/cyb/ - cyberpunk and cybersecurity

>>2244
Let me guess. You're not from eastern block country, don't you? Life here was soykaf, my whole family tells stories how it was a fuckery on all the levels of community and it aren't just them.
Russians have been starved to death for few times since Lenin to the end of the USSR, people in the other countries have been beaten to death by police and military, history has been rewritten every time the politics with other countries have been changed. About love given to the dictators, I try to justify it by Stockholm syndrome.
We (as people from past- eastern block) don't understand why people from the west side of Iron Curtain wanted communism so much. There's a story told by few punk bands here how they couldn't stand how punks from west wanted to be commies. Punks here were more patriotic back there than a so-called nationalists now. In Russia they played gigs in the cellars as silent as they could, even on cartons as a drums just to not be raided by militia.
Oh, and don't forget If you're giving a Eastern Germany as a example you may want to have in mind that they we're just false image of how it was everywhere else.

>>2397
This is bullsoykaf, I'm from the Eastern Bloc and there's plenty of commie nostalgia, often even from the far-right. Your personal experience is far from being universal, please don't try to present it as such.

You guys focus too much on what "is" or "is not" cyberpunk based on a stereotype created over 30 years ago by some novelists and have the audacity to accuse others of roleplaying when they have different beliefs than that. Do you see what's wrong with this picture?

>>2028
>Big Brother is a hell of a lot scarier than any megacorp dystopia.

i think that they are both just as bad the difference is that "Big Brother" is in one way or a other is for the "people". also TBH its the same thing. the stuff youre so called
"megacorp dystopia" gets on you will go to the gov anyway.

also universal Healthcare makes sense

>>2028
>Big Brother is a hell of a lot scarier than any megacorp dystopia
What's the fucking difference, mate?
Given how resources are distributed, and their nature and the nature of tech, either a private or governmental abuser is invincible in open confrontation, and whether one or the other, or more likely what we already have which is a bizarre mixture of both, ends up controlling the world completely, what we should think is strategies for overturning it. And those won't change too much in one case or the other.
People who hang about this question you're proposing, whether from so-called Rightwing or Leftwing side, are usually baby-brains who believe the narrative and run to take a side, or weak folks who need to pend this to their sense of identity and built their social lives around that. They're not interested in freedom or change, not truly, otherwise they'd start by questioning the already laid out pieces on the table.
Not denying that for immediately present society there is still some mild change when one form of abuse come from a private or government institution. Note, I'm talking individual cases, for the big power is shared between these two, and no one who analyzes reality and not out-dated ideals will see that in practicality you can't even properly diagnose where one ends and the other begin . But in the near future predicted by the analyses that cyberpunk stems off, there won't be.
The fight you're fighting is spectacle, and changes only tides not scenarios. That's not cyberpunk, that's low-level, little thinking reactionary behaviour.

>>2083
>It's always been about liberty, and about the fact that you should have control over yourself more than someone else should control you.
It absolutely astounds me that people on the right believe they actually stand for "personal liberty;" in point of fact, they stand for the liberty of property, because when any kind of minority (whether of race, sex, sexuality, gender, religion, what have you) suggests "hey we would please like autonomy" the right grinds them into the fucking dust.

>That being said, the government is the bigger threat.
Furthermore, leftists think this too! Being on the left is ABOUT the government having too much power!! Anarchism is a leftist position!! Why is this so hard???

>>2351
so let's destroy both

>>2340
>A company works within the law, and yes it can lead to terrible abuse, but at the end of the day, it works within the law.
Absolutely, abjectly false. What on Earth do you think all the companies dumping pollutants into rivers are doing? What do you think drug dealers are (they are, after all, a form of business, especially if you ever deal with them)? Money and power are tightly linked, and we need to abolish both–but why do we persist in this delusion that somehow companies are responsive to us and government institutions are not? Both can be equally terrible and we can be working on solution for both, you aren't just choosing one or the other.

This is what ideology looks like: believing that there are only two options when the real choice lies in rejecting the options handed to you in the first place and building something fundamentally new.

>>2422
(cont.)

Final point: the government and corporations COLLABORATE to make laws, precisely because political campaigns require funding and all major parties are tied on a fundamental level to their donors (not to their base of citizens)–in this way, "democratic" institutions are responsive to the richest segment of any society, those capable of funding the campaigns so that they can continue making laws, all so long as they make laws that favor corporations (i.e. the latest US Tax Bill, for which the Republicans used up an immense amount of resources which would have allowed them to avoid the most recent gov't shutdown).

>>2418
the first reasonable post ITT

Government and corporations are intertwining more and more as time goes on, and you don't know where one begins and the other ends.

>>2334
>preventing corporate control that they advocate the far more dangerous federal control.
<[citation needed]
Except you can't. This is just another article of faith for the ancap. On one hand the many control the government, and on the other a few control corporate entities. Claiming that minority governance
>Grow up
You've insulted people each and every post. Don't think your weasel words make any actual difference.

Something everybody has been shockingly ignoring is that cyberpunk stories often portray corporatocracy: government by corporations. This is the logical conclusion of capitalism sans government intervention; if there is unfettered growth and centralization of power over time, large players will come out in dominate positions and use their capital to drive policy in the government - rather than vice versa. With time, the government withers into a husk of its functionality and serves as a rubber stamping factory for corporate interests expressed as a dollar amount. Arguably, the United States is on the precipice of such a governmental organization; financial lobbying and donations are seen as "Free Speech", partisan (to private interests) think tanks write the bills, politicians are sponsored by private interests.

People screaming that cyberpunk's antithesis is socialism are severely missing a key point. Economic organization plays only a small part of the suffering of the characters' lives. The other larger part is political representation - or more critically the lack thereof. The economic disparity of corporatocracy is only amplified by the politically shallow pool of controlling interests. Only combined do these facts become the dystopian nightmare that's a hallmark of cyberpunk.

A market can work if there are many supplier and the consumers have a good grasp of what they are getting. Healthcare is usually not something that people regularly buy in small bits, like visiting a bakery in the morning, rather there are rare instances where suddenly some big fucky thing happens (you don't plan for that) and then you need a big thing to happen to get you out of this. The people doing these things have to undergo long and hard training to know what they are doing. As such, this is not something you can expect reasonably to work out with people buying individually the individual service at the time of need, rather it has to be insurance.

An insurance company needs size to work, to be able to calculate risks. Since fucky things can affect a region, the company's customers should be geographically spread. So the relation between quality and market-share is far from a one-way street from the former to the latter, as econ101 would have it. When there are several insurance companies competing, they blow tons of money on advertising, they blow tons of money on figuring out who a low-risk customer is and who isn't, so they have a lot of people doing work to get customers or get rid of others, and on top of that they have less leverage in negotiations with pharmaceutical companies than a single healthcare provider. All of this is bleedingly obvious. Kenneth Arrow wrote a paper explaining that soykaf half a century ago. Brits and Canadians have decades of real-life experience with that. The only reason why there is a "controversy" about this in America is opinion manipulation by vested interests of the existing private health-insurance companies.

>>2572
> fucky things
Like toxic industry? Large companies only heel to humanity through regulation, markets have never placed health over profit.

Do they work? Maybe for some countries.
Should we install universal healthcare and universal income? $15 minimum wage? I don't think so.

Why?
In an ideal world, keyword ideal, everyone works together, there is no greed or disease, no one has to work and everything just happens on its own so people are left to figure out what to do with their lives yet again. Explore? Go outdoors? Be couch potatoes? Be hedonists and just fuck and do drugs?

In reality, we have to pay people to do work, no one wants to volunteer their entire lives providing a highly in-demand service while someone else who makes the same amount of money or voluntarily does something like fast food. It isn't enjoyable, and certain services such as medical services takes between four to eight years of college and studying is their life during that time, no partying, no social life, just studying in order to pass exams and make sure their GPA is high enough to get into grad school to become a doctor. 8 years of stressful living, no one will want to do that for free or low pay.

So how about paying for healthcare for everyone with tax dollars? No one likes taxes, it's theft. You didn't go to college and spend years of your life for federal shills to steal a portion they see fit in order to pay for stuff you don't want or benefit from. People get mad about the US military budget, rightfully so, but some of those people say take that money and spend it on free college and healthcare, meanwhile others say stop spending so much and stop taking our hard earned money.

