Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cryptek Keeper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.

Of course.... we could all always learn to code

You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.

In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.

Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.

More likely a strict policy on reproductive rights. Probably requiring licencing and limits on how many children you can have. Population growth is bad when new jobs aren't being created. It sounds really bad when you say it like that but it really is true in reality. Thanos had a point. What was funny about End game was when you saw earth after the finger snap everyone looked depressed and things looked beat down. Really it probably would have looked much the same but most people would be making twice the money.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cryptek Keeper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.

Of course.... we could all always learn to code

You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.

In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.

Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.

More likely a strict policy on reproductive rights. Probably requiring licencing and limits on how many children you can have. Population growth is bad when new jobs aren't being created. It sounds really bad when you say it like that but it really is true in reality. Thanos had a point. What was funny about End game was when you saw earth after the finger snap everyone looked depressed and things looked beat down. Really it probably would have looked much the same but most people would be making twice the money.

If this is correct, and I have no reason to assume its not, then the population will peak at around 11 Billion anyway, and we can sustain that, also automation will lead to other jobs being created in other areas, humans are very innovative in that way, sadly we will likely live through a time of turmoil in order to progress, the closing of the coal mines decimated communities in wales and we/they are still feeling the ramifications of that due to a complete mismanagement of the issue, similar to what happened to the coal miners in the states and the "learn to code" meme that it spawned (which is a dig at the elitist POS that reported on it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

 Formosa wrote:


If this is correct, and I have no reason to assume its not, then the population will peak at around 11 Billion anyway, and we can sustain that, also automation will lead to other jobs being created in other areas, humans are very innovative in that way, sadly we will likely live through a time of turmoil in order to progress, the closing of the coal mines decimated communities in wales and we/they are still feeling the ramifications of that due to a complete mismanagement of the issue, similar to what happened to the coal miners in the states and the "learn to code" meme that it spawned (which is a dig at the elitist POS that reported on it)

This gets closer to the heart of the issue (IMO) in regards to the workers' and working classes. . . . Even in the US, miners are told "ohh don't worry, this mine is good till you retire and your grandkids retire", so the workers are generally unaware that gak is about to dry up and they ought to be getting out of dodge yesterday for new work. The business owner, who is likely a multi-millionaire has no incentive to give two craps about the peons way down there in the muck and grime, and frankly I think that is one of the biggest problems with the way things currently run

You see it from politicians and bankers and generally well to do people. ..
Workers: we aren't making enough to survive to the next pay check.
Politicians/Bankers: Well if you stop buying a latte every day you'll be bootstrapping in no time!!!

 Formosa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cryptek Keeper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.

Of course.... we could all always learn to code

You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.

In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.

Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.

More likely a strict policy on reproductive rights. Probably requiring licencing and limits on how many children you can have. Population growth is bad when new jobs aren't being created. It sounds really bad when you say it like that but it really is true in reality. Thanos had a point. What was funny about End game was when you saw earth after the finger snap everyone looked depressed and things looked beat down. Really it probably would have looked much the same but most people would be making twice the money.

If this is correct, and I have no reason to assume its not, then the population will peak at around 11 Billion anyway, and we can sustain that, also automation will lead to other jobs being created in other areas, humans are very innovative in that way, sadly we will likely live through a time of turmoil in order to progress, the closing of the coal mines decimated communities in wales and we/they are still feeling the ramifications of that due to a complete mismanagement of the issue, similar to what happened to the coal miners in the states and the "learn to code" meme that it spawned (which is a dig at the elitist POS that reported on it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

Maybe new jobs will be created...who knows. It would be a marvel of innovation though. At no point in history has population growth been so high and so many fields being made irrelevant from a human work perspective. i don't see it happening without a new economic system.

 Orlanth wrote:
Facebook AI stuff.

You're continuing to badly misunderstand the situation with that AI. There was no "unwelcome milestone". There was nothing that would require the AI to be isolated to safely continue the experiment. There was no panic. The only "internal action", as you put it, taken by anyone was to stop wasting money on a project that no longer aligned with business goals. The only reason you are hearing anything about it is because "FACEBOOK SHUT DOWN THEIR AI PROJECT BECAUSE THE AI WAS HAVING SECRET CONVERSATIONS" makes good clickbait and generates lots of advertising revenue.

