You're so optimistic to think the law would even be this fair. More like limit access to corporations as "the only custodians responsible enough to wield them", while still allowing the developing world to starve and further increasing their profit margins simultaneously to decreasing working wages and employment levels.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/False_Profits_(episode)
However, the more important point is that you can surely make money off of people by becoming their only source of food/money - i.e. they would starve without you, so they accept whatever trickle of resources you deign to assign. This is extraordinarily common throughout history, coupled with a threat of violence that all states use.
If you the only source, there is a reason for that, usually because you are shooting people who try to leave.
I'll cite a counter for you. The US was the first country in the world to eliminate the specter of famine (around 1800). Free labor was the distinguishing ingredient, not slave labor. (The slaves at the time were used to primarily farm cotton and tobacco.) The average height of Americans increased dramatically throughout the 19th century. Scores of millions of Americans arrived in America as paupers and moved into the middle class.
The economic machine of America was fueled by free labor, not starving people.
You've reduced slavery to a parenthetical. Where do you think the cotton and tobacco went? Where do you think the money came from? Where do you think it got spent?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-ec...
The Rebel army was barefoot, because Southern industry could not even make shoes. The reason that Lee was in Gettysburg was to loot the shoe factory at nearby Harrisburg.
Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
> was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of
The Civil War destroyed what there was of the Southern wealth, literally burning it to the ground.
"made the South its most prosperous region"
That's just nonsense. Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865, and you'll see the stark difference in prosperity. Railroads latticed the North, far outstripping mileage in the South.
> Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America?
They weren't there precisely because slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize.
> Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
The south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery.
> Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865
Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings, and instead we have census data.
Do you really think that photos and paintings are all lies?
> Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.
I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously.
> slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize
Or that one. Sorry.
The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.
My argument summed up is that slavery was a "local maximum" that A) generated an enormous amount of wealth early on, and was thus a crucial factor in developing the American economy, even if it was no longer the main driver of wealth by the time of the civil war, and B) made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
It's clear which strategy wins long term, I don't think that's a debate. I should have phrased my earlier comment better, sorry.
The violent coercion is key, not starvation. Isn't it interesting that every example of an abuse by free markets actually turns out to be the government doing it? The anti-chinese laws, debt slavery, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.? It's almost as if these things won't happen with free markets!
> generated an enormous amount of wealth
I dispute that. Slavery was dying out in the US by 1800 (as evidenced by its disappearance in the northern states). The cotton gin revived it, but only for cotton, and it was dying out again by the time of the Civil War. The South though the North needed its cotton, but the North was importing it from Egypt. Egyptian cotton (not raised by slaves) was cheaper even including shipping it across the Atlantic.
> made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
So they sent their money north to found industries? That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't they invest locally, and get more slaves to work them, if slavery was so enormously profitable?
Slavery is terribly inefficient. First of all, your slaves hate you. They will work as little as they can get away with. They'll sabotage anything they can get away with. They'll piss in your oatmeal. They'll kill you if they can. You have to employ armed guards at all time. You have to provide cradle to grave care for them. They are expensive to buy. If your slaves don't have the right skills, selling them and buying ones with the right skills is far less efficient than just hiring a plumber. And so on.
The Nazis had all these problems with their slave labor war production. Sabotage by those workers was a constant issue.
Government instrumentalized to serve the interests of the wealthy elites, that is. So at the end of the day, it's the latter who are "doing" it.
The practice back in those days were to advertise inflated wages for a job in remote areas. People then traveled there, only to find out that food and living costs, all under the control of the company, were also inflated to the point where even a full working day would results in debt when subtracting food and living costs. People who tried to flee was prevented from doing so under the argument that they tried to escape acquired debt. The fines for smuggling food was also extreme, since food costs was the primary way that the companies held control over their debt slaves.
This practice was so vile that many countries created laws directly targeting it, including changes to inheritance so that debt would not follow from parent to child.
I.e. the government is doing it.
Ok, cite an example where the conditions are just about starving, rather than being forced to work under the lash or at gunpoint.
The majority of the Chinese immigrants were male, many having left wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and future spouses at home in China. Foreign miner taxes in California, often aimed squarely at Chinese immigrants, prevented them from staking mining claims, which in turn forced them to look for opportunities elsewhere.
The CPRR hired an initial group of 50 Chinese workers that in short time dispelled the negative assumptions held by some CPRR managers. They fostered a reputation of strength, efficiency, and reliability. More Chinese workers would be hired and they held a variety of jobs: laborers, foremen, contractors, masons, carpenters, cooks, teamsters, interpreters, and medical professionals. Even so, racial inequalities persisted. Chinese workers were paid an average of 30% less than their white counterparts. They were segregated in work camps and had to pay for their own lodging, food, supplies, and equipment.