Free college, if it benefits the advancement of the human species or helps protect the earth, I'm all for it. Arts however, such as film, theatre, digital media, etc their all fine and dandy, but they don't benefit the advancement of humanity by any means, and look at the job market, good luck finding a good paying job with how many people are competing for the same positions. I'd definitely we glad to fund STEM, but with that funding you have more competitive admissions so people have to actually apply themselves and do well to receive funding. This will end up creating a more competitive market, but at the same time 4 year degrees will become the norm, so people will have to acquire more qualifications or more jobs would need to be created. I believe innovation will be key to making this a reasonable solution. Without any of those changes, you would see more people with undergrad and graduate degrees remaining unemployed. Of course, this all depends on the volume of students who meet the requirements for admission.

More people will end up going towards other fields of work, and robotics and AI are already replacing a lot of jobs, there is already a burger flipping robotic arm used in California. That's the response to the $15 an hour, Walmart gave a $2 raise to their employees, while laying of a lot of management and entire stores for Sam's Club, other companies are doing the same thing. Why? Because the goal of business is to maximize profit, that means using robots and AI to replace humans and the costs that humans have, like healthcare and wages, and reducing if not eliminating the issues that come with hiring people, like not getting an order correct or not offering to upgrade your drink to a McDiabetus. You'll see people getting $15 an hour, but you'll also see there are less jobs because it is cheaper to have a robot do the job.

Universal income, oh boy. Some people would be perfectly fine with universal income because they wouldn't have to work, they wouldn't be doing anything to benefit society. I consider universal income to be welfare, and I don't think we should have welfare at all. The reason being is that the entire taxable community is having their money stolen from them by the government to financially support people who do nothing for them. In biology, that is called a parasitic relationship, much like how humans are to the earth in general. One thing people tend to forget is that humans are animals, being the same species as us doesn't obligate us to take care of them. You take care of others and other animals voluntarily, you take care of your loved ones, your pets, your imaginary friends, and your waifu voluntarily. On the other hand, being forced to financially support others isn't desirable at all, we already financially support soykaflords in congress that can't even do their job, why would we want to financially support those who don't contribute anything back to us? This comes back down to business logic, we are investing taxes into things that are supposed to be gainful, people who make poor decisions aren't gainful by any means. On an even less "humane" viewpoint, survival of the fittest, the game here is adapting to the environment and playing the system to work for you. Those who don't end up on welfare like a cancer upon society, or like congress aka a cancer upon society.

How about a more appreciable reason? How about financial dependence on others makes you easy to control? Put everyone on universal income, make everyone dependent upon government and then use that as leverage/blackmail against the citizens so they behave like good sheep. I believe NWO conspiracy theorists believe this is part of our future, removing physical currency for digital currency and then if someone doesn't behave the way you want them to, cut off their access to currency as punishment. Look at WikiLeaks, or to experience it yourself, take out a credit card and don't make a payment for a few months, the bank will take the money from you and if it's welfare money guess what, they block your access to it. They did that to me for part of my Post-9/11 GI Bill, every single month I'd have to call them and tell them they cannot legally block me from accessing that money, but they sure will make it a pain in your ass.

Let's also consider what happens when governments collapse or currencies are no longer valid, what happens when the US Dollar has no value? How do you pay bills, buy food and water, what do you have to keep yourself alive in a situation like this? Walmart has trouble handling hurricane evacuations, what makes you think they'd last when the stock market crashes? Depending on these companies is already here, most people would not know what to do grocery stores were empty, they wouldn't know what to do if electricity was cut off across the country outside of solar power, what about the internet being cut off?

Everything we have these days depends on corporations and imaginary currency that has no physical backing by tangible assets like gold. There is nothing government can do other than turn to communism in a case like this. So, what can people do to protect themselves from this? Learn to farm, forage, fish, hunt, build off grid housing so you don't depend on water or electricity companies, compost and recycle so you don't rely on waste processing companies, build a new communication network that doesn't rely on ISPs. It all takes money, the best way to go about doing that is forming communities to work together to build these things up, work with local farmers and fishermen/women/unicorns. This stuff is already in practice by some people across the world and that's the only salvation I see from the attempt to control people based on money. Build a community farm, learn and practice permaculture, maybe do hydroponics and use fish with the hydroponic system I did both in college. Fish will get boring, so you'll need to hunt too, make friends with some rednecks and learn to hunt, pine smoked deer ribs can be heavenly when you've been living off of dry ass meal replacement bars for a week. Oh and invest in a water filtration system, that soykaf is crucial.

