Posted on 11/26/2002 6:27:01 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Regan
Vote for ME. I'll give you robots galore!
I just want to help you.
Trust Me.
I thought Adam and Eve had everything they wanted provided by God.
So, give up your false notions about work and get a life (and a job!).
The problem is that I have a job and no life.
I would like to have a life and no job.
Vote for ME. I'll give you robots galore!
I just want to help you.
Trust Me.
I don't want anything from you, and I especially don't want you to go to Washington DC and steal from one group of people in order to give to others.
I merely am requesting ideas on how to construct a future in which work is optional and the governmental system is morally just.
When you think about it, all creatures on the planet have to "work" to survive. Predators have to hunt, plant eaters have to migrate and browse constantly. Many animals need to dig or build shelters. This would have been true for early humans, who probably lived in small family groups. Humans have four basic needs: food, shelter, a means to compensate for our lack of a thick haircoat, and a reliable means to procreate.
As is true in primitive societies even in our own time, humans tend to divide labor. Even with early humans, some would hunt. Some would gather. Some would be responsible for finding and tending the shelter. As humans began to wear clothes, some would be responsible for preparing the skins and plant material used for clothing. Eventually customs arose around the need to procreate, and the beginnings of what we know as marriage appeared.
Particularly in early humans, the survival of the entire group depended on the skills of the best hunter and the best gatherer. It is likely that they were given (or took) the choicest food, warmest clothing, best sleeping areas, and most desirable mates. As humans began to use tools, and as societal groups grew larger, the concept of private vs. communal property took hold. The best hunter/gatherers evolved into tribal chiefs who were still able to claim the best food, goods, services and mates the tribe produced. In time, barter between tribes developed, then early forms of money. In time, chiefs became kings, and kings gave way to dictators and presidents.
The point, of course, is that even as human society evolved from small family units, to tribes, to villlages, towns, cities, states, and multi-state nations, we still operate on a survival imperative. So your question really probes whether or not we can return to the earliest form of human organization: communal living in which resources are developed, processed, and shared equitably by and for the group; a time when there was no private property. The answer is: It is possible for communal living to work successfully in small groups. But, as the experiences with communal living at the nation-state level around the world has shown, it's nearly impossible for the huge impersonal societies we call nations to do.
One might argue that communism has had a measure of success only in Red China, an ancient society that was accustomed to centralized control 2000 years ago. But it has failed miserably everywhere else, and even in China goods and services are not distributed equitably. Their society has rich and poor, upper class and low, just like every other nation. The reasons communal nations fail are several and complex, but I suspect at bottom it's because: (1) someone still has to produce food, goods, and services, (2) ensuring a truly equitable sharing of both production and resources is impossible, and (3) the best producers and natural leaders among us will always claim or seek to claim a greater share of the communal wealth — which loops back to the impossibility of ensuring truly equitable sharing of production and resources.
someone still has to produce food, goods, and services
What if those doing the work are robots?
How will you stop me?
You could re-distribute the entire amount of money presently in circulation equally among the population and within 10 years you would have the same distribution we have today.
I can almost hear the voice of Millhous, "That's the house where they take the brains out of zombies and put them into other zombies to create a race of super-zombies."
In any case, I am on the verge of leading a Fremen revolt against our Harkonnen masters. It should prove amusing. Then, as of January, I'm outta there. If I do not find work for which I am "technically" qualified, I intend to try to make a living at tailoring, despite the probable cut in revenue.
Oh, well. So much for trying to play the corporate game. I have heard -- so often that it has become monotonous -- if you don't like what you do, do what you like. So the answer, for those who can do it, might be to transform their hobby into their profession.
Talking about the "idle rich" suggests that a life of total inactivity is the goal. Anyone who is that moribund, might as well just volunteer his body for medical research.
Redistribution is morally wrong. By definition, redistribution is stealing from one in order to give to another.
However, it would be nice to have a group of robotic servants to provide wealth for me so I don't need to have a job.
Illbay.
Hmm, I was reading this thread, leaning on the side of a positive answer to the poster's question, then I came across your response. It jarred me into reality about the immutable nature of the laws of economics. Even with fusion energy, and other things unimaginable by the people of today, basic supply and demand will always prevail.
All that technology will do, is what it has done, allow a greater number, and greater percentage, of the population to enjoy a decent standard of living. And the only thing that will allow technological progress is freedom, which is the allowance of the natural laws of economics to work unfettered.
If we make robots more capable than us, eventually they will figure out how to get rid of us! Something like our grandchildren will do for not getting rid of the Social Security Ponzi scheme back when we could have.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.