At the core of it you are posting the same hysterical nonsense as all of the clickbait articles, just with different words. The simple fact here is that Facebook attempted an experiment with a specific purpose in mind using specialist single-purpose AI software that is not capable of becoming a human-like intelligence. The experiment didn't work the way they had intended and wasn't producing any useful data for the original goal, so they stopped funding it and shut it down just like they'd shut down any other software development attempt that the company decided was no longer needed. It's interesting from a theoretical point of view and has some potential for further academic study, but Facebook is a for-profit company and not in the business of sponsoring theoretical exercises in the development of language.

In short, holding this up as some kind of warning sign about the dangers of AI is utter nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addition: even your own article disagrees with you.

Researchers did not shut down the programs because they were afraid of the results or had panicked, as has been suggested elsewhere, but because they were looking for them to behave differently.

Nobody panicked. Nobody was worried about the results. A profit-focused company just decided to stop paying for something that didn't work the way they wanted it to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Facebook AI stuff.

You're continuing to badly misunderstand the situation with that AI. There was no "unwelcome milestone".

Evidently there was or they wouldn't have shut it down.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nobody panicked. Nobody was worried about the results. A profit-focused company just decided to stop paying for something that didn't work the way they wanted it to.

There is room to speculate that a panick did occur but Facebook put out a story afterwards in order not to look so jumpy. If there was one clickbait article claiming panic then maybe, but this was a consensus in the press at the time. One the balance it is plausible there was a reaction then Facebook spun the story to save face, we shall never know as Facebook are not reliable witnesses.

Please also remember there is a lot of concern about AI right now, and around then. A number of respected minds have been warning against AI including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.


Anyway, what about the rest of the post. You going to attempt to explain why Belgium has no right to legislate against corporate schenanigans et al.

On AI, thus far most of our attempts have turned out pretty stupid, turns out that once you're past something we can clearly detail rules for teaching a computer how to do something isn't particularly easy.

And barring Musk, most of the reasoned concern over AI is simply not trusting it because of how simplistic it must be to function. Microsoft's glorified chat bot that the internet quickly turned into a happy little nazi is not really the exception when it comes to AI training.


Economic policy? Well, I mean look right now, why would they limit reproduction? It's the most effective way of ensuring someone will keep working and not question why their wages are stagnant compared to everything else in the business. It's working fine right now. It's one of the prime movers behind trying to make abortion illegal again in the US. People have been able to control their economic and social situation effectively enough to achieve greater economic mobility. Which is apparently unacceptable to religious people as long as it's someone else doing it. Insisting we need endless jobs is only going to keep people stuck in that mindset. Meanwhile productivity is nearly off the scale compared to the rest of human history to the point we're already responsible for extensive artificial scarcity, which we could solve but no one would make enough money off of it to care. Why keep pushing that mentality when we can do anything else?

 Orlanth wrote:

Evidently there was or they wouldn't have shut it down.

"Well, guess this isn't making any money for the shareholders, move on to the next project" is not an unwelcome milestone. It's just normal business.

There is room to speculate that a panick did occur but Facebook put out a story afterwards in order not to look so jumpy. If there was one clickbait article claiming panic then maybe, but this was a consensus in the press at the time. One the balance it is plausible there was a reaction then Facebook spun the story to save face, we shall never know as Facebook are not reliable witnesses.

Most of the media coverage was clickbait. And no, there is not room to speculate. That speculation displays a complete lack of understanding of the technology and how it can not possibly do anything worthy of panic.

Also, remember that the media coverage you linked to explicitly said there was no panic and nothing panic-worthy.

Please also remember there is a lot of concern about AI right now, and around then. A number of respected minds have been warning against AI including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.

But the Facebook project is not that AI. And Elon Musk may be good at managing a rocket company but his speculation about the future can be, to put it politely, not in touch with reality.

Anyway, what about the rest of the post. You going to attempt to explain why Belgium has no right to legislate against corporate schenanigans et al.

What about it? It's all of topic and I don't want the thread locked. But I'll leave it at this: Belgium had no right to do it because there is no justification for banning loot boxes. "If you don't like it don't buy it" applies, and the state has no business getting involved. It's like having the UK shut down GW because the GK codex is too weak and GK players aren't happy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:



Anyway, what about the rest of the post. You going to attempt to explain why Belgium has no right to legislate against corporate schenanigans et al.

