Is Blockchain Technology Going to Disrupt Our Political System: We Hope So
blockgeeks.com
blockgeeks.com
The wild west no existing power structure idea is great until some entity inevitably comes along and controls it and its not so decentralized anymore. Decentralization exists when a small enough community can be self-policing and actors have noble goals. That all changes when you get a single bad actor who takes advantage off their weaknesses and well-meaning nature and controls the new system (see Mancur Olson's 1993 article on roving bandits). Or look at Gilded Age America or numerous political leaders who have consolidated power out of chaos, or the Bitcoin mining system which is controlled by a very small set of miners.
This is even worse in the blockchain system because it's so intrinsically tied to wealth. It makes the entire community centered around making money. Goodbye, critical thinking? And despite all the emphasis centered on democratizing democracy, overly simple systems have been manipulated and argued against since at least Plato. But here we are 2500 years later building systems that are just as simplistic in their assumptions about human nature.
Ethereum is the defacto dictator of their ecosystem and they've exercised that right several times. So how free is it?
I think part of the goal of these new decentralization movements is to create a system that has no weaknesses, despite how impossible that may seem. For example, using paper money has the weakness that people can counterfeit it. A naïve solution to that problem is putting security threads, serial numbers, and watermarks on the cash to make it harder to counterfeit. A more complete solution would be something like a blockchain-type ledger. You cannot counterfeit an entry in a log that everyone in the world shares without corrupting enough people in the world to support you.
When power concentrates too much, the system breaks down.
And boils down to: because blochchain
Pass the kool-aid.
I found that Internet expanded this small enough community to a new scale. Call it an Internet social contract. I have a great experience doing business with people around the world that never met before. Obviously, there is a negotiation phase where you filter the ones that don't match certain criteria, but, beyond this, I think people is learning how to be decentralized.
You are correct that history hasn't been very favorable to the notion of finding stability in anarchy. And true anarchies are indeed unstable. With that said... history isn't too favorable to the global empires either. Caesar, Attila, Xerxes... none of them managed to unite the globe under a single flag. Today, global control is pretty decentralized (at least if you're not a conspiracy theorist).
I think your original premise is flawed. The problem isn't so much that Bitcoin tried to enforce decentralized governance, but that its fundamental assumption was flawed, which was that no entity could take over the majority of computational power. Can we create a blockchain which limits the influence of any one source, to ensure that the distributed computation of the blockchain stays democratic?
I'd imagine there might be a way with memory-hard hashing, the kind used to prevent an attacker from throwing too much processing power at a table of scrypt hashes and getting the original passwords, but this is already deeply out of my depth...
Isn't that a flawed premise though? There are clear incentives. As soon as Bitcoin had any value, it seems obvious it would start an arms race for people to mine the coins as fast as possible. At that point any normal computer would quickly become almost useless.
It seems like it's inevitable that anything like Bitcoin would quickly lead to mining pools and GPUs and ASICs and other fancy stuff.
You'd need some sort of algorithm that required a minimum amount of CPU power but didn't scale at all so that it doesn't mater if you throw more RAM/CPU at it you still mine at the same rate. Even then people would just be incentivized to use lots of minimum spec machines to increase their relative payouts to a 'normal user'.
This is not true - from early on Satoshi was describing how you could have thinner clients that didn't run a full node.
I think people need to stop speaking for other people's feelings while using a bunch of biased arguments to pass off their beliefs as something valid. Nothing you said here more than just saying "trust can't be decentralized". Wealth is stored trust. Critical thinking is stored trust. Democracy is (supposed to be) stored trust. The blockchain provides decently reliable trust in the form of decentralized consensus. The less trustworthy fiat it's tied to has ZERO to do with this conversation. Google "Rai Stones" for proof social consensus works.
If you think a bad actor can take over a well thought out, public, technically backed consensus mechanism, then you don't understand how consensus mechanisms like the blockchain work. It's fair enough to say you don't trust it if you don't understand it, but if you (and a bunch of other people like you) don't actually go through those motions, what you (and they) do is end up making a bunch of biased (and conflicted) arguments that people then respond to in a negative way.
