[ExI] Trump on ​linear induction motors ​

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Jun 29, 2017, at 10:54 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ​> ​Political power simply shouldn't exist.
> 
> ​Death​ shouldn't exist either​, but at the moment I'm more concerned with does or doesn't than should or shouldn't.​ ​That's why I got so frustrated in the debate before the election when people ​kept ​telling m​e​ they were voting for the Libertarian or not voting at all because nobody should have that much power; but it was always clear as a bell that somebody WILL have ​that​ much​ power and the only ​control​ we had on November 8 was ​to decide ​if that somebody was a imbecile or not.

We don't decide that -- not in any meaningful way.

> To my mind the correct choice was obvious​ and it was to most American voters too, but unfortunately not to the Electoral College, so despite not having a majority or even a plurality of people behind him the imbecile became Presadent.

My point is, once more, if you have this kind of power in one office or small group, expect it to be abused. It's a mug's game to think that power can be so concentrated and somehow it will be unlikely for someone bad to grab hold of it. Constantly ignoring this problem too is like arguing who should captain the Titanic after the iceberg hit.

>> ​> ​But do you think there should be anyone with such overwhelming power?
> 
> ​No of course not! But my opinion matters little,

Well, if your opinion matters little, why bother sharing it here? 

> like it or not the fact is somebody DOES have such ​overwhelming power​ and that is very unlikely to change before the Singularity. And the thing that terrifies me most is that a airhead like Trump has the power to make a Singularity happen​ in the very next hour, but not the sort of Singularity we usually talk about on this list.

Again, this is a reason for a lie radical critique of power -- rather than just whining over Trump winning. Do you believe someone power-hungry like Clinton would be better? Why? She's craftier, knows when not to say whatever thought crosses her mind, and already has a fairly bloody track record. (Granted, Trump will likely surpass her there, but that's because he (or his henchmen) is (are) now the one ordering drone strikes -- not because she had any sympathy for the victims of empire.) 

>> ​> ​This isn't like the president simply has a tiny bit more power than you or me. Instead, she or he can order the death of millions. Such power is dangerous... 
> 
> ​Yes it most certainly is dangerous, and it's even ​more dangerous if the man with that much power is so stupid he couldn't poor water out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel.

Let's try an analogy. Yes, some dictators are worse than others. That, however, should never be an argument for dictatorship. Some masters treated their slaves worse than others too. I trust you wouldn't have argued for merely having better masters over abolishing slavery. Now apply the same logic here.

>> ​> ​ it's foolish to believe that such concentrated power existing in the first place will be unlikely to attract the wrong people
> 
> ​Yes​ but there is no bottom to wrong. There are insecure Email server type wrong people and there are ​Chicxulub​ extinction event type wrong people.​ We ended up with Chicxulub​.

Here we go again. There were reasons not to want Clinton in that you have ignored. When I talked to folks here in Seattle who didn't want her in, none of them mentioned her insecure email server. They feared her militarism, her love of police power, and her coziness with corporate elites. They also pointed to how fickle her view were. Save for abortion, she seems to reinvent herself -- and not in any way that seems like heartfelt changes, but rather political. She was against gay marriage, for instance, until suddenly gay marriage was found to not longer be unpopular. That's stuff to continue to ignore. It makes me think you're just a Clinton partisan.

>> ​> ​The elite's desire will not likely go away, but can't each of us at least try to undermine the means?
> 
> ​No please don't try, not if you think increasing ​the defense budget by 78 billion dollars will decrease the elite's desire to project force. 

Where have I said that? Reread what I wrote. Do I have to explain it to you? I want the military abolished. Is that clear?

And my guess is Dave doesn't want a big military budget either.

>> ​> ​Why would _you_ want imperial subjects kept in line? You want to live under a well-oiled authoritarian regime?
> 
> ​That wasn't the question I was addressing , it was "are aircraft carriers technologically obsolete?". And my answer was no.  

And Dave responded with why we don't need them anyhow. I responded to your cavalier dismissal of his point.

>> ​> ​When was the last time the military budget actually went down?
> 
> ​The answer is 2010 under Obama, the US ​military budget​ has gone down every year since then. ​It was 20.​1%​ of the federal budget ​or 4.6% of gross domestic product​ ​in 2011​, but only 15.9% ​​of the federal budget ​or 3.3% of gross domestic product​ in 2015.

Actually, I would look at the numbers -- not % of the total budget or the % of GDP. If my rent goes up when my salary rises by a proportional amount, I don't consider it as remaining the same. Nor would I consider my rent increasing if my salary dropped.

However, that said, the numbers support you here. Defense spending went down under Obama for several years.  It by a huge amount -- and, no doubt, some of this was merely pulling more forces out of Iraq. Then the budget started to rise again and I bet it will continue to do so.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170629/0f6ffef9/attachment.html>