What about it? It's all of topic and I don't want the thread locked. But I'll leave it at this: Belgium had no right to do it because there is no justification for banning loot boxes. "If you don't like it don't buy it" applies, and the state has no business getting involved. It's like having the UK shut down GW because the GK codex is too weak and GK players aren't happy.

Clearly they did believe they had the right to ban it. I'll take a civilised country's judicial system's opinion over that of a random internet poster who's already shown their rather parochial viewpoint any day of the week. The reason Belgium legislated is because they viewed loot boxes as gambling and judged them to be marketed at children. The ban was due to the Belgian political and justice systems determining that they believed loot boxes were a mix of gaming and gambling that were "dangerous for mental health", generally, though not exclusively, with regard to children. You can disagree with the reasoning but you're wrong to say they had no right to do it. There's a system of due process in place for putting law like this in place and they followed it.

Your GW analogy would be more accurate if the UK government banned the sale of the GK Codex because they believed it was likely to harm the mental health of children. Under those circumstances I don't think most people in Britain would disagree with the ban.

Has Belgium banned CCGs? The answer to that will say a lot about whether this is legitimate concern over gambling or just backlash over an unpopular game mechanic.

Ps: legalism is pretty poor as an ethical system. Many unjust or badly flawed laws have been passed by all the rules of the system. They're still wrong.

Guys we can discuss the merits of economic systems soberly without insult or politics.

 Peregrine wrote:
Has Belgium banned CCGs? The answer to that will say a lot about whether this is legitimate concern over gambling or just backlash over an unpopular game mechanic.

Last I checked, every CCG pack is advertised as having 1 rare, X Uncommon, and Y Common cards. . . Now, disregarding game "meta" and all that, that means that nominally, if you buy 5 packs of cards, you are getting 5 rare cards that are of "high value".




I think, IMO, the problem with the US's economic system is its views on the working class. IME, people working a line job at McD's in the US are treated far more like gak than their European counterparts. . . Now, there may be some facade that I didn't see through in Germany when I lived there, but it seemed to me that everyone from top down recognized that the economy as a whole is a great big machine, and not taking good enough care of even the "smallest" part (ie, the entry level worker) means that the whole system is drug down.

In the US, we're fed a bunch of nonsensical beliefs about "McJobs" being 'unskilled' and 'for high schoolers needing to get experience' and all sorts of other claptrap that does not reflect the reality of that type of job. As a result, economically and politically, low level workers are generally looked down upon and actively punished for being an entry level worker.

If anyone is interested in a really good discussion on parts of this subject and other forms of existential risk.

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cDovL3dha2luZ3VwLmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz&episode=YzIwOGJjNjU3Yjk2NDZkOWExOWQ2NDZiY2YxNzhjMTY%3D

Making Sense with Sam Harris
#151 — Will We Destroy the Future?
Mar 18, 2019 · 103 min · (93.9MB)

In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Nick Bostrom about the problem of existential risk. They discuss public goods, moral illusions, the asymmetry between happiness and suffering, utilitarianism, "the vulnerable world hypothesis," the history of nuclear deterrence, the possible need for "turnkey totalitarianism," whether we're living in a computer simulation, the Doomsday Argument, the implications of extraterrestrial life, and other topics.
You can support the Making Sense podcast and receive subscriber-only content at samharris.org/subscribe.

Please don't post stuff from Sam Harris. He's a paranoid racist who knows very little about the things he talks about.

 Peregrine wrote:
Please don't post stuff from Sam Harris. He's a paranoid racist who knows very little about the things he talks about.

No he is not, that is a smear campaign against him that you clearly fell for, you have never actually listened to him otherwise you would not have fallen for it and the guy is a run of the mill liberal for crying out loud, as for knowing very little about what he talks about, nonsense, he talks about things he is very well informed on and asks questions of things he knows very little on, that is exactly how it should be done.

 Formosa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Please don't post stuff from Sam Harris. He's a paranoid racist who knows very little about the things he talks about.

No he is not, that is a smear campaign against him that you clearly fell for, you have never actually listened to him otherwise you would not have fallen for it and the guy is a run of the mill liberal for crying out loud, as for knowing very little about what he talks about, nonsense, he talks about things he is very well informed on and asks questions of things he knows very little on, that is exactly how it should be done.

