What's wrong with this political philosophy?

[DiamondDave]

Here's something to consider...

Productivity is up and so is unemployment and underemployment.

That is not mere coincidence.

As more and more people become redudant, thanks to advancing tecnology, what shall we do with the increasingly redundant population?


Please don't waste our time telling us that we retrain them.

Anything that these people can do, robots can (or soon will) do cheaper and better.

So what is the answer?

Bear in mind, while you thinking about this, that as technology makes doctors lawyers, engineers, software programmers, and the like dedundant, they too will be economically worthless in this market driven society.

What does mankind do when his machines make him DEDUNDANT?

Do we just all kill ourselves and let the machines produce goods for nobody, or what?

And the liberalism peeks it's ugly head out

What does "mankind" or "society" do

No... **** that stupid shit

WHAT DOES THE INDIVIDUAL DO FOR THEM SELF?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here's something to consider...

Productivity is up and so is unemployment and underemployment.

That is not mere coincidence.

As more and more people become redudant, thanks to advancing tecnology, what shall we do with the increasingly redundant population?


Please don't waste our time telling us that we retrain them.

Anything that these people can do, robots can (or soon will) do cheaper and better.

So what is the answer?

Bear in mind, while you thinking about this, that as technology makes doctors lawyers, engineers, software programmers, and the like dedundant, they too will be economically worthless in this market driven society.

What does mankind do when his machines make him DEDUNDANT?

Do we just all kill ourselves and let the machines produce goods for nobody, or what?

If through technological advancement we no longer have a need for doctors, lawyers, or so on that's not a negative. It means that we get all that more cheaply and efficiently, and those who would have been doctors or lawyers move into a different field where there is an actual demand for their contribution.

 

[Father Time]

Here's something to consider...

Productivity is up and so is unemployment and underemployment.

That is not mere coincidence.

As more and more people become redudant, thanks to advancing tecnology, what shall we do with the increasingly redundant population?


Please don't waste our time telling us that we retrain them.

Anything that these people can do, robots can (or soon will) do cheaper and better.

So what is the answer?

Bear in mind, while you thinking about this, that as technology makes doctors lawyers, engineers, software programmers, and the like dedundant, they too will be economically worthless in this market driven society.

What does mankind do when his machines make him DEDUNDANT?

Do we just all kill ourselves and let the machines produce goods for nobody, or what?

If through technological advancement we no longer have a need for doctors, lawyers, or so on that's not a negative. It means that we get all that more cheaply and efficiently, and those who would have been doctors or lawyers move into a different field where there is an actual demand for their contribution.

Then we build skynet and get enslaved by robots.

Now California's looking ahead, they elected someone who can take care of those robots personally.

 

[editec]

Why not? They do it now. It's called welfare.

Or TRUSTFUNDERS.

And "trustfunders" are doing it at YOUR expense how?

Strike a nerve there did I, DD?

 

[editec]

Here's something to consider...

Productivity is up and so is unemployment and underemployment.

That is not mere coincidence.

As more and more people become redudant, thanks to advancing tecnology, what shall we do with the increasingly redundant population?


Please don't waste our time telling us that we retrain them.

Anything that these people can do, robots can (or soon will) do cheaper and better.

So what is the answer?

Bear in mind, while you thinking about this, that as technology makes doctors lawyers, engineers, software programmers, and the like dedundant, they too will be economically worthless in this market driven society.

What does mankind do when his machines make him DEDUNDANT?

Do we just all kill ourselves and let the machines produce goods for nobody, or what?

And the liberalism peeks it's ugly head out

What does "mankind" or "society" do

No... **** that stupid shit

WHAT DOES THE INDIVIDUAL DO FOR THEM SELF?

Translation: Teacher? My head is full. May I be excused?

 

[editec]

Here's something to consider...

Productivity is up and so is unemployment and underemployment.

That is not mere coincidence.

As more and more people become redudant, thanks to advancing tecnology, what shall we do with the increasingly redundant population?


Please don't waste our time telling us that we retrain them.

Anything that these people can do, robots can (or soon will) do cheaper and better.

So what is the answer?

Bear in mind, while you thinking about this, that as technology makes doctors lawyers, engineers, software programmers, and the like dedundant, they too will be economically worthless in this market driven society.

What does mankind do when his machines make him DEDUNDANT?

Do we just all kill ourselves and let the machines produce goods for nobody, or what?