The disparity came to a head on June 24th, 1867, when all Chinese railroad workers from Cisco to Truckee, California, a 30 miles section of track, stopped work.
Confrontation, Threats -- and a Bloodless Resolution
After a week's worth of lean rations had settled upon the men, Charles Crocker returned to the work camps. He dictated the options as he saw them: wages and hours were immutable. If the hungry Chinese workers returned to work immediately they would only be fined, but if they continued on strike they would not get paid for the whole month of June.
Motivated by malnutrition, most men agreed to return to work
Numerous other examples in colonial history.
http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-co...
Yes you can, by coercing them in various legal and illegal ways. Your original comment was just the one quoted sentence above. It is not correct.
There are a lot of ways to profit from suffering. And sometimes it's not even about profit—it can just feel so good to have an Other to oppress.
History shows us that if you want to force starving people to work for you, you also need to shoot the people who refuse. See the Soviet gulags, and the Nazi slave labor camps.
History shows us that slave labor cannot compete with free labor. It's the reason the Confederacy seceded from the Union - to protect their slave economy which was becoming increasingly unprofitable from the competition. It's also the reason why communist forced labor failed to compete with free markets.
Ya know, employing people who hate you just isn't going to get them to work very effectively.
Only in response to posts that extol the virtues of collectivism and/or how bad freedom is. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it :-)
> Tell me your secrets Walter
Too bad it seems to be a secret that free markets are far more successful. My dad was a finance professor at a college in his later years. He said students would tell him from time to time that they had never heard of a case for free markets before. Isn't that amazing for people that lived their whole life in a free market country?
I remember one person complained to me that I was "ramming freedom down his throat!" It boggles the mind.
Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
Dang has been very clear on that, many times - whatever he "knows about you".
You really think it's "impossible" for a corporation with Star Trek replicator tech to profit from starving people? ... And that was the right time to fight "the virtues of collectivism"? You are trampling curiousity, and have admitted as much, and now you really ought to consider giving it a rest.
That goes for both sides, every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade, at that time the gloves are off and it is free to engage with them. You can see it in this thread where people started out by trash talking capitalism, at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines even if you do it in every thread where people start attacking capitalism.
Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often, since they are almost always the instigators.
That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades.
> at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines
No, I don't think the spirit of the guidelines is to permit "ideological battles" as long as "someone else starts it". The clear intent of the guidelines is to discourage ideological crusade altogether.
> Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often
'Selective enforcement'. Your argument suggests that it's okay to defend capitalism in response to criticism, but doesn't extend the same courtesy to those criticizing capitalism.
> since they are almost always the instigators.
A generalization without any evidence. Also, capitalism is currently the dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of economic systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism.
I think your comment shows severe bias and an adversarial approach to discussion. Maybe you could form an appreciation for the spirit of fostering curiosity and constructive dialogue that is promoted here.
I had no idea when I started this thread with a throwaway quip about future historians and Star Trek that (besides being one of my highest voted comments) it would veer off into this 70+ reply monstrosity about slavery and communism. HN commenters take things in wild directions, and I seem to have violated the no-flamewar rule unintentionally. For that I am sorry.
It would be nice to be able to discuss the multitude of possible economic power structures unlike the ones we have today, without someone always barreling in on a crusade against communism (which I never even mentioned nor support myself). This discussion doesn't seem possible when people insist on a false dilemma.
If someone made the same remark about non-democratic political systems, would you say the same thing? "Democracy is the current dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of political systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism." I doubt it. I think some honesty is useful: you want to criticize capitalism but you don't want someone to defend it, you want a space to criticize it. I think if you're going to criticize capitalism then you need to be willing to fend with someone willing to defend it. It's fair game. It may seem unfair, but just like we hold onto our values of democracy tightly so some hold onto their values of capitalism.
If you want a space specifically to criticize capitalism, there are plenty on the internet, and HN isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure you can throw a pebble randomly at literally any Bluesky English poster or Mastodon instance and you'll find one though.
It's neither political nor ideological, any more than science is political or ideological. It's factual backed up with an endless panoply of history.
I also never start those threads. Maybe your complaint should be directed at who initiated them?
Then there are the genocidal militias employed by US companies to keep people from unionising, the genocidal treatment of indonesians, and so on.
Maybe you can cite examples of it working?
It's legal to start a commune in the US. Why not give it a try? Report back to us how it goes!
> conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol)
I do, because collectivism means you do not own the fruits of your labor. I bet you'd be outraged if I helped myself to some of your stuff that I decided you didn't need.
Feel free to downvote me all you like, Taylor!
Anarcho-communism advocates for a stateless, classless society where resources are shared equally, and decisions are made collectively. It emphasizes freedom from hierarchical structures and promotes it is the very good website for info . http://cabinetrystock.com/ direct democracy. This contrasts with the common portrayal of communism as authoritarian, a view largely stemming from the practices of historical states that identified as communist.
History shows us that you can build Pyramids and the Chinese wall with slave labor, probably not affordable with "free labor". But maybe we should also look at "modern slavery" that is "free labor" but without any chance to get another job or get reported to the police.
>it's about forcible slave labor, forced with guns and whips.
Worked incredible well for Belgium, and works incredible well for every warlord in west-Africa...and for us (>bloody< cheap raw-materials for our phones)
I know what you want to say with it, forcing specialized people with whips isn't going to give you good results in the long run, however if you just need their joules it's shockingly effective.
Does it?
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t slaves who built the pyramids. We know this because archaeologists have located the remains of a purpose-built village for the thousands of workers who built the famous Giza pyramids, nearly 4,500 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#Great...
>Slaves were a constant presence in ancient Egypt. Starting with the Old Kingdom (2613 - 2181 BC), slaves took on different roles. Some became soldiers, others scribes.
https://www.worldatlas.com/ancient-world/were-slaves-used-to...
>Does it?
Yes it does, or do you have another argument against the Chinese wall or Belgium for example? Do you really want to argue against the fact that slaves did (and do) the hardest, most back-breaking jobs?
In terms of quality you are right, in terms of quantity you are wrong (in the past), but in this day and age replacing people (slaves) with machines changes the whole thing again.
So yes, free labor with specialized people and specialized machines and cheap energy is the most competitive.
That's not free labor. It's government coercion, again.
> Worked incredible well for Belgium
???
> works incredible well for every warlord in west-Africa
None of them have been able to compete in the free market.
That was the definition of "modern slaves", HOW you force people to be slaves is really not important.
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
>???
Rubber -> Car-tires from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
>None of them have been able to compete in the free market.
If you can sell your good's at the cheapest prices you compete very well in the "free market", there is also coltan in Brazil, Australia and China, but DRC sells the cheapest.
https://globalforestcoalition.org/the-dark-side-of-technolog...
They are at best a hazard.
The Chinese government dumped tons of money into every one of those cars, they are being sold at a loss. Not because it's good for any one, rather because china fucked up.
Every single one of those cars is a state funded fire hazard about to go on the road.
A lot of people in the west have a vested interest in discrediting Chinese manufacturing but if we put our heads in the sand and refuse to see what is really happening they’re just going to pass us by.
Note that basically every automobile producing country puts government money in to that industry so highlighting that China is doing it is on its own meaningless.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/byd/dolphin/50011 Hmm, that's a pretty good score. Is this version different?
https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/electric-car-f...
The data we see from china: https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101781161/there-are-about...
The anti china reporting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKpCiDomgM
Edit: it's a battery fire, so lithium, a metal. It does not go out. You just let it burn till it's done being angry. The Chinese ones are doing it at random. Sometimes with people in the car.
The Chinese government cant even keep it under wraps with how bad it is. If you pay attention to Chinese news there's a few of them every week. And thats the ones we hear about, mostly because the were spontaneous, or in buildings/gargages, or people die.
Go look it's hard to fuckin miss.
The US tariffs are not even officially claimed to have anything to do with safety, but everything to do with industrial competition.
Without statistics I’m totally unmoved by even a long list of Chinese examples as the same can be produced here too. And Teslas have killed plenty of people due to faulty self driving software!
https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/08/tesla-under-investigation-...
I order my PCBAs from JLCPCB in China and they’re about 1/10th the cost of ordering something from the USA. But you can watch a factory tour, it’s not some horrible labor conditions it’s huge highly automated machines: https://youtu.be/jTBOSob5MLg
They just invested more than we did.
So maybe their labor conditions are still worse than ours, by some amount, but it’s more than just saving on labor that got their prices low.
> But you can watch a factory tour, it’s not some horrible labor conditions it’s huge highly automated machines: https://youtu.be/jTBOSob5MLg
Rhetorical question but do you really believe they would be allowed to publish anything showing a human rights violation on youtube?
To get this footage he probably had to agree that all footage has to be reviewed by the company. There is no way they green light anything that makes them look bad. I would not be shocked if a party official had to be there to make sure he only shows the great side of everything.
