I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly? Jobs that require special skills and training, or require taking on more responsibility?
I don't think the problem is that some work earns different amounts of money. To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands, because the people doing the work are not being compensated fairly
all those "heroes" and "essential workers" like people running the till at grocery stores should be getting paid a ton
> I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly?
Agreeing with that is easy. Agreeing with which jobs should be compensated more highly is hard. Because everyone has different morality systems.
> To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands
I know people who strongly believe Bezos and other billionaires are being <fairly> compensated for the value they've brought to their customers via their businesses.
I think both of those people have inherent value and I don't think there is anything wrong with bagging groceries, but I don't think the work they do is equally important and it would be unjust to reward their work equally as a result
So how (in this admittedly doomsday scenario that I hope won't come to pass) will a human-based society be able function?
(edit: removed a wall of text that was repeating my previous comment).
What I describe can start gradually, like arguably it may be already happening, and pick up speed after a certain tipping point. After enough automation + concentration of power and wealth has been achieved, then the masks can fall off.
And then...
> Unless expropriation happens
Exactly. If you're completely amoral and powerful, you only buy or ask for permission if the other side has something to bargain with (such as labor or violent revolt). If they don't anymore, and you have all the force in the world, why not simply take whatever you want?
I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments or individuals from going too far. Yes there was ruby ridge and Waco and Kent state and others but still the government has to think hard before it goes further encroaching on liberties. All those examples are tragedies; however in a society with oppression not only would that be routine but they’d be hidden or accepted as fate of counter revolutionaries.
I don't think this is strictly the order of how it went in any of those cases, even though, of course, access to weapons will be heavily controlled and restricted in any country with a strong centralized government. And rivals will be disarmed.
> I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments
I honestly believe this is a red herring. It made sense in the age of musketry and whereabouts, when the weapons available to civilians vs governments were technologically not too dissimilar, but I think in this day and age believing civilians can have AR-style rifles or shotguns and compete with a government-like army of helicopters, rocket launchers, aircraft, drones (even before we get to the AI-autonomous robots in my scenario) is completely absurd. Or even biochemical weapons if they designed to unleash them (and they could be conceivably be of the kind that damages humans but leaves the planet relatively unharmed). Even assuming guerrilla warfare, that only matters when the intent isn't just extermination, which is reasonable to assume in the current world, but what about a dystopian future?
So I think the 2A makes no difference, because the tech gap would be huge. It already is, imagine in the future.
In Cuba they began confiscation almost immediately after the revolution and instituted programs to get rid of all arms from civilians in the mid 60s. Around the same time the government began religious and cultural persecutions.
Vietnam, almost immediately after the fall of Saigon began confiscating guns from civilians (despite these helping them win the civil war). After the confiscations they began securing absolute control over the south especially and began massive persecutions, re-education camps and forced collectivization, etc.
China was more gradual but there too they eliminated private gun ownership.
There certainly would have been more resistance and couterrevolutions and less repression if they had not confiscated firearms from the people.
If you have an armed militia made up of a subject class, and you have a ruling class they risk having to eliminate the whole of the subject class and having no one left to rule over. It would be like having an elite colony on Mars but no common people thus they become the common people. And being armed the militia made up of everyone who's not elite would put up fierce resistance. Most of the professional soldiers would defect. The elite would be unable to manage the armament not have the methods to deliver lethality. They can't just lob thermonuclear bombs as that would poison the very land they would live on and want to control. No, I think an armed militia is insurance against this scenario. We have witnessed authoritarian regimes who before they go on their repression campaigns do confiscate private firearms ownership from the population.
Also, no common people are needed, and the ultrarich only compete among themselves. You only need serfs if those serfs can give you something your vast robot armies and robot workers cannot give you, which won't be the case in the dystopian future.
As for nuclear bombs: not needed. You can just starve people to death if you own all the land and all the resources, and you can use neutron bombs which are far cleaner than nuclear bombs, or given enough resources you can engineer a plague/bioweapon that just targets other people and not you.
There's be absolutely NO reason to keep anyone alive, and some guys with ARs won't be able to resist.
It's unwise to draw lessons from history about past conflicts and revolutions, since this wouldn't resemble them at all. At no point in history was there ever a situation where the ultrarich didn't need serfs at all.