If through technological advancement we no longer have a need for doctors, lawyers, or so on that's not a negative.

I didn't suggest it was a negative.

It means that we get all that more cheaply and efficiently, and those who would have been doctors or lawyers move into a different field where there is an actual demand for their contribution.

What fields would those be that they'll be moving into, Kevin?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here's something to consider...

Productivity is up and so is unemployment and underemployment.

That is not mere coincidence.

As more and more people become redudant, thanks to advancing tecnology, what shall we do with the increasingly redundant population?


Please don't waste our time telling us that we retrain them.

Anything that these people can do, robots can (or soon will) do cheaper and better.

So what is the answer?

Bear in mind, while you thinking about this, that as technology makes doctors lawyers, engineers, software programmers, and the like dedundant, they too will be economically worthless in this market driven society.

What does mankind do when his machines make him DEDUNDANT?

Do we just all kill ourselves and let the machines produce goods for nobody, or what?

I didn't suggest it was a negative.

It means that we get all that more cheaply and efficiently, and those who would have been doctors or lawyers move into a different field where there is an actual demand for their contribution.

What fields would those be that they'll be moving into, Kevin?

My apologies then, it seemed as if you were suggesting it would be a negative.

As to what fields they would get into, I don't claim to be omniscient and able to predict the complex workings of the market, as our betters at our central bank seem to think they're able to do. I especially can't make such a bold prediction as to where displaced doctors or lawyers would go if they were put out of business en masse by future technological advancements. Though I think I'll go on record now in saying that they'll probably apply for their fair share of government subsidies before they move into an area where there is an actual demand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A completely cashless/valueless society. No money, no wealth... people work as they need to in order to fulfill their needs. You're free to pursue whatever line of work you wish to - as all of your basic needs will be met to allow you to achieve a higher level of existence. Where you work because you want to, not because you have to. So what's wrong with this philosophy?

Didn't they teach history in your school?

"The English Puritans, who left Great Britain and sailed across the Atlantic on the Mayflower in 1620, were not only escaping from religious persecution in their homeland. They also wanted to turn their back on what they viewed as the materialistic and greedy corruption of the Old World.
As Governor Bradford put it:
“And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end. . . .This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
The Plymouth Colony experienced a great bounty of food. Private ownership meant that there was now a close link between work and reward. Industry became the order of the day as the men and women in each family went to the fields on their separate private farms. When the harvest time came, not only did many families produce enough for their own needs, but they had surpluses that they could freely exchange with their neighbors for mutual benefit and improvement."
WRITTEN BY RICHARD M. EBELING

 

[editec]

I didn't suggest it was a negative.




What fields would those be that they'll be moving into, Kevin?

My apologies then, it seemed as if you were suggesting it would be a negative.

As to what fields they would get into, I don't claim to be omniscient and able to predict the complex workings of the market, as our betters at our central bank seem to think they're able to do. I especially can't make such a bold prediction as to where displaced doctors or lawyers would go if they were put out of business en masse by future technological advancements. Though I think I'll go on record now in saying that they'll probably apply for their fair share of government subsidies before they move into an area where there is an actual demand.

You're basically evading the question, you know.

I don't really blame you everyone I mention this to (mostly pols and technologists) poo-poos this problem, too. Of couse they're all employed.

Right now, about one in eight workers are already redundant.

By 2050, I'm betting it's going to be about half the population who are no longer economically viable because they cannot possible get the skills that are needed.

And even if they do have those skills, so few of them will be necessary because those fewer lower-skilled billets will be filled.

Even today, a couple strokes of the legilative pen and much of what lawyers do can be done by clerks, right now, just as one example.

So finding technical solutions to things like title searches and other low skill "lawyering" tasks (which often make up a lot of the bread and butter of many law firms) seems highly probable to me.

Much of what doctors do (particularly re: diagnostics) can be done by asking germane questions to the patient.

Any serious computer programer could create an intake program that would eliminate the need for many intake doctors.

UNDER-employment and unemployment are already evident because of amazing productivity increases, thanks to technology.

For example, I can now do alone what we once paid five people to do for Rosetta. That was about 12 years ago, FYI.

This is a problem that, as yet, we are pretending is going to be solved by retraining and more education, but that's preposterous.

But retraining (at least many of us, if not most of us, over time) is Training for what, exactly?

It seems unlikely that human IQs are going to rise quickly enough to make ALL of us suited for advanced particle physics, know what I mean?