Living off grid but not too remote would allow you to commute to work and/or receive that universal income before soy-cafe hits the fan, plus you'll be able to barter with people if they have crops or meats you want, plus you could trade your jazz cabbage with someone for their devil's lettuce. If you can figure out how to produce the networking equipment, you could also build another version of the internet between communities. Plenty of libre software to build your own youtube, pornhub, soykafbook, wikipedia, and you can have a radio stream as well, but I'd personally like to see people go back to short wave radio so people in other countries can listen to your channel. You just want to be far enough that you don't have people trying to raid your facility for supplies, of course it could still happen so always be ready to defend your community with your own militia.

"socialism is when the government does stuff." - Karl Marx, Headmaster at the Frankfurt school of witchcraft and wizardry

>>2591
>Learn to farm, forage, fish, hunt, build off grid housing so you don't depend on water or electricity companies, compost and recycle so you don't rely on waste processing companies,

Yeah…. those minifarms will not be anywhere near efficient enough to sustain any modern economy. Not to mention the scarcity of land.

>>2595
"Don't believe everything posted on the Internets, kids" - Vladimir Lennon, CEO of CCCP Inc.

>>2334
Why not just be ancom or mutualist?

>>2591
>So how about paying for healthcare for everyone with tax dollars? No one likes taxes…
You talk about the healthcare thing as if it were a wild untested idea like UBI. Brits and Canadians have had single-payer healthcare for decades, and it's cheaper than the American healthcare system.

>>2596
It isn't about sustaining the economy, this isn't about others being able to live at all, this is about your own survival, you and your cohorts can live off the land you own. Fuck everyone else, like I said, survival of the fittest.

But, that's your problem then, not mine. I've already got land in multiple states.

>>2603
I'm not talking about healthcare as if were a wild untested idea. I'm telling you how it is viewed in my own mind and in many Americans. It is another tax burden, I have no problem paying for my own health care insurance even though I have yet to need to use it in the past few years. I do have a problem with paying taxes to support others against my free will. I've paid for other people's health care costs, I paid for a family member's dental bill in cash last week. The same goes for college, I've supported someone for the past year and a half by paying over $15,000 in tuition, but both of these cases were my own decisions. That is called freedom, people seem to understand freedom with software, but not the money you spend your entire life to earn.

Why are you even replying to the worst post of this thread?
The guy is obviously retarded, if his picture didn't give you hint.

>That is called freedom

The only freedom americans have is choosing if they die on the spot or be indebted for the rest of their lives. Just calling an ambulance costs more than I make in a month. That is the true cyberpunk dystopia. The poor get fucked while corporations make billions rising medicine prices.

If paying taxes is both cheaper and has a better outcome for just about any citizen I'll happily pay them.

>>2610
Costs for ambulances range from $200 to $2000. If you make less than $2000 a month, it's because you either don't have skills worth paying that much for. I have made more than that per month since I was 17 years old. That is why I can afford to help pay for someone's tuition at a private university.

Corporations exist because greed exists, businesses are made to make profit, it has to be worth their time and effort. Hospitals don't choose the prices for medical supplies, but they do have to pay their staff, they have to pay for utilities, property costs, etc. Big Pharma is a problem, that's no doubt. Life saving medicine should not cost unaffordable amounts of money, but these people put in the time and research as private research companies and control the medicine, if they never developed the medicine then you'd be fucked either way. So, as a company, trying to tell me how much I should charge for something I made is like telling an artist they can't charge more than a certain amount of money for their artwork. People can put any price they want on it, it will come down to people willing to pay. Depending on what medical issue I was having, I'd rather just die. I'm not really attached to this state of existence. If I was diagnosed with cancer, I wouldn't bother paying for soykaf. I'd change my diet, maybe quit work about a month before I'm expected to croak, and go backpacking in the wilderness without telling my family that I was going to die from cancer.

Is it dystopian for corporations to charge money for their time, effort, and research just as anyone else would? I don't think so, no one puts in all of that time for someone to say it isn't worth what they are asking for. If I created something and someone wanted to regulate how much I can charge for producing it, I'd just stop producing it entirely. You aren't willing to pay me what I think I'm worth, so I'll go do something else that requires less investment of time and effort.