No, I am well aware of his opinions regardless of any supposed "smear campaign". I've known about him since his first involvement with the atheist movement, back before he became an embarrassment. My accusation of racism and paranoia comes from a dumpster fire of a debate over airport security and racial profiling that he did, in which his position was essentially "here's my racist assumptions, now watch me show how I don't understand how poorly they would work in reality". At this point he's part of the same fringe nutcase element as Jordan Peterson, and beloved by the same people for many of the same reasons.

 Frazzled wrote:
Guys we can discuss the merits of economic systems soberly without insult or politics.

Economic systems are inherently political.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Guys we can discuss the merits of economic systems soberly without insult or politics.

Economic systems are inherently political.

Politics is often economics and economics is politics.
One funds the other, the other enables the one.

At this point he's part of the same fringe nutcase element as Jordan Peterson

Ah, now it makes sense why you hate him




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Guys we can discuss the merits of economic systems soberly without insult or politics.

Economic systems are inherently political.

Politics is often economics and economics is politics.
One funds the other, the other enables the one.

That is an interesting way of putting it, is it true though? I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.

 Formosa wrote:

At this point he's part of the same fringe nutcase element as Jordan Peterson

Ah, now it makes sense why you hate him




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Guys we can discuss the merits of economic systems soberly without insult or politics.

Economic systems are inherently political.

Politics is often economics and economics is politics.
One funds the other, the other enables the one.

That is an interesting way of putting it, is it true though? I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.

Power is the Amalgam of both, monetary basis is one form of power.

Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system, a system of Organisation of a society, in this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).

That is personally also why i find libertarianism and anarchism hilariously shortsighted.

Power is the Amalgam of both, monetary basis is one form of power.

Ok

Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system

possibly, they will form a hierarchy but not a political system, they are not the same thing but all political system do use hierarchies.

a system of Organisation of a society,

that is a hierarchy not a political system

this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).

that is one metric ignoring many others such as capability and intelligence, the most powerful in a hierarchy could be the best hunter, the most physically able, the best farmer etc. not just the richest, even in our society the most powerful is not always the richest.

That is personally also why i find libertarianism and anarchism hilariously shortsighted.

that is neither here nor there to what we are talking about, anarchism is always doomed to fail due to the need for a hierarchy in nearly every situation and libertarians care about freedoms over most other things, that does not mean they are a monolith like the left and right are not.

Well Formosa, those companies in the pure capitalist realm will need contracts with each other, and a means to enforce those contracts... at which point they make laws that govern their deals, and inadvertently craft a government.

Every company has bylaws, regulations, and standards. Even if, as is the case with a single employer, owner operator of a tour boat the rules are 'Don't piss off Frank". You break the rules, or laws, you're fined, rehabilitated or removed from the company. It could also be the exacting policies that Amazon workers, or Disney castmembers are subjected to. Those are every bit as binding as a law, and often more immediate to those working.

As a teacher, I'm well aware my career could be ended if I ever decided to cuss a kid out. That's legal, of course, and often they deserve it. But it isn't allowed by the policies of my job (and rightly so- we really ought to set an example) and I would at the least be highly disciplined and most likely terminated by not hiring me next year. Contract workers are so easy to let go without firing.

 Formosa wrote:


That is an interesting way of putting it, is it true though? I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.

All you've done in that scenario is set up a political system where the businesses are the direct political actors, rather than elected representatives. These businesses will compete with each other for the power to shape the laws in their favour, compromising with each other if necessary.

In effect, the largest and most wealthy businesses will become the major powers of your society. You will end up with a system of government akin to the Merchant Republics like Venice and Genoa. Well, that or one business will dominate the other and become the absolute power.

del

Well Formosa, those companies in the pure capitalist realm will need contracts with each other, and a means to enforce those contracts...

This shows that a governmental system is already in place in order to even have "companies" in the first place and a legal system for contractual agreements/enforcements.

at which point they make laws that govern their deals, and inadvertently craft a government.

No the example you have given means such a system must already be in place.

Every company has bylaws, regulations, and standards.

That work within a pre existing legal framework.

Even if, as is the case with a single employer, owner operator of a tour boat the rules are 'Don't piss off Frank". You break the rules, or laws, you're fined, rehabilitated or removed from the company. It could also be the exacting policies that Amazon workers, or Disney castmembers are subjected to. Those are every bit as binding as a law, and often more immediate to those working.

This again is all based upon a pre existing legal framework which in and off itself means a society has already created a governmental system to enforce these regulations and rule of law.

