from striving for power, submits to any existing government and does not stir even when his best friend falls an innocent victim to an incomprehensible raison d'etat.
> For a Commonwealth based on the accumulated and monopolized power of all its individual members necessarily leaves each person powerless, deprived of his natural and human capacities. It leaves him degraded into a cog in the power-accumulating machine, free to console himself with sublime thoughts about the ultimate destiny of this machine, which itself is constructed in such a way that it can devour the globe simply by following its own inherent law.
-- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
> If the ability to tell right from wrong should have anything to do with the ability to think, then we must be able to "demand" its exercise in every sane person no matter how erudite or ignorant.
-- Hannah Arendt, "The Life of the Mind: The Groundbreaking Investigation on How We Think"
It's not that we don't have a good analysis. I would even say what needs to be done, at least on an individual level, kinda fits on a stamp, the trouble is that our courage and honesty do, too.