I won't accuse you of not understanding humans since it seems none of us do (and it drives us mad!) but I think it's fairly clear what an ideal society looks like: Free.
Now do we want to accomplish this with thought policing (something we've been trying to build forever and we're getting closer) or by giving individuals more responsibility along with the education needed to handle it. For me that is the only question.
Edit: I realize the irony of calling a thought policed society free but the Utopian vision of authoritarians is one where they can destroy all the people and knowledge that don't fit with their vision and thereby reach a 'steady state'. Libertarians definitely have the harder problem to solve: Creating a fundamentally agnostic society.
The point is that both complete authority and complete liberty are unsolved problemsm, but we (as a society) seem to be much more excited to solve the first one. This worries me and others like me and so we say "Hey what about we use all of our amazing technology to answer that second question instead" - it really rubs me the wrong way when the answers we get are some defeatist attitude about 'human nature' and the impossibility of equality.
I recommend reading 'The Dominant Man: The pecking order of human society' for some interesting perspectives on human nature. There's no doubt in my mind that we can design a decentralized global society where the only hierarchy is the one we naturally (read: unconsciously) establish within our tribes.
Looks like it: Trump an 'outsider', Wikileaks "decentralized", and blockchain tech to the rescue of Siemmens' controllers.
Well, the idea is to build decentralized systems that are self-policing in an automated fashion, such as with smart contracts. The thought is that previous efforts failed because the bookkeeping involved in decentralization is prohibitive without such automation.
Admittedly, a lot of work remains to prove this can work in practice.
Let me stop you right there. Decentralization isn't about no power structures, it's about decentralized power structures.
Let's say you walk into the barn, slit a goat's throat, and throw it on the back of your horse to ride off back to your camp. I shoot you dead.
In the Wild West, no one really knows how everyone will react. Who cares about you? Who cares about me? Who cares about the goat? Who else has guns?
In capitalism, everyone knows what will happen. The owner of the goat will summon the (centralized) state to track me down, extract what value it can, and punish me.
In a decentralized system, everyone already knows exactly why you are dead. They take note, and the go back to their work. They know my family almost starved last year. They know we were relying on that goat to survive. They know I consider any attack on that goat to be an attack on my family. They know that everyone in town except for Jeff also agrees that an attack on the goat is a violent attack on me. They know that except for three people, everyone believes I'm justified in using capital violence against someone who would kill that goat. Two of those three, Betty and Jun, think I should use violence, but everyone knows they also won't use violence against me. The third is your cousin, who is rarely around since they're drunk most of the time. If they were to come around, at least 14 other townspeople would defend me to the death, because this was a posted, cut and dry case of self defense for that many.
Everyone already knows these things because they've opted into thousands of organizational structures over time that distribute information about what around them people need, what people believe, and why they believe it.
Not everyone needs to know this information at all times, but everyone is familiar with how to get it, and it's there to see at any time. Not always published openly, but distributed through a web of trust so that it's accessible where it needs to be.
> Decentralization exists when a small enough community can be self-policing and actors have noble goals
Bitcoin proves that wrong. Bitcoin has actors with non-noble goals, and is a quite large community.
Christmas is another example. Lots of people have non-noble goals with respect to Christmas, and it's a huge community, and yet it seems to soldier on just fine without any real central control.
> This is even worse in the blockchain system because it's so intrinsically tied to wealth.
You are still thinking of the blockchain as "just currency". It's not. It's a decentralized banking system.
Let's say I want to rent shares in sheep in my sheep farm. You are thinking I need wealth to buy bitcoins with so I can run a bitcoin business with my sheep. Not true.
If I have four sheep, and I want to do quarter shares... I just need 16 satoshi, or $0.0001 (and a phone).
Now I can issue shares in those sheep that can be traded and cryptographically verified. That's banking. I made a bank. For a hundredth of a penny.
Bitcoin is not valuable because of the wealth it contains, it is valuable for the ways in which it can facilitate financial transactions. The market cap of BTC is the total number of dollars that you could trade it for, which is related to the amount of money needed to float pending transactions, plus some speculative value.
But that's an average according to the market, it doesn't necessarily reflect the value of Bitcoin to any specific individual. The value of Bitcoin to you is what you can do with it. And you don't have to be wealthy to do things with Bitcoin that you used to need a banker to do for you. And you do need to be wealthy to get a banker to do something for you.
> Ethereum is the defacto dictator of their ecosystem and they've exercised that right several times.
OK, let's think about three words we might use to describe Ethereum: Dictatorship, Anarchism, Democrasy.
1) Miners on the main branch have voted several times to make a hard fork. The branch didn't fork until they voted for it. Unless you think those votes were fraudulent, I'd say that looks a lot like democrasy.
2) The old branches still exist! Ethereum Classic is the entire Ethereum universe, except people voted no on the forks. It's even supported on exchanges. That is what anarchism looks like. When someone makes a decision, only the people who agree go along with them.
3) The Ethereum Foundation, and core members of the community form a kind of cultural center of mass, where they have a lot of influence when they speak up, and they know the code better than most, and they have access to information quicker than others in the community. In this sense, they have a vague kind of dictatorial control. They can attempt to wield undue influence.
Honestly though, that's as much a dictatorship as Goldman Sachs is a dictatorship over the U.S. Which... it's kind of true, if I squint my eyes, I'll give you that. But #1 and #2 are actually reasonable high level characterizations of the basic political systems. #3 is at best an interesting metaphor.
So in this presented decentralized system, if I want to take a certain action - kill a goat, pave a road, smoke some pot, sell some soda - I have to check what the entire community's beliefs are, verify that none of them will think that my actions are worthy of killing me - or at least that at least 50% would defend me against the potentially aggrieved - or at last the guy with the biggest gun - before I can go ahead and slaughter an animal, or build a roadway, or grow a plant, or go into business?
You won't be able to just do things using your internal assumptions of "how normal people work". That way of thinking will end, outside of some traditionalist preserves. Social norms were necessary for basic economic and legal coordination before we had communications networks. They're being replaced for those functions. They'll be kept on for more limit use in actual social interactions.
You would be able to see at a glance the extent to which someone's values align or don't align with yours, so that you could decide how to act on them. If someone with a murder list started to approach you, you could very easily summon a mob of people to protect you.
That's a good idea.
But what if the mob is busy? We should probably have some people on stand-by all the time, like a rotating watch system. Or, better yet, we could just pay some people to be on watch all the time. Empower them to protect us. We could train them, too, and equip them.
Maybe there could be a telephone number to summon them, too. Something short and easy to remember. Maybe with three digits?
1) Decentralized proponents just don't understand human nature
2) Decentralized power structures can't work because the wild west
3) Blockchains are only about making money
If this is the best HN could upvote I'm pretty optimistic about this whole decentralization movement.
Imagine a log of transactions (a blockchain) confirming that Clinton got 1.5 million popular votes. That has ZERO effect on the Electoral College selecting Trump. So why even bring the election up? This guy might as well say that "a blockchain could stop the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps". No, it couldnt. Real political change happens through laws, constitutional ammendments, and court decisions. No amount of electronic blockchains will change that fact.
However It would certainly be nice to vote online yet anonymously, confident that I can see in a public secure ledger that my voted was counted as a intended and that no cheating or voting manipulation (on the ledger level) took place.
This is the same problem with Bitcoin privacy advocacy: it's a brittle design and the failure mode is complete, undeniable loss of privacy.
The coercion attack is an interesting problem but something that is already illegal but cannot be fully prevented. IMO it outweights the disadvantages of a centralized voting database that can be easily changed by a sys admin.
Your second paragraph ignores the fact that the current system of anonymous ballots prevents the problem quite well, as evidenced by fraud rates measured in single-digit-per-billion levels, and paper ballots allow recounts without any use of computers and have the nice effect of making tapering a physically-diverse hard problem requiring a conspiracy involving far more people.
Let's not make this an accidental strawman.. My second paragraph is referring to electronic and internet voting solutions vs decentralized/blockchain solutions and NOT traditional in person voting with independent observers, etc..