As a teacher, I'm well aware my career could be ended if I ever decided to cuss a kid out. That's legal, of course, and often they deserve it. But it isn't allowed by the policies of my job (and rightly so- we really ought to set an example) and I would at the least be highly disciplined and most likely terminated by not hiring me next year. Contract workers are so easy to let go without firing.

once again this is a pre existing set of legal rules and cultural rules that you are working within and nothing to do with my point that Capitalism can exist without any governmental oversight or any rule of law and that means it is not necessarily political in nature.

Just for clarity, certain economic systems do not need any kind of government to function, capitalism is one of them, just because we heavily regulate the market does not mean that it must be regulated, this does not mean that the system will be good, free of corruption etc. it just means it can exist on its own without a political system controlling it.

Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.

Yep sure, its simply a system that allows you to trade with someone else based upon private ownership of the means of production, private property, wage labour, voluntary exchange etc. so if own a farm, I farm it with my family and then sell my good with no interference of any governing body or regulation, that is capitalism but without government and its a terrible idea because it will lead to corruption, just because it can exist without any overarching control does not mean it should.


Not putting the definition of government here to patronise anyone just for clarity of understanding what I am talking about.

"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."

 Formosa wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.

Yep sure, its simply a system that allows you to trade with someone else based upon private ownership of the means of production, private property, wage labour, voluntary exchange etc. so if own a farm, I farm it with my family and then sell my good with no interference of any governing body or regulation, that is capitalism but without government and its a terrible idea because it will lead to corruption, just because it can exist without any overarching control does not mean it should.


Not putting the definition of government here to patronise anyone just for clarity of understanding what I am talking about.

"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."

Without the government there is no way to determine legal ownership of your farm. Without Government regulations, such as requiring to prove you own the goods you are trying to sell, for example, anybody could sell your farm to someone else and if that other party had the force to remove you from the land, they would be able to.

Capitalism only works in a framework where the government has already defined legal ownership and instituted regulations to prevent the sale of property which the seller has no right to sell etc.

Saying that that stuff has already been established and laid down in law and therefore capitalism doesn't need government, is silly. What happens when a new product, outside the previous definition of property is developed?

 Formosa wrote:

Power is the Amalgam of both, monetary basis is one form of power.

Ok

Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system

possibly, they will form a hierarchy but not a political system, they are not the same thing but all political system do use hierarchies.

a system of Organisation of a society,

that is a hierarchy not a political system

this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).

that is one metric ignoring many others such as capability and intelligence, the most powerful in a hierarchy could be the best hunter, the most physically able, the best farmer etc. not just the richest, even in our society the most powerful is not always the richest.

That is personally also why i find libertarianism and anarchism hilariously shortsighted.

that is neither here nor there to what we are talking about, anarchism is always doomed to fail due to the need for a hierarchy in nearly every situation and libertarians care about freedoms over most other things, that does not mean they are a monolith like the left and right are not.

A hierarchy is not political?
Enforcing your position in a hierarchy is as political as it get's in a society. Or to quote Carl Schmitt: The criteria of the political is the difference between FOE and Friend.
Maintaining your position in a hierarchy that is determined, in your exemple, by MONEY, includes and allows for all things, even the case of conflict.

Therefore there is a somewhat fluid societal structure governed by those that can maintain their monetary power through all means necessary.
that is a political structure of society and therefore a form of government.

As for this

I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.

You need to consider seriously adapting your idea of politics, Politics is falsely understood as always part of the state, that is not the case.
Politics happen not only between the state but also by interest groups, the state is only the defining actor of society so long he can maintain his monopoly of power / maintain his hegemonical position, if this is not anymore the case you get a civil war. and i would like to point out a Civil war is inherently political, even tough there is atleast one group challangeing the state.
Even worse it is when you have a failed state and multiple groups, now acting political , cough Sudan cough.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.

Yep sure, its simply a system that allows you to trade with someone else based upon private ownership of the means of production, private property, wage labour, voluntary exchange etc. so if own a farm, I farm it with my family and then sell my good with no interference of any governing body or regulation, that is capitalism but without government and its a terrible idea because it will lead to corruption, just because it can exist without any overarching control does not mean it should.


Not putting the definition of government here to patronise anyone just for clarity of understanding what I am talking about.

"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."

Terribly shortsighted definition of government and or political power inherent.

Split the first part away and you get a more acceptable and encompassing picture of political power structure.