And let's face it, even physicists are not all rocket scientists, either!

Part of what is straining our society right now is that people willing to work cannot find work that pays them enough to BE economically viable..

That problem is only going to get worse, and amigo, that problem WILL work its way up the employment food chain, too.

Almost 500 years ago, a person with my surname worked as what I suspect was probably a computer at Charles University.

Think that quirky genius could find work, today, doing that special skill ( rapid computation) which probably seemed like magic, back then?

How long before computer programs can edit people's writing at least as well, if not better than today's editors?

And please, let's ask ourselves what the technicians who used to work in Wall Street's back officers are doing today, shall we?

I can tell you what one of them did when he found that his enormously complex skills were replaced.

He opened up a tobacco kiosk in the same place where he used to pull down a wonderful salary. Perhaps he should have taken up ballet or partical physics, but he was a tad over the hill for those.

Oh, yeah, amigo, this social problem is NOT going away.

So it does make sense, perhaps, to start asking ourselves how we can ALL continue to benefit from increases in productivity when huge percentages of the population are becoming unemployable.

Or ...

we can continue pretending that all those people are worthless and lazy and just wait until the select human beings who aren't unemployed by technology own everything because the rest of us aren't worth anything to the market, and have all gone broke.

Oh, yeah, that's right, starving people probably won't wait that long, will they?

Perhaps they'll all decide that they're just losers and off themselves. Isn't that the Libertopian solution to this kind of problem?

What do you think, Kev?

Would you, finding yourself unable to find work, just decide you were a loser and kill yourself for the betterment of the remaining productive workers?

I'm kinda guessing you wouldn't.

At least I hope you wouldn't.

tick tock, dude.

Welcome to the world of the future.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Suicide is not the "Libertopian" solution to anything.

As to the substance of your post, yes people find it difficult to find employment in some cases. I'm not sure what your point is, however. Are you saying that we should subsidize these positions to keep them employed despite there being no demand? Or something else entirely?

 

[garyd]

who insures proper distribution of these basic needs. Who grows the food? Who builds the houses? Who makes the clothing. What constitutes a basic need? Who handles (for want of a better word) waste removal once it passes from the human body? These are all basic questions that your cashless system as described doesn't really answer.

 

[sitarro]

A SOCIALIST WORLD IS POSSIBLE!

The 60s called, they want their ideas back....... man.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Suicide is not the "Libertopian" solution to anything.

As to the substance of your post, yes people find it difficult to find employment in some cases. I'm not sure what your point is, however. Are you saying that we should subsidize these positions to keep them employed despite there being no demand? Or something else entirely?

I think what editec is saying is that we're essentially fucked, and there's not much we can do about it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh my god!! He's even sporting the colours now too!! *high 5*

Next thing we know Dave's gonna be chaining himself to Palestinian villages! asidhado [/jk]

The truth is that we don't really need to do much to make that happen... it is a process that IS occurring. Just take a look at all the naysayers. 200 years ago they would've been up there defending the divine rights of kings. That's exactly what those people thought of the sort of democracy we have today. "People are stupid!" "It's unrealistic!" "It's human nature to be sheep!" The King was the only one with real "wisdom" the only one who could rule, who could command the entire hierarchy to his whim. Then the Nobles said, "Hey, **** that!" and they forced the king to take their decisions into account. Then the people began moving to the cities, becoming rich and then the Bourgeoisie said "Hey, **** that!" and they forced themselves into decision making, and the nobles had to give. And then the workers- and then hell, the entire male population demanded to be represented, and the elites had to give. And then the women, and then the minorities- because people refuse to be oppressed.

There's absolutely no reason to think this project of democratization is over. What if the American people had thought after the revolution "well, this is about as representative and decentralized as we should get"? Only white propertied males would be able to do anything. Now most people can vote, sure, but why are we to think that this is it, that it will just remain like this? Everything changes. As I said before "Anarchy is a dream, it's chaos," well, that is EXACTLY what the old Monarchs said about any sort of democracy. And surely some of the first efforts were chaotic, even catastrophic (France 1789, anybody?) but nevertheless here we are. So now we get to pick people to represent us, instead of being handed them from above. That's all well and good, but the fact is that every democracy we have today is imperfect, even in the U.S., but it will keep evolving- the only question is whether the tide of progress will be held back by the interest of the powerful or by the people, demanding a just and free society where we interact with each other in terms of equality and respect.