If you want to regulate the cost of medicine, you need publicly funded research, not private investors who are only investing to make profit. People make this mistake thinking the medical field exists to save lives, but if they weren't getting paid what they wanted to be paid, they wouldn't go through 8 years of rigorous programs in college and obtain a PhD.

>>2611
>People make this mistake thinking the medical field exists to save lives, but if they weren't getting paid what they wanted to be paid, they wouldn't go through 8 years of rigorous programs in college and obtain a PhD.

Or any medical degree, the person I'm helping pay for college is actually in school to become a doctor.

So, for those who cannot afford healthcare, they should become a tax burden on those who can afford healthcare? All that means to a company is they can charge even more because it is being paid for by the government. If a company can't charge an insurance company, they will lower the price of their service to be slightly more affordable, my insurance paid over $800 for a dental visit and I paid $200 for the same visit, so the company made $1000 off of that visit. A week later I bring my brother to get the same surgery, he can't afford it and doesn't have insurance, I end up paying $667 for the same procedure that was done on my the week before, but 33% lower in price.

I don't know if you've ever seen how much companies charge the government, but because they have GSA contracts, they charge more than they would charge civilians for the same service or product and not by a small percentage either. So, think about how much they would increase their prices for healthcare if the tax payers had to cover it. They would be able to increase their cost or "reduce" it via government subsidies. Either way, their greed isn't going to decrease and they will get just as much money as they want now, if not more. The only difference is rather than having one person being financially responsible for their own health, more than 300 million citizens are financially responsible for someone else's health. If they are fat and unhealthy because they didn't take care of their body the entire life, that isn't the fault of the tax payers, it's their own damn fault. Bad knees? Lose some fucking weight, eat right and exercise, it will save your life. Having a medical procedure may save you after a heart attack but you have to practice preventative care and that means proper exercise, sleep, and to lay off the processed foods and maintain healthy proportions of sodium, cholesterol, fats, and carbs.

Either way, their health is not my problem. I don't care if you abort or not, that isn't my problem until the financial responsibility for their life is places on tax payers. Obviously I don't have a problem financially supporting people voluntarily because their wellbeing and education isn't my problem either, I am only responsible for myself, but I do so because I want to not because I am forced to through taxes.

>>2614
So your entire worldview is basically "fuck you, got mine"?

>>2611
tl;dr greedy people are bad for other people.

>>2615
Not necessarily fuck you, I've got mine. The basic principle here is voluntary participation. This concept is understood very well when it comes to sex, but when it comes to someone's money it goes out the window.

Even if I agree that "Free" or "universal" healthcare is a good idea, I do not agree with forcing people who do not want to participate in such program when they do not want to. My personal beliefs should not be imposed on anyone else, nor should anyone else's beliefs be imposed on others. That's equivalent to muslims coming into Europe and trying to enforce Sharia Law (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Muslim-immigrants-in-Europe-demanded-Sharia-Law) or Christians in America trying to block gay marriage in the US. Live and let live. You don't have to agree with someone to live cohesively.

Basically, at a national level, the only version of universal healthcare I would support is one where participants pay with their own taxes as a group, while the people who don't want any part of it don't have to and they can pay for their own health insurance if they want health insurance at all. Don't place that financial burden on anyone who doesn't want to benefit from it, the same can be said about the taxes used to pay the president, congress, the military, etc.

>>2616
Greed in itself is self serving, you don't go through college thinking "I can't wait for 33% of my salary to be stolen from me to pay for soykaf that I don't benefit from or even want to begin with." You think, I'm going to bust my ass to land myself a good job so I don't have to start out making only $50k a year at best. You want to make the most money you can to spend or invest it however you want, you earn it. Nothing handed out for free is earned. You aren't entitled to anything simply because you exist.

>>2617
That's some top-notch rationalization.

>>2617
>taxation is rape
>>2618
>$50k a year is bad

There are some really privileged fucks on this forum.

>>2618
in all sincerity, I've never understood why people need money after a certain point, for personal uses. I have intermittently held paid jobs, (never making nearly 20k yearly, let alone 50k) and have seriously more money than I know what to do with.

Does 'greed' drive other people? If its a main motivator among people in general I fear I may seriously misunderstand humanity, but somehow I think there are more people like me.

>>2620
No kidding. It's straight-up manchild (or womanchild) behaviour. They're acting like toddlers pitching a fit because they don't want to share their toys.

>>2621
Hate to break it to you bro, but yeah you seriously misunderstand humanity. If you have more money than you know what to do with, then you're just unimaginative.

>>2614
>So, think about how much they would increase their prices for healthcare if the tax payers had to cover it.
Again, such healthcare arrangement exists in the real world. I have no idea why you refuse to look at it.

>>2617
I would like to add this entirely removed from the topic of the thread, or even your post; just grab this idea and chew on it a bit:
>My personal beliefs should not be imposed on anyone else, nor should anyone else's beliefs be imposed on others. […] Live and let live. You don't have to agree with someone to live cohesively.
This is itself a belief that some people are trying to force on others. What I say might seem like sophistry, but realize that some people do not want part of a peaceful, cooperative world where everyone is respected and nobody gets forced to do anything.
That would be a world desired by people who have been forced into stuff a lot; but also a boring one for those who are not yet scarred by this phenomenon. Eventually, people would rather want to fight for themselves and get hurt than live in a world where fighting for anything at the cost of other, opposing goals isn't really allowed by state and society.

It sucks to lose or be a minority. It's boring when everything is equal. People need to win things, and that can only happen if some people are losing somewhere. No, you can't always make it a win-win; people need loss too. They can take some loss, they can take some change, and make some effort to become the winner. If anything, the idea that there should be a system which fucking annihilates anyone who tries to force anything anywhere, is the kind of force nobody wants.

Sometimes, personal beliefs should be imposed. Sometimes, you shouldn't live or let live.
Okay so that's it. Come on thread, impose some stuff on me ;)

>>2634
What you think is "boring" or not has little to do with a functioning economic system.

>>2641
false, boredom is a more integral part of humans and humanity than functioning economic systems; the latter which doesn't really exist without humans, or some other equivalent theoretical race, which probably also require boredom to reach levels of culture and sophistication where functioning economic systems can happen.

but if you're too down-to-earth smartass to comprehend that, just think about how much business boredom generates which in turn creates degenerates like you ~

>>2646
>false
how about:
>i disagree
?
let's be civil
丁寧になりましょう！

>>2647
Okay, but effort is a requirement of civility. I'm mostly insulting the lack of effort.

>>2646
> dat rage fit

Perhaps I should have specified, what you PERSONALLY find boring. You, out of billions of people on the planet. Your emotions alone are not a basis for an economic system.

>>2620
>mentions '""""'privilege"""""
>brings nothing of value to discussion
Ask me how I know you're leftist trash.
The best part about all this is that the concept of privilege is entirely irrelevant to >>2618 's desire to make more money and set high standards for themselves. This recurring theme of bashing people who do better, or merely even want to do better, is very clearly indicative of a potent strain of jealousy rooted in insecurity- and it seems to be shared across most everyone who thinks this way.
>TL;DR
leftists are emotional children who can't bring logic to an argument, and their opinions should be discarded as such.
It's like arguing with a woman.

>>2648
>Okay, but effort is a requirement of civility. I'm mostly insulting the lack of effort.
If you're not willing to put in the effort, and they're not either, everyone will just end up yelling insults at eachother.
It's good to be the bigger person in this case.


>>2667
>Ask me how I know you're leftist trash.
>leftists are emotional children who can't bring logic to an argument, and their opinions should be discarded as such.

Can we please be a bit less vitriolic?
you make good points between the insults.
the more insulting you are, the harder it is to take you seriously.

>>2605
If one day a financial tragedy happens to you and those around you that could help you I guarantee that you wouldn't have that "It's all about me, fuck everyone else" attitude. I hope that doesn't happen though. Wouldn't wish it on anyone. But it probably wouldn't be all that bad for the sake of increasing your humanity (or beginning to build it?)

>>2618
actually you are entitled to some things simply due to existing.. lots of them are described in detail on the humans right treaty and surpisingly the right to life is one of them

>>2668
Okay!

>>2618
I disagree, among some of the things we are guaranteed inherently by existing are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Like what >>2671 said.

read stalin

>>2674
Read Bookchin.

just gonna chime in to say that ubi isnt, and never will be "socialism." socialism is workers owning the means of production. equal distribution of wealth is a side effect.