Did the Chinese government help invest in that production capacity? I don’t know probably, but I think the US should be doing that too so my point that we failed to invest still stands.
The point is, it’s not some evil communist plot to undercut us. They just actually invested in manufacturing and that’s what I’m trying to show with the video. Seriously click through it. There’s a lot of large high throughput automated machines there! There is no equivalent to that facility in the USA that I have ever heard of. Probably big companies like Intel have some impressive machinery but this is a job shop where anyone with $5 can place an order for PCBs. And I seriously doubt this is some North Korean style propaganda show where a bunch of slave labor is hidden behind a door. This factory is a state of the art PCB fabrication facility that gets cheap prices due to investment in capacity. They’re not cheating. They just actually invested and we’ve failed to catch up.
Either way, this is the consequences of letting corporations lobby to stifle innovation. They wanted short term money and we're all paying the price.
Your argument doesn't even make sense: in the first part you say yes, we need national support for this sector of the economy, while a few words later you say that China is cheating by giving support to the same sector.
Something like this already happens with housing and NIMBYism.
No.1 in jobless, fat and addicted peoples. You need the full Star Trek experience/mindset before you introduce unlimited everything. Also the first thing that would be produced are weapons, drugs and food....and everything sex.
Your idea has been tried over and over. It just makes things worse, far worse.
When a book can be readily transformed into audiobook, or even a song, a movie and anime, a sketch, a scientific diag or anything else, how you define property in that environment? Pretty impossible.
I think a useful analogy is when we lived in caves. A cave is given as is, no way to transform it, to evolve it and optimize it. As long as we found new ways to create an enclosure, then technology advancement really took off. Houses made of rocks, clay, concrete, wood started popping off everywhere.
The same way with books. A printed book is not transformed to anything else really. As long as written words can be represented in a more flexible way, then they are on to the race for technology advancement.
It is absolutely essential that we deploy this technology safely and responsibly, with appropriate guardrails in place.
Therefore we have gated all access behind our API. You can’t sign up from a VPN, and must provide a phone number and strong identity-linked payment card to receive an API key. Anonymous use for research or controversial applications is thus impossible. Contact your sales rep for a limit increase if you find yourself regularly rate limited. Requests for all teas, including earl grey, do not count against your rate limit.
Naturally, there are certain prompts that we must prohibit, for legal or regulatory reasons. Our health and safety team has extensive documentation on the knowledge base about what is and is not permitted under our Community Guidelines, which were not created or endorsed by the community and are hard and fast rules, not guidelines at all. We reserve the right to apply these at our sole discretion, and there is no appeal.
You will receive the appropriately coded 4xx errors from the API when requesting any pharmaceuticals (speak to your doctor) or potentially poisonous flora.
Our products cannot be used to break the laws in your jurisdiction. Please do not request champagne, parmiggano-reggiano, roquefort, or any other DOP-restricted items. Attempts to circumvent this blocking via synthesizing specific aromatics or flavors may result in a protected IP strike against your account.
Placing orders for certain precursors will result in an immediate termination of services. Do not attempt to evade a ban using multiple accounts, as this may result in your IP range or country being blocked from our API.
Do not use our service to manufacture explosives, regardless of whether or not it’s legal in your jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not you are licensed to use, store, and handle explosives, regardless of whether or not they’re just sidewalk snaps for your kids. We don’t understand nuance or personal responsibility, only liability.
Personal accounts are restricted from producing liquid and solid fuels and fuel sources. Contact sales if you wish to create an organization account for your enterprise (per-user and fleet size license charges may apply).
When agreeing to our terms of service, you must waive your right to a jury trial and agree only to binding arbitration. No class actions either.
For quality and training purposes, your complete order history will be stored in our database forever. We reserve the right to use your ordering history and taste preferences to improve the service, offer you tailored experiences from us or our partners, or to disclose it for regulatory, research, law enforcement requests, or national security purposes, or to protect us from potential liability.
History shows the labor unions and leftists would also be against replicators. We see that today with how people are very against AI advancements that would put artists out of jobs, they would rather halt progress than lose their jobs.
Of course corporations that stand to lose out are also against it, but don't kid yourself labor movements are just as greedy and anti progress when progress would inconvenience them.
Only because the rich would exploit the replicators and would leave everyone else in the dust starving.
Nobody would have a problem with it, if you could survive on them.
I’ve been thinking for a while about how historians will view our chunk of history and it ain’t too good.
There will be some bright spots, but for the most part humans have been behaving pretty terribly, at scale, since harnessing the power of electricity.
If Star Trek Replicators were invented today, we're so stupid we'd outlaw them.