Marxism was theoretically all about the workers. But, as Hayek pointed out, all collectivism turns into totalitarianism, finally. This is the same point that Arendt made when we focus on the logic of one idea (such as "stay safe") to the exclusion of all others: this infected both Nazism and Stalinism.
Marxism was theoretically all about the workers. But, as Hayek pointed out, all collectivism turns into totalitarianism, finally. This is the same point that Arendt made when we focus on the logic of one idea (such as "stay safe") to the exclusion of all others: this infected both Nazism and Stalinism.
I don't think it's really about class struggle as the central point. I think it's about the recognition that there's huge profit and control to be had if rapidly-expanding technology can become part and parcel of people's lives, with the government's blessing and with the moral justification of "staying safe" (from germs, global warming, etc.: manufactured threats.) They want technology to expand into and intrude into our lives, as this is where the money will be made and control will be had.
Imagining how exponentially technology will have grown in a mere 20 years, they have a point.
I believe part of the solution is building legal shields against that intrusion into our lives; this starts with making the individual sovereign in their own lives in a scheme akin to subsidiarity (which can be read as a doctrine of non-interference) with firm shields placed against institutional, government, or G3P interference into affairs they have no business in. Thus informed consent becomes the absolute and irrevocable basis of a world that can counter the desire to monitor and manage the human race.
Technology will advance, yes. But there are great dangers as it intrudes into and becomes merged with our own lives in ways secretive and beyond our consent: such ways should face very heavy penalties. They should be forbidden. We the people need to be able to say "no" without penalty, recognizing our basic right to live our lives as we see fit.
Should is good. But should is all very well. At present you literally CAN'T say no to the inescapable radiofrequency radiation emitted by cell towers, the neighbours' WiFi etc (well you can try, but by now everyone is so addicted to the technology that you won't get much support -- until the 5G towers suddenly appearing feet from your bedroom make your house uninhabitable and your property value in the tank). And you can't say no to the cloud seeding ("justified" by the "climate crisis"), which sprays toxic chemicals literally all over you, your water and soil. And it's increasingly difficult to say no to a variety of toxic agrichemicals that contaminate your food, or to bureaucrats 'dressed in a little brief authority' who slam you in jail for saying no to a plethora of stupid new rules and regulations .... Yes friends, this really is WWIII.
Marxism was theoretically all about the workers. But, as Hayek pointed out, all collectivism turns into totalitarianism, finally. This is the same point that Arendt made when we focus on the logic of one idea (such as "stay safe") to the exclusion of all others: this infected both Nazism and Stalinism.
I don't think it's really about class struggle as the central point. I think it's about the recognition that there's huge profit and control to be had if rapidly-expanding technology can become part and parcel of people's lives, with the government's blessing and with the moral justification of "staying safe" (from germs, global warming, etc.: manufactured threats.) They want technology to expand into and intrude into our lives, as this is where the money will be made and control will be had.
Imagining how exponentially technology will have grown in a mere 20 years, they have a point.
I believe part of the solution is building legal shields against that intrusion into our lives; this starts with making the individual sovereign in their own lives in a scheme akin to subsidiarity (which can be read as a doctrine of non-interference) with firm shields placed against institutional, government, or G3P interference into affairs they have no business in. Thus informed consent becomes the absolute and irrevocable basis of a world that can counter the desire to monitor and manage the human race.
Technology will advance, yes. But there are great dangers as it intrudes into and becomes merged with our own lives in ways secretive and beyond our consent: such ways should face very heavy penalties. They should be forbidden. We the people need to be able to say "no" without penalty, recognizing our basic right to live our lives as we see fit.
Should is good. But should is all very well. At present you literally CAN'T say no to the inescapable radiofrequency radiation emitted by cell towers, the neighbours' WiFi etc (well you can try, but by now everyone is so addicted to the technology that you won't get much support -- until the 5G towers suddenly appearing feet from your bedroom make your house uninhabitable and your property value in the tank). And you can't say no to the cloud seeding ("justified" by the "climate crisis"), which sprays toxic chemicals literally all over you, your water and soil. And it's increasingly difficult to say no to a variety of toxic agrichemicals that contaminate your food, or to bureaucrats 'dressed in a little brief authority' who slam you in jail for saying no to a plethora of stupid new rules and regulations .... Yes friends, this really is WWIII.
I agree.
Individual sovereignty is only a piece of the larger puzzle. Honest science would be another.