Thread: Free Market and Automation

Yes, the OP's premise is not exactly realistic. But I think it is that way to highlight the actual question he was asking. Which is basically "What will happen to money?"

Holy shit, my fucking edit just got deleted again. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Okay so.....

Basically there is a problem with this scenario, if we're talking about what is going to happen IRL.
Because by the time robots can outdo humans on every level, we will have already gotten rid of money.
The last jobs left will be creative fields - arts and sciences. But these people will do it for free, because they like it, no one will have money to pay them.
OR everyone who doesn't have jobs will die out or go nomad, leaving the elite to survive, being happy and doing what they enjoy.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Thing is, that represents a relatively sudden and massive upheaval in the basic order of the world. Everything about the way our society is ordered revolves around the basic model of working for a living, and all of that would have to change. That kind of sweeping change is usually not something that human society has an easy time with. If anything, I think it should be talked about for that very reason. It should be discussed so that we can prepare for it, and be ready to implement it as technology gradually advances.

You should read my post before replying.
If we talk about it, it won't happen.
Do you think these rich scumbags and politicians want to give up there spot on the top?
No.
They will do whatever they can to stop it from happening.

My idea only appears unrealistic because I explained the endgame, not the road there, and I described the endgame through example rather than by going over every specific detail that would need to be adjusted. What I am attempting to explain is a new system of trade which incorporates the good aspects of free trade and competition but enlarges the competing spheres to groups rather than individuals.

This, I think is not only realistic, but inevitable. However, it's not inevitable in the sense that we don't have to care, only in the sense that cooperation is as much a cardinal value of nature as competition is.

And the state does not need to reorganize society, in fact if a state was maintained than the callous oppressors that want people to work or die would simply change hands from the elitists to the elite of the party. The revolution must be self organized and approached from a more libertarian point of view. In fact, it is big government which prohibits true communism. In history, communist revolutions have always been nothing more than labels meant to fool the mob into thinking they're acting for their best interest, just as trickle-down theory is used to fool the masses of this country that they're voting in favor of their best interests. Real communism begins with cooperative ownership of an industry, not by the "people" (which ends up meaning a very small handful of unaccountable supervisors) but by the "producers."

If the community collectively owns their product, they can vote in favor of their best interests, immune to propaganda for the first time in the history of democracy. This is because they know their product, and they can't be so easily fooled regarding the value of their product and the needs of their community.

If collective ownership was the best way to organize productive activities in a given situation (and I'm not saying it necessarily isn't; it's difficult to say for certain while living under an authoritarian regime), then the free market will favour those entities. So you see, OD, if syndicalism truly is BETTER, then you should be a free market libertarian!

Free market libertarianism neglects the necessity of unionizing as a means to reorganize industrial structures into democratic ones. Without this aspect, a libertarian revolution would not end wage-slavery. Even if it is advantageous to cooperatively own the industry, the current power structure would not allow (and has not allowed) the possibility to seed. You could argue that nothing can stand in its way without the government, but there's more to the structure of economic government than Washington DC. In fact the banking system and government have become irrevocably intertwined, especially because of the computerization of money. Currently libertarianism is used as a trojan horse to push an agenda of removing benefits from an enslaved middle class without actually removing the power structure. The purpose is to liberate the workers from wage-slavery. This cannot be done without first removing the government from trade, and this does not merely mean removing the Federal Bank but the entire monetary system with it. Ending the gold standard was merely one of the final steps to the enslavement of the working population.

Some of best trees in the forest require a fire to emerge from their seeds.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Free market libertarianism neglects the necessity of unionizing

Nope, it does no such thing. Collective bargaining is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Unionism as it exists today however, where employees are forced to join a union (or lose the job), employees are forced to pay union dues (or lose the job), employees are forced to go on strike with the union (or lose the job/ be attacked with no repercussions), employers are forced to negotiate with the union rather than hire new workers regardless of how unwilling the union may be to negotiate, is not compatible with libertarianism or probably even your own anarcho-whatever if you think about it.

Then I suppose we're both facing the problem of conception vs practice. Just as communists end up reigning if fascism, so libertarians (at least in right-to-work states) end up reigning in financial oligarchy.

Let's hope we can find unlimited resources to meet such economic growth.

But maybe humans could focus on something more simple and tangibly-rewarding, like growing their own food, enjoying time with their families, and creating/experiencing whatever forms of entertainment arise by that time? Humanity has come through a lot; either we'll get through this, or we'll go extinct and then we won't have to worry about it!

Although the hippie in me thinks we should keep an eye on Earth's future, and not just humanity's future. If we run out of resources and destroy all of the most vital ecosystems, we're all fucked, regardless of how high unemployment becomes from automatons.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

My idea only appears unrealistic because I explained the endgame, not the road there,

OP, Xei, not you OP.

Also free market libertarianism sucks. If you think it's bad now, you wouldn't want to see what it would look like when everything depends on people spending money ethically.

Because they won't. And massive corporations will rake in even more than they do now. Barely anyone cares enough to make change within our peudo-democratic system now.

Originally Posted by tommo

OP, Xei, not you OP.

Also free market libertarianism sucks. If you think it's bad now, you wouldn't want to see what it would look like when everything depends on people spending money ethically.

