[quote=@catchamber] Politics is not inherently violent, and you don't need a violent revolution to repair the violence of the status quo. There is a high probability that a violent revolution can undermine its own noble goals, and establish a more violent system than what you started with.[/quote] It's a possibility. But there is a high probability that a non-violent revolution wasn't a revolution at all, but simply a matter of the powers that be allowing a few changes to protect from the possibility of real large scale change. [quote]Just because total automation can replace conventional farming doesn't mean the latter will cease to exist. Some people will prefer traditional methods, simply because it appeals to their personal aesthetics.[/quote] Yes, but those people will be in a comfortable position where they can make their preferences happen, even if it requires them to take a loss. I'm talking about the changes that happen at the bottom of the food chain to the people who don't have much of a choice in the matter. [quote]I don't see automation rapidly outcompeting every traditional model in every market. Even if it did, people will suddenly be able to get many high quality goods at very low prices, allowing them to pursue economic activity unrelated to survival. Algorithms may be able to make art, but some people will simply choose to compensate human artists. On top of this, a vast amount of educational resources will be accessible to the majority of humanity, allowing them to focus their efforts on continuous improvement of existing technologies.[/quote] I agree with the first sentence, but that's the problem. If automation killed employment in a decade, we would be forced to figure it out. Instead, automation has came about like the boiling water to the frog. We don't notice it because it happens gradually, and when we see the causes we start looking for other problems. I'm afraid people will spend their lives being impoverished before the slow-burn of automation finally reaches the point where post scarcity makes some sort of socialistic society inevitable. [quote]They still retain the right to refuse them service, and can exclude them from their economic choices that provide mutual prosperity to those with compatible worldviews.[/quote] But they don't have the property to make that happen. One little pertinent fact about Marxist economics is that Marx thought early American was not a capitalist society for exactly this reason. Because most people were small-time farmers and therefore owned their own means of production, they approached the market as individuals capable of bargaining. Capitalism happened when the farmers gave way to industrial workers who did not have the ability to negotiate because, lacking the means of production, they didn't have a way to live without the approval of the business men. To go back to the tractor guy making his neighbors unemployed, what do those neighbors do? Sure, they could refuse to purchase from tractor guy, but tractor guy doesn't care because he sells his goods on a national market. Your unemployed neighbors boycotting you? Fuck'em, sell your goods in the city. Neighbors won't talk to you in church? Fuck'em, go make new friends in the town next door. Those unemployed neighbors have no recourse because they have no power to bargain. And at the end of the day they have to buy food from somebody (if they can afford it), and chances are that person will be another dude with a tractor. [quote]First, organizations that seek to end hunger can pool together resources to provide the systems and its byproducts to those in need. Second, if you create a greenhouse or vertical farm with reflective and hydrophobic surfaces, accelerate crop growth with carbon dioxide collected through ionic smog vacuums, internally recycle water and purify inputted seawater through solar thermal, gather solar thermal steam and molten salt power, acquire condensation based hydroelectricity that connects to subsurface drip irrigation, and stack FarmBots on shelves, you can maximize the amount of food for a given volume. If you live in an apartment, you've voluntarily sacrificed living space for proximity to an urbanized community, which makes it your problem.[/quote] That's nice, but it is utopian. We already have the resources necessary to end world hunger, that we don't is evidence that it won't happen in this current system. [quote]I haven't done research regarding such movements, so I'm assuming none of them exist. Maybe we could work together to draft legislation for this?[/quote] Income caps get talked about. In the United States this is presented as a 100% tax on the top-most tax bracket. When people hear that, they think we are taking all the money from the rich people, because people don't understand our tax system. Currently the top most bracket is people who make $419,000 a year. A 100% tax on the top most bracket would mean that a person who makes $819,000 a year would pay taxes on the first $419,000 as they typically do, but the entirety of the next $400,000 would automatically go to the government since all money above that $419,000 is taxed at 100%. At present, the tax on this income is theoretically 40%, though there are a shit load of tax breaks available to people at that level of income. This, incidentally, is why Trump won't release his tax forms. I have no doubt he has kept that shit legal, but if people actually saw how many breaks he gets, there would be even more anger in the streets. [quote]The internet has expanded the amount of information available to consumers, as well as their economic options. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find out who is and isn't worth compensating. [/quote] I know some of this. The thing is that wages are at least partially based on the cost of living, and I'm an average working dude, so my ability to afford ethical shopping is limited. Like I said though, I do what I can. I buy what I can from the farmers market, try to avoid big box stores, etc. But there are limitations here. Between the cost of living and the fact that finding many items that are not produced in sweat shop conditions is a fucking nightmare. [quote]Such is the case for some political progress, but that doesn't mean those wanting a better world should stoop to the level of mutually assured conflict. It's very counterproductive, and should only be reserved as a completely last resort.[/quote] At what point does this mean that an afflicted party cannot fight back? [quote]In that case, I'll bring up your reference to the Glorious Revolution allegedly being a bloodless revolution, as evidence to the contrary of your claim.[/quote] Because the definition of violence has moved around a few times during this conversation. I don't believe anybody died over it, but property was definitely confiscated. Remember we were talking about workers reclaiming property from the wealthy, not guillotines. [quote]Would you like me to provide a detailed analysis as to how an individual can be completely self-sufficient with modern technology? I can see how that's an amusing thought, but I'd gladly pay a one-time fee to suddenly acquire the means to be completely independent from the rest of society.[/quote] Still need the land. Also, I feel like we are really talking about how people who are already in a comfortable positions can retire from society. I'm more worried about the disenfranchised masses. If we were all middle class and capable of buying shit loads of machines that made every one of us self sufficient, I wouldn't be too concerned about the state of things. [quote]However, the society you described would be well within their rights to forcibly redistribute the entirety of one's private property, even if it resulted in their death. One could be the most charitable person on the planet, and such a society could doom them to death simply by overriding their right to personal property with a majority vote. Not only do I find this horrifying, it's also a dangerous tool that can be used by manipulative people and groups to oppress society.[/quote] But is it less horrifying that a guy can freeze to death homeless just a block from an empty house because of the way we handle private property? I recognize that there are no utopias under the sun, but I think the democratic system is comparatively less horrifying than the aristocratic one.