I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Thank you for that.
In your second paragraph, I'm going to suggest that automation is a function of capital, intellectual effort, personal will and the freedom to act in one's self-interest. Remove any of these and I don't think automation is likely to occur.
Thank you for the comment about the rentier class and inheritance.
If a person owns a certain amount of wealth, and he gives it to someone else, should anyone else somehow obtain title to some or all of it? I say no, on the basis that this undermines property rights.
If I own a gold coin, and give it to my daughter, by what justification does anyone else claim even a fraction of that coin?
I recognize that many people will have a different view. I'm genuinely interested in the logical basis for different views.
As regards the large mass of displaced workers, whose labor is said to be obsolete in the scarcity economy.
I wish to ask, is it really, absolutely, the case that these men and women, if they are free to use their minds, and do choose to use their minds, cannot be productive in a changed economy?
I don't know a lot about it, but I'm wondering if the idea that these people will necessarily be unemployed forever, because "all they have to offer is their labor" (quotes mine) is a projection of the mind-body dichotomy?
I have to get back to work, but in closing, your comment about utility catches my eye as well. For the record, I'm not an advocate of utilitarianism, if that's part of this discussion.
Interesting discussion indeed. Personally I think past some point of automatisation and concentration of production means, these means will need to be made a public resource in some way.
Ideally the owners of the factories/robot armies will have an upside to that deal, but I think once a huge proportion of the population cannot produce and the basic goods are completely delivered by a few private parties,the social balance would collapse and could lead to a revolution.
About employment, I think the notion of work would change, and we'get back to a concept of occupying people. Of course entertainment would be of super high value, but one could imagine that fields with very low return on time invested like research, social care, artisanal craft or art/monuments building would also raise in popularity, with some additional sense of urgency so people emotionaly engage with their 'work'.
In that system people still get value from their work, don't need to feel assisted under a 'basic income' banner. What they do just doesn't affect production of basic goods anymore.
Also religion and gambling and cruel games would be on the rise.
In your second paragraph, I'm going to suggest that automation is a function of capital, intellectual effort, personal will and the freedom to act in one's self-interest. Remove any of these and I don't think automation is likely to occur.
Thank you for the comment about the rentier class and inheritance.
If a person owns a certain amount of wealth, and he gives it to someone else, should anyone else somehow obtain title to some or all of it? I say no, on the basis that this undermines property rights.
If I own a gold coin, and give it to my daughter, by what justification does anyone else claim even a fraction of that coin?
I recognize that many people will have a different view. I'm genuinely interested in the logical basis for different views.
As regards the large mass of displaced workers, whose labor is said to be obsolete in the scarcity economy.
I wish to ask, is it really, absolutely, the case that these men and women, if they are free to use their minds, and do choose to use their minds, cannot be productive in a changed economy?
I don't know a lot about it, but I'm wondering if the idea that these people will necessarily be unemployed forever, because "all they have to offer is their labor" (quotes mine) is a projection of the mind-body dichotomy?
I have to get back to work, but in closing, your comment about utility catches my eye as well. For the record, I'm not an advocate of utilitarianism, if that's part of this discussion.
In closing, thank you for a thoughtful reply.