Can you specify precisely how those work to prevent this problem? Remember, this is harder than trying to prevent a third-party from identifying users because the system has to survive collusion by the user.
Again this is not about perfect pie in the sky solution to all problems, just better digital voting solutions. As I said in the original comment, I don't think it will solve problems that have always been with us, but "It would certainly be nice to vote online yet anonymously, confident that I can see in a public secure ledger that my voted was counted as a intended and that no cheating or voting manipulation (==> ON THE LEDGER LEVEL <==) took place."
This is one of the reasons why we don't have internet voting: it's inferior to the status quo in critical areas. “blockchain” is not magic pixie dust which fixes that problem and the people backing it don't seem to have studied the problem very deeply, as evidenced by your repeated assertions that “the voting would using a cryptographic system to ensure confidentiality” before finally admitting that nobody has proposed a system resistant to a key class of attacks.
> Even in normal voting, you can take a photo of the ballot to then prove who you voted for and get paid for it (and/or not get beaten).
The difference is that it's harder to do that – or even illegal, see http://bigstory.ap.org/article/709338e5557a49e7ad5c68109ffec... – and it's not foolproof since you could take a picture of a ballot but void it and cast a different one, both of which make widespread coercion or selling unreliable.
> As I said in the original comment, I don't think it will solve problems that have always been with us
Simply asserting that it's always been with us doesn't change the fact that this is a problem which the current status quo was actively designed to prevent and that the proposed system makes that problem far worse.
The day might come though that internet voting will be widespread. When that day comes I rather have a decentralized solution solution than a centralized one that can be easily manipulated.
How do you get valid voting credentials to nontechnical voters such that they can anonymously vote and verify?
> How do you get valid voting credentials to nontechnical voters such that they can anonymously vote and verify?
That has to do with identity systems (see uPort, onename) and is an interesting & open problem.
If he means a bitcoin-like blockchain based on proof of work, it is completely overkill, as there is no problem in forking and merging vote logs if everything is authenticated and public enough.
But anyway, it completely ignores the elephant in the room. Get an electronic voting system that is both anonymous, verifiable, and free of voting coercion, and we start talking. The idea of adding a blockchain somewhere helps solving none of those problems.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s (long)
Traditional paper ballot voting works wonderfully. It's reliable, hard to fake, and everyone can understand it. This means that people will have more faith in the system than some abstruse "blockchain" solution that nobody understands and demagogues can use to rabble rouse based on that lack of understanding. Those basic facts won't change just because there are other people influencing the election and some of the candidates are corrupt.
Also, borders would just change if people decided that they liked to be "borderless" with other entities; see the EU passport control etc. You'll still have local representation, districts, etc. As it turns out, maintaining law and order in meatspace is still a good thing and geographically grouped people is a magnificent way to regulate that.
I'm a huge fan of bitcoin, but I'm still looking for the killer Blockchain app.
But 100 years from now, when kids are playing with blockchains in the sandbox, and they have never seen a paper form, they will have the opposite gut reaction.
1. Governance will be happen in the old-fashioned way.
There are brief, isolated attempts at making state IT systems better, but they're swimming against the tide of low-effort regulatory capture "enterprise" shops.
2. National identity will increase in importance.
Marine Le Pen will probably win the French elections. National identity will be asserted against transnational systems that are percieved to have failed.
Increasing levels of national borders and state control systems will be imposed on the internet for various reasons, such as the UK "Digital Economy Bill"'s censorship.
3. Legacy voting will continue to deteriorate.
Questions about the reliability of voting in the US are becoming more urgent.
4. There will be incentives to maximize corruption and suppress whistleblowers.
Too many to count, sadly.
There's nothing stopping a state actor for getting 51% of the mining power, and it's plausible that's already the case. If you were a government, wouldn't it be worth spending a few million to build up mining capability just in case you need to exert control? (And if you use that mining capability today through pools, it could almost pay for itself.) If you ever need control, just flip a switch to exit the pool and mine independently to take control of the network. In other words, 80% of the current mining could be done by the NSA and nobody would know until it's too late. (I haven't seen anyone else propose this attack, so am I missing a flaw in it?)
So yes it's not "perfect", but it sure looks harder to manipulate than a centralized database server that only requires a simple UPDATE sql query to completly and stealthily change an election.
How? That means there is a record of my vote tied to my identity. That's not an anonymous ballot. Now you've opened up all sorts of other problems of coercion, etc. You'd have to get your key from the government, so there is a chance to get it. You could track every time someone voted and in which elections which would let you narrow down where they live pretty easily.
In our current system you can find out that I voted, but not how I voted. That should be how it's setup.
That said, We're talking about digital voting here (or at least I was) and the comparison is to a digital centralized solution, in which browser history, cookies, server logs, and not to mention the database itself has issues that can compromise the voter and the election.
The key system, wouldn't necessary have to work that way (you could have a derivative id or something like that, the system could automatically assign tokens each election without the need for manual distribution, you can throw away the temporary key, etc..). It's a open problem though, and it's good to bring these critiques up and think about solutions, I woudln't dismiss the whole thing though on the first problem found, it's easy to criticise but most technologies do have issues initially that need to be solved (and that's part of the fun). What's so interesting about decentralization technologies is that they open new possibilities and novel solutions to old problems.
http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/network-architecture-...
Yes, at a low level these systems still use TCP/IP, but only in a greatly diminished form and in a manner that allows it to be easily replaced by another low level networking layer.
Instead of quantum computing solving all our problems, the new shiny red ball is blockchain.
I think the current level of centralisation is not far off from what Tim Wu warns us against in "The Master Switch" [1] and if it's going to take a hip word like the "blockchain" to popularise decentralisation, so be it. I'll take what I can get at this point.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu#The_Master_Switch
I find that a bit misleading.
Furthermore, to achieve true "1 person = 1 vote" decentralization you would need to solve the sybil attack problem which is an issue that greatly effects but is separate from blockchain and voting.
These two concepts are often conflated.
I'd like to see a form of government where more issues are voted on.
maybe I can proxy the voting decision to a representative for a group of issues that Frankly I'm not that interested in. But I should be able to vote on each issue if i feel passionate enough about it.
Maybe block chaining is a way to implement that.
FTFY
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/...
Not sure what's burning though.
This doesn't sound like disrupt so much as a method of securing it. Which feels like the opposite of disrupt at least in spirit.
I just think the public's understanding of what blockchain is has been greatly misguided with sensationalist journalism by the media. "Look at Bitcoin it's still running" they said. And how many specific real world problems has Bitcoin solved other than dark markets fueling human misery? It's been around since 2009 and you are telling me it still hasn't found a problem to solve? Ethereum, post-DAO (they are launching another one after the disaster....) and hard fork validated that "immutable and code is law" is not possible when they themselves need to edit the blockchain to make everyone whole. /r/ethereum is now a de-facto HYIP forums from the early 2000s. Combined with an anonymous social media platform to launch scammy ICO by buying up old reddit accounts to sock puppet, manipulate votes and censor people.
What other possible use case does blockchain solve that our current web of database and cloud platforms can't? How does it possibly do it better? (ex. Ethereum vs AWS). And how will blockchain get around to changing the laws & regulations which it so boldly claims as a non issue?
With IRS going after coinbase users, it's only a matter of time before blockchain becomes just another elusive tool for tax payers to throw their hard earned cash at.
Decentralized & immutable they said. It can't exist when you introduce profits and you can't have distributed consensus because of it (see Ethereum). If you are working on blockchain technology you should consider pivoting because you are working on a solution that has no problem. Even if there was a problem to solve, it's hard pressed to convince people that just because you have a very complex system of blockchain backed with proof of work or stake, it's somehow above the law and you have nothing but good intentions when you are looking to clear millions of dollars by holding genesis coins.
Name one blockchain tech or company that is killing it right now. In fact the only blockchain company that's doing well are exchanges and brokers cashing on people's ignorance. This won't last, just like CS:GO skin betting websites who naively tried to claim they weren't dealing with fiat money. It won't matter in the eyes of a regulator.
This was an awful experience, but I learned a valuable lesson. When a group of people have exactly one answer to a problem, it's not even worth engaging with them. Even if they have learned to sound reasonable, their conclusion is predetermined. Evangelical fundamentalists of any sort are a waste of time.
[1] Side note: I eventually met more reasonable Christians who found this kind of horseshit just as ridiculous as I did. They had plenty of thoughtful views; even where we disagreed, we could have interesting discussions. So my objection here is not to Christianity (or blockchains), just people who have found their first shiny idea and have let it completely overwhelm them.
For context, in the cryptocurrency world, often the word maximalist is used to refer to hardcore tech evangelicals; so there are bitcoin maximalists and blockchain maximalists. Even though I am naturally a skeptic and not a maximalist, I don't want to discourage them. Yes, they're crazy[2]; a part of that craziness is a hope for a better future that I find refreshing.
* 1-4 years from now: we have a robust scalable blockchain from someone, maybe Ethereum. This is essential for anything big to follow.
* 2-5 years from now: we get a robust identity and reputation system. Or likely multiple reputation and identity systems
* 3-6 years from now: blockchain tech moves beyond startup and incubator stage with a few widely used apps. Maybe intl money transfer, a decentralized social network, or decentralized AirBnB.
* 10-25 years from now: the things that are referred to in the OP article above by Joseph Lubin occur.
You asked about 'immediate wins'; for Ethereum it is mind-share among developers. At present Ethereum is the place to learn smart contracts and to experiment with code.
(which I would call a qualified success, I think it is handy for a small group of people more than it is really having any impact on society)
I'm glad that you enjoy maximalists, and whatever they do it's certainly no skin off my nose. But you might consider that hype can harm technology adoption. Reasonable people argue that Google Glass's giant smoking crater set AR back. And the hype and crash of the Segway did no favors for the more immediate uses of that technology, like Kamen's wheelchairs.
I'd also point out that however much Jobs sung the praises of the crazy ones in ads, he rarely let hype run ahead of consumer utility for his products. Crazy things stayed in the lab, and were polished until they actually worked for real people. As Jobs said, real artists ship. Personally, I'd love to see more of that ethos from the blockchain world.
I would posit that the overwhelming majority of Bitcoin enthusiasts don't think that the blockchain is going to somehow disrupt the massive political machine we have. By nature the problems there are not really technical.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one. Cryptocoin communities have reached a religious cult status. Ethereum is a good example of this. It's leaders are seen as infallible and omnipresent. Any criticism or voice of reason are quickly silenced and shunned as "shills for bitcoin".
You are absolutely right that it's impossible to engage in a meaningful dialogue with such people who have such constricted views of reality. It's a waste of time and I'm going to cut it out.
I'm the organizer of the Silicon Valley Ethereum meetup; I.e. I'm very involved in one of the communities that you refer to. We see Ethereum as a very messy, crazy project with fallible leaders. I don't think that the DAO was handled especially gracefully, either in the lead-up to the hack or afterwards with the fork. We've had meetups [1][2] where speakers were very critical of the leadership.
In other words, for the case of our community, we see the developers of the clients and other employees of the foundation (i.e. the leadership) as fallible.
[1] https://www.meetup.com/EthereumSiliconValley/events/23305312...
[2] https://www.meetup.com/EthereumSiliconValley/events/23201229...
This line amuses me because I'm definitely a complete convert in the ethereum cult and I genuinely can't think of anything Vitalik has ever said that I don't agree with 100% [1]. but I can't help it, he's genuinely an insightful guy that happens to have sensible positions on most issues.
[1] OK he said some dumb things about quantum computing in 2010 when he was like 16 years old.
2. Transparent financial markets on arbitrary derivates (like etherdelta.com)
3. Eventually, people authoring and managing their own content, instead of acting as free labor to generate advertising revenue for Twitter/Facebook/etc
2. SEC & IRS will be a roadblock there, eventually.
3. I don't see why blockchain is necessary for that.
I fail to see why ethereum would be the only & best solution here for those cases. I just don't see anything special about it, at best its an unscalable and insecure medium given what we've seen in the past with DAO (now starting another one!) and subsequent editing of blockchain ledger (effectively signaling distributed consensus is not possible with profiteering mixed in).
Will blockchain be a big deal? Maybe. Will it disrupt civilization as we know it. No.
The problems with hacking of electronic voting Is solved by using paper ballots counted by hand as we do in the UK.
And the problems of entryisam that the GOP has is solvable by OMOV and moving to a modern party system and not the 18th century cabals of rich land owners.
Query what the dissolution of national identity does to the modern welfare state. Can we maintain that when people feel more allegiance to their social class or profession than to their countrymen?
My family emigrated away from the sub-continent, which has a deep-seated culture of elevating class bonds above national ones. And in places like India you see wealthy people living in enclaves treating the working class around them like a different species. I'm frightened that a decline of nationalism and populism in the US could see a move in the same direction.
We're already there, we just don't yet see it for what it is.
Yesterday I watched a man on the phone while paying for his goods at a convenience store. The cashier spoke to him several times, he completely ignored her in favor of his phone. He made no sign of apology, it was literally like she wasn't there for him.
And of course, she had to keep smiling because that is her place as a customer service provider.
It would be one thing if this were isolated, but (anecdotally, of course) I only see it increasing. We're already at that point where some, at least, fail to consider the working class around them at all.
Certainly it's possible that some of the situations I've seen are of that type of origin - but IMO if you're interacting with a live human it's not an excuse. "I'm sorry , I just got terrible news" takes about two seconds to say.
I don't know, I see very little that could excuse the behavior. If someone is able to get into the store and conduct a transaction, then that person is generally able to acknowledge the person assisting him or her on a minimal level as a human.
> "I'm sorry , I just got terrible news" takes about two seconds to say.
But the wherewithal to do so in that circumstance is considerably less available!
I don't know that we've established that class actually paid a role. Do we expect he wasn't simply so oblivious that he'd also not have noticed a peer trying to get his attention?
The rich people and most importantly rich companies are basically a class on their own and their look after themselves on global scale. Their profit and their power is distributed. Nationalism however stop at the border allowing larger than country entities to play a social race to the bottom between different countries. Everyday the fraction of wealth that is stuck by borders diminishes meaning regardless how much solidarity you have for your countrymen the pot of national money is getting smaller.
Not that I have a solution and I don't really disagree with you or agree to GP. Just some counter example: Socialism that looked after working class across all of Europe did shape the social fabric of Europe and is arguably better than the US version. Nationalism, as in the case of Brexit or in France, Austria, Belgium, Holland is difficult to see in a positive light. Sure all those movement do the talk about caring for the little man but their policies are all clearly on the dismantling of the welfare state, not strengthening it.
Did you just put nationalism in a good light by comparing it with classism? First of all, the two are not necessarily opposed and often go together.
Also this is a false dilemma. Humans can live without a group identity or identify as living beings instead of being a "proud $skin_color $religion $nationality $gender".
It's not far-fetched to say that this could prevent a lot of social conflicts and wars. Can someone prove me wrong?
Human beings are fundamentally social creatures. Consider the ritual of meeting someone for the first time. People grill each other trying to figure out what they have in common. "Oh, how do you know $PARTY_HOST?" Oh, are you from Chicago too? How about the Cubs this year, huh?"
I do agree that the modern welfare state would likely be difficult to maintain without national identity.
We used to live in paradise but then man was corrupted and if we don't repent fast enough we'll be doomed to eternal damnation.
Given that, I'll leave the topic to rest.
"Birth control? Just stop having sex when you don't want a kid."
"Carbon sequestration? Just stop being so wasteful."
I think you may wish that was the case, but the evidence for this is rather lacking.
Even the people who think they identify that way actually identify as people who identify that way and freely indulge in "othering" the people who choose a different identity basis.
My gut reaction to national identity is "gross", but having seen the alternatives (personal identity politics), I'm starting to think that national identity can be quite useful, especially to counteract the natural entropy in a multiethnic, liberal democracy.