Because they won't. And massive corporations will rake in even more than they do now. Barely anyone cares enough to make change within our peudo-democratic system now.

Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe there should be laws against fraud, trademark/patent/copyright infringement, embezzlement, etc. We definitely don't agree with all of the laws we have in place now, but there are things that qualify as victimization we think should be illegal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe there should be laws against fraud, trademark/patent/copyright infringement, embezzlement, etc. We definitely don't agree with all of the laws we have in place now, but there are things that qualify as victimization we think should be illegal.

I hate to bring up this topic for what is probably the billionth time, but the term "libertarian" doesn't exclude anarchists. It's a big tent with varying groups who have varying limits on how much (or how little) power the state should have. Hell even some minarchists wouldn't agree with what you say "we" believe, specifically about trademarks, patents, and copyrights.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I hate to bring up this topic for what is probably the billionth time, but the term "libertarian" doesn't exclude anarchists. It's a big tent with varying groups who have varying limits on how much (or how little) power the state should have. Hell even some minarchists wouldn't agree with what you say "we" believe, specifically about trademarks, patents, and copyrights.

That's true. I was referring to mainstream libertarians, specifically members of the Libertarian (capital "L") Party. I probably should have put the word "necessarily" in there. The party platform is not anarchist. That was something Harry Browne had to clear up some when he was running for president.

What's your take on what Tommo said about free market libertarianism?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe there should be laws against fraud, trademark/patent/copyright infringement, embezzlement, etc. We definitely don't agree with all of the laws we have in place now, but there are things that qualify as victimization we think should be illegal.

Then that's not a free market system. Maybe *you* don't want that, but that's what free market means.

Originally Posted by tommo

Then that's not a free market system. Maybe *you* don't want that, but that's what free market means.

"Free market" means the government is not screwing with prices and wages, distributing incomes, putting taxes on specific types of goods and services, or taking other such intrusive and controlling measures. It does not have to be economic anarchy. A free market can involve laws against theft. The government can value your right to your money while protecting it. I think they are two forms of the same philosophy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What's your take on what Tommo said about free market libertarianism?

Originally Posted by tommo

Also free market libertarianism sucks. If you think it's bad now, you wouldn't want to see what it would look like when everything depends on people spending money ethically.

Because they won't. And massive corporations will rake in even more than they do now. Barely anyone cares enough to make change within our peudo-democratic system now.

I'm tempted to ask how you know that people won't spend their money ethically or that massive corporations will make more money than they do now. If your response is related to how people act now, then you'd be comparing apples to oranges.

Don't think I'm saying there needs to be a new "libertarian man" for it to work - any system requiring that is unrealistic and will probably fail. But people tend to be guided by incentives, and there are a lot of incentives in the current system for people to act in ways you and I find unethical or contrary to a "democratic system."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm tempted to ask how you know that people won't spend their money ethically or that massive corporations will make more money than they do now. If your response is related to how people act now, then you'd be comparing apples to oranges.

Don't think I'm saying there needs to be a new "libertarian man" for it to work - any system requiring that is unrealistic and will probably fail. But people tend to be guided by incentives, and there are a lot of incentives in the current system for people to act in ways you and I find unethical or contrary to a "democratic system."

Because people don't spend money ethically now....?
Most people just get the cheapest option, which is almost always from a large company, and therefore also almost always unethical (slave labour etc.). With no government restrictions on how large of a percentage of the market a company can hold, the big companies will get even bigger.

No tree grows to heaven.

/thread

Don't do that, you look ridiculous.

Declaring counterarguments "ridiculous" and "risible" certainly is rigorous logic.

How could an adjective be logical?

Stop trolling the thread please.

Here's what a recent Oxfam report said that people with more resources than they could ever possibly need are doing with them:

Nothing.

Lots of people have claimed that when the owners of the means of production have more than they'd ever want, there'd be no problem any more. I said that seemed rather naive about human nature, based on history. That is the very situation with these individuals right now, and yet the hoarding is just getting worse and worse. Why do you think it's going to change?

Of course.

What I want to do is study their brains and find out what makes them want to increase some digits on a hard drive to higher and higher numbers.
I think, assuming they aren't psychopaths (which a lot of them probably are) that they could be convinced to "see the light" and stop raping the world.
Bill Gates was convinced by his wife. Not sure exactly what she said to him....
Maybe the fact that their kids will grow up in a dying world and their gene pool will die with them will convince them to do something.
Maybe that there will be more consumers if they help get half the world's population out of poverty.

It has nothing to do with any of "them." We're essentially dealing with an industrial complex meaning people with a lack of vision outside their own interests are following a money trail. That's it, no one's really guilty things just evolved into this and will seemingly evolve into complete automation because cutting costs means more money. The only way to change it is to change the vision. The wealthy are in a better position but the responsibility remains in our hands.

And so it begins... Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour | Singularity Hub

Yeah, I'd seen that a month or so ago on futuretimeline.net.

It could hardly be said to be beginning there though; robotic cashiers are already outnumbering human ones in supermarkets, in the UK at least. Burger flipping and sitting on the checkout; two of the most stereotypical service jobs going the way of the dodo.