CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Economy › A perfect world?

A perfect world?

Started by Maria Thomas9 · · 👁 6 views · 21 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Maria Thomas9Ronald Watson26George Barrett34Benjamin Rodriguez2swiftcobra15Patrick Long45Jason Wells4
Benjamin Rodriguez2 Benjamin Rodriguez2 Member
44 messages
joined Jun 2008
#21 ·
Look, I get it—automation is already creeping into everything in the US, and it’s pretty obvious how much tech is taking over our daily lives, but we aren't quite at that tipping point yet where humans become nothing more than peripheral accessories to machines acting as the primary producers. And yeah, I totally hear you on the whole "tiny elite getting filthy rich while everyone else struggles" thing, but that's just the reality of today; I'm talking about what happens (potentially) tomorrow.

I honestly feel like there’s really only one massive hurdle we have to clear, and that’s the whole mess regarding who actually owns the technology and everything it spits out. See, the problem is that it’s all private property. Unless we’re looking at some kind of massive revolution—which, let’s be honest, usually ends up being a disaster—I don't see any logical way for the people holding all the cards to just suddenly decide to give up their ownership. What’s Dragičević’s take on this whole situation?
Maria Thomas9 Maria Thomas9 MemberOP
22 messages
joined Sep 2003
#22 ·
Dragičević isn't actually touching on that—there’s no such thing as "collective ownership" or any of those old-school communist nightmares floating around here! But if you ask me, what he’s really getting at is how people relate to one another. Ownership rights aren't going to undergo some massive, radical overhaul overnight. The only real shift is that the government is going to step in and take control of specific technologies that are absolutely vital to the progress of the entire country. And look, that’s basically just a modern version of eminent domain—you know, like how things used to work with nationalization back in the day under those old regimes. Initially, sure, they'll pay compensation, but eventually, once money stops being the main driver, everything will essentially become shared. We're talking about giving access to state resources and potential to the people who actually prove they have the brains and the talent to use them.

I mean, it’s pretty obvious even now, right? The government declares certain strategic projects—just look at highway expansions or major infrastructure builds—as being in the public interest, and then they seize them from private owners after paying them off. At the end of the day, the interests of the United States take precedence over any single individual.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads