Hacker News Reader

Comment by mozumder | Hacker News Reader

Class differentiation is the central meaning of life. The struggle is the point. You get up and wear nice clothes in the morning so that you're better than the slob that doesn't. Nobody wants to be the same as everyone else.

If everyone was equal, then there would be no point in your existence. You become a bag of mostly water.

Celebrate the fact that a few billionaires and royalty and celebrities exists. Life is more interesting and surprising that way. Can you imagine how terrible and pointless everything would be if everyone was middle class?

We should focus on the very bottom, not the very top.

View on HN

> Can you imagine how terrible everything would be if everyone was middle class?

It would be a vast improvement over the status quo, where most people are either working class or underclass.

> We should focus on the very bottom, not the very top.

They aren't separate issues, they are aspects of the same issue.

It's possible for us to focus both on improving conditions at the very bottom and also trying to understand how a very small percentage at the very top is siphoning so much out of our shared system.

I would argue that both issues are worth looking at.

We have people very rich, more than ever before. And that is just by itself something worth of careful examination. But a lot of that wealth is new. There are effective mechanisms to not being poor. More people can access to self-improvement tools than ever before.

So yes, we should focus on the lower end of the scale.

> a lot of that wealth is new

Where is the "new" wealth coming from?

> There are effective mechanisms to not being poor.

That seems like a generalization to me that doesn't factor in location, race, access to good education, medical conditions, existing debt, etc.

> So yes, we should focus on the lower end of the scale.

Why not both?

Where I grew up there was around 60% poverty, and most of the poverty was communicated via terrible life choices passed one generation to the next. Every one I know who left have done well and that includes people who join the military to those who went to collage. So much of poverty is about the culture you are born into which translates into bad decision and poor outcomes. If we could do anything destroying the cultures that create these conditions would get us more for our buck.

The top is predicated on the existence of the bottom. I watched some of the royal wedding the other day, that family has not worked in living memory, or perhaps even historical memory.

Heirs live in luxury without need of work because what used to be called the reserve army of labor is used as a bulwark against those working, which in cause generates those profits. Wealth created by those who work, expropriated by heirs who do not work. So, as I said, the top is predicated on the existence of the bottom.

Until they automate the bottom away which means the "reserve" is vastly reduced and can be invited. Essentially making the hierarchy much flatter.

Some rich heirs still prefer to work.

The question is, what happens to the bottom when it gets automated away...

I agree with you in every point. It reminds me the saying of some writer of old:

'All of the struggle in life comes from the fact of not being able to stay quiet in a room for a long time'.

That's exactly it!

> Class differentiation is the central meaning of life.

This is patently not true. We overthrew kings, introduced democracy, and eliminated slavery. Every time we have made people more equal, our society has become more open and less morally repugnant.

Trying to be the winner of class competition is vulgar Marxism. You don't need so many things to be happy in life, nor do you need to dominate others. You merely need your life essentials, freedom of movement, friends, family, and meaningful work. None of those things require domination.

Obviously everyone will lead a different life, but you don't need to suck up resources like a black hole to do so.

I don't care about class competition, nor do I need a "lot" (by the standards of the wealthy) of things to be happy in life. But I like things (art, collectibles) that wouldn't exist except for social competition of the rich, regardless of whether I will ever own them. I like that they exist. When people won't shut up about how terrible possessions and competition are, it tells me they are so torn up and conflicted about their own desires for money, possessions, and power, that they can't appreciate beautiful things.[1]

[1]https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1941-packard-120-convertib...

I mean, it's undeniable that the rich create luxury goods that are often aesthetically pleasing, but they are items that are enjoyed almost exclusively by the rich. At most, the average person might observe one of these on the street. Publicly funded art would create accessible beautiful things, not merely inaccessible toys you can dream about but never have.

EDIT: I kind of feel like this argument is like, well if we didn't have the Sun King we wouldn't have Versailles.

Future Versailles isn't a justification of having the Sun King in the first place, but retrospectively it's different - judging monarchy as bad now isn't a reason to tear it down now. Nor is the fact you or I can't own it. I've been to Versailles, and while it wouldn't harm me any more to destroy it than destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan, it does seem to me somewhat better that it continue to exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "accessible" art. Most things that are restricted to a select few become more accessible over time. Versailles is a good example of this, since you can take tours now. I'm not sure if it is an example of what you mean by "publicly funded", either.

The art created by the rich isn't exclusively for the rich. They create art galleries and museums, as well as parks and festivals and sports and science centers and Keck telescopes and universities and other great things.

You could say the public could do those, but now you have to deal with creation by a public committee, which may water down more cutting edge ideas due to the effects of populism.

A billionaire can just make it happen, regardless of what the public thinks. They aren't responsible to the public in their art.

Can you imagine trying to gather public funds for a new university in the age of Trump & Sanders. LOL it's not happening.

Why is it impossible? We do that all the time in countries that are not USA. Sometimes it is even successful. This all depends on how budget is allocated.

The main drawback is currently that people do not vote directly on budget allocation and representatives have vested interests more often than not. (Except perhaps in Switzerland.) We could change it, but transitioning such a system would be hard and there's always excuses of "strategy" involved.

As to art itself.. Governments also sponsor some forms of art. (Sometimes this gets corrupted or politicised.)

Heck, there are private foundations too which do not have a single or small number of rich patrons.

Speak for yourself. What a dismal outlook.

Life is struggle, that's what makes life beautiful. Commies want to change that but we won't let them.

How nice for you that you're able to find beauty in other's suffering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com