EDIT: That being said, it's obvious that we've still gone a long way to go (Just look around this thread). This transformation won't happen overnight, it won't fall on our laps, it won't simply explode all of a sudden, and if it did it would probably be bloody and catastrophic, but I'm fairly confident we're heading there, slowly but surely, and that's probably for the best.

LOL...

But it NEVER OCCURS to the left that their advocacies are in direct opposition to their stated goals.

How pray tell, does advocating AGAINST INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY... square with the potential for this great Anarchist dream?

For Anarchy, to be even a POTENTIAL end, the INDIVIDUAL is the core element of power... thus the INDIVIDUAL must be the one RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES... Not the collective.. NOT the Community.

Yet with every single solitary element of left-think is the desire to STRIP THE INDIVIDUAL OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY and place that responsibility ONTO THE COMMUNITY.

IF such an 'experiment' were to have a chance to develope, the INDIVIDUAL must be the one that is able to stand up and live within his own means, by his own hand and without regard to any level of 'cooperation' that he may or may not apply towards their community.

Think about it for a moment... What is the constant point of ridicule amongst the ideological left? The Hick.. the Hayseed... "Small Town America".

When, in point of fact, IF there is any POTENTIAL EXAMPLE OF ANARCHY TODAY... as it is described by our inhouse, wouldbe Anarchists, it is the small, rural town where people live on their own means of production and extend to their neighbors, to THEIR COMMUNITY, constant, unimpeded cooperation on the general premise that where one falls, they all fall. But it is the work ethic, the values and the overall lifestyle that the small town Americans of 'The Bible Belt" LIVE... that is lampooned and ridiculed without cessation by the effete intellecuals of the ideological left, every single DAY...

So youl'll pardon me if I maintain strong reservations that this farce is remotely viable... because it stands in PRACTICE at distinct odds with it's theory... and where a theory is not viable due to its theoretical construct, it is not viable in PRACTICE.

There was likely no better example of sustainable Anarchy than the America which existed PRIOR TO THE ONSET OF PROGRESSIVISM... which sought to advance the Social Science that undermines at every point of contect the very INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES WHICH SUCH STOOD DIRECTLY UPON...

And that is why your words are empty and that is why your theory is rejected... you state a desired end, but your every notion in attempting its application undermines the foundation which must exist to sustain that end...

You claim you want FREEDOM, but your efforts can and have always lead directly towards tyranny.

 

[DiamondDave]

Here's something to consider...

Productivity is up and so is unemployment and underemployment.

That is not mere coincidence.

As more and more people become redudant, thanks to advancing tecnology, what shall we do with the increasingly redundant population?


Please don't waste our time telling us that we retrain them.

Anything that these people can do, robots can (or soon will) do cheaper and better.

So what is the answer?

Bear in mind, while you thinking about this, that as technology makes doctors lawyers, engineers, software programmers, and the like dedundant, they too will be economically worthless in this market driven society.

What does mankind do when his machines make him DEDUNDANT?

Do we just all kill ourselves and let the machines produce goods for nobody, or what?

And the liberalism peeks it's ugly head out

What does "mankind" or "society" do

No... **** that stupid shit

WHAT DOES THE INDIVIDUAL DO FOR THEM SELF?

Translation: Teacher? My head is full. May I be excused?

\

Translation... it's everybody's fault but mine... it's everyone else's responsibility but mine... give me what I want because I think I am entitled to it



You position in life is not the responsibility of "society"... it is YOUR responsibility

And when it comes to trust funders... again... they are doing it at your expense HOW?

I don't give a rat's ass whether some trust funder lives off of some of daddy's money and spanks off to Hustler all day... I don't care if they don't... I WOULD care if they are sucking off of the public's taxation tit

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Suicide is not the "Libertopian" solution to anything.

As to the substance of your post, yes people find it difficult to find employment in some cases. I'm not sure what your point is, however. Are you saying that we should subsidize these positions to keep them employed despite there being no demand? Or something else entirely?

I think what editec is saying is that we're essentially fucked, and there's not much we can do about it.

Ed is portraying the same shortsightedness that the left always portrays... Lawyers leave the field of law everyday, in every way... the list of things lawyers do INSTEAD OF LAW, is endless... they become everything from CEOs to Surf-bums... No offense to the CEOs...

Using his analogy of his surname progenitor, Ed claims that today the world would have no place for a person with superior math skills... which is absurd on it