I'm an ex-libertarian and have moved to a more centrist position, but this is disingenuous. Libertarians generally want the right to make their own decisions and are anti-coercion. However, many of them are big believers in philanthropy and true voluntary social contracts - just not the kind enforced by the barrel of a gun.

They're not opposed to education or social services - just of funding them by force. It might seem like a small thing, but it's not - if a society could built that achieves high levels of education and prosperity without coercion, most people would think that's a good outcome.

Libertarians frequently believe this is possible. They might be wrong, but the attitude is not "let them eat cake" - it's "my life, my choice for what I do with it, take your hands off of me." But many or most believe in learning and prosperity.

What now though? Robots are better soldiers AND workers. Carnegie and Rockefeller were motivated by foreign competition to help people with education and social services. Rockefeller in particular focused his social services on birth control to reduce overpopulation because he saw little value in human life at the bottom of society.

Now that masses are simply not needed for anything, and the masses no longer are a military threat due to extreme military tech, the masses have no bargaining chips other than appealing to the humanity of the plutocrats.

And I fear that many of the plutocrats agree with Ayn Rand when she says, "I don't want your appeals to my better nature. Appeal to my self-interest."

How does someone with no money, no marketable skills, no way to afford education, no ability to exert physical power, continue to survive when the upper class only accepts appeals to their self-interest?

That's pretty interesting. Being European, I don't know much about US industrialists and US population policy. I'd like to learn more about this. Do you have books / articles you'd advise on this subject?

Appeal to enlightened self-interest is more powerful than appeal to someone's "better nature". Find the sweet spot where those two meet. It does happen (that those two things meet) and that's the target if you want meaningful, effective change. Rome had a policy of "bread and circus" -- to keep the masses fed and passively entertained in order to avoid rioting in the streets. I follow a similar policy in my household when facing difficult situations. It's very effective.

Rome had to avoid rioting because Rome didn't have tear gas.

China does not have to avoid rioting. They are comfortable with using tanks to kill thousands of unarmed protestors.

The circumstances have changed since Rome. Technology has changed them.

PS -- There are riots in London currently going on:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2861840

http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-...

PPS -- I've seen a couple of comments on HN indicating the rioters are staying ahead of the police using Blackberries. I find this funny given your remarks about how technology has changed things.

Which billionaires do not value unskilled human life? How many billionaires are their in the world? Are there really many, many of them that feel that way? Are they really all that selfish that they would happily destroy millions of lives? What does that benefit them?

Billionaires fund FOX News to indoctrinate the middle class and push them toward self-destruction. Which billionaires are funding universal liberal educations or a culture of empowerment?

By their actions the upper class is saying that they don't want a middle class. They are saying: if the middle class is so stupid to fall for Rupert Murdoch propaganda and Evangelical Christianity, then they deserve to be enslaved.

The alternative would be to fund liberal educations, fund free mental health services, fund enlightening media like PBS rather than saying, "If the middle class won't fund it it doesn't deserve to exist."

So many of the elite put all the burden on others. It's true that people should take care of themselves, but they don't. Mental illness is epidemic. Are the wealthy going to stand by and watch as the middle class implodes? Not all plutocrats are malicious, but the majority are indifferent, and their actions speak this.

I have no clue what a "culture of empowerment" is, but as to funding education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-to-donat...

Another billionaire was recently in the news for donating $40k to a Republican governor. He also donated $7M to PBS, $35M to educating people about evolution and $78M to educating people about science in general didn't make the news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch#Philanthropy

These are just a few that I can think of.

Peter Thiel also funds education, though probably not the sort of education you wish he would fund.

Conspicuously absent: - lowering cost of higher education - lowering cost of mental health services - lowering cost of land / rent

Literacy doesn't create a middle class. Higher education, mental health, and ownership of land does. These issues never seem to be touched by philanthropists because philanthropists are ambivalent about the middle class.

Peter Thiel is a total elitist by the way. He has no interest or love for uneducated, mentally ill masses and is just the kind of guy who would probably quote Ayn Rand when people are starving to death.

viva la revolution baby!

Robots do not just make better workers, they are also better warriors. How many Chinese peasants does it take to kill a single UAV? How many protestors can modern riot police crowd control using sophisticated psychological warfare combined with advanced nonlethal weaponry?

Once the violent, unskilled, uneducated, unmoneyed lawbreakers are rounded up by the riot police and thrown in jail... then what? The Chinese are not shy about executions. How about humane lethal injections for everyone?

Also, if 50% of people are unemployed there will be a lot of people who are employed who sympathise with them, so we are really talking about 80% plus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Number_of_deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

The OP said he "can't even believe that anyone could think of [mass murder]."

Think!

Lack of imagination, lack of historical awareness, or just plain willful ignorance?

Or perhaps I was just chose the wrong turn of phrase? No need to go on a pedantic nerd rage.

Of course people could think about it. Of course people have killed millions of people in the past.

What I was trying to say is that any sensible leader in a industrialised nation would not choose exterminating 50% of their population instead of than trying to affect social change.

Of course we could have another Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot who tries for genocide again. But killing 50% of your population is much different to killing 5%. Those 50% are going to have friends so you'd be up against 80-90% of the population. It would just be more sensible to try to redistribute wealth at that stage.

But yes, I'm sure whack jobs can think about these things and with modern weapons you could probably do it etc.

The "rich" people need the poor people. Without other classes, there is no rich. If everyone is in jail, who buys the goods?

What is money worth if there is no one to compare it to? If everyone is poor or in jail...why do you want money? For what? To do what? To drive a nice car that no one cares about because they can't afford food?

People are too quick to overestimate robotics and artificial intelligence. 100 years ago we were supposed to have flying cars, laser guns and teleportation. These were exaggerated views, just as ours are now.

I guess we have to hope that when the ability to completely automate warfare that the people in power aren't genocidal sociopaths.

If they didn't question the orders you would have to question whether they were brainwashed into thinking the fellow country men were deserving of attack.

A lot of militaries train their soldiers to not question the orders of their superiors. I believe the US military does allow a solider to question orders, but I would expect that it is not encouraged.

The Tiananmen square massacre was committed by the current Chinese government. Do you think they've grown a conscience in the last 20 years? Or does killing over a thousand (1,000) civilians agitating for Democracy just make it that much easier to kill a hundred thousand (100,000) civilians later on?

I think we are in agreement. I was just trying to clarify my comment above because I was confused as to why my previous comment had been down voted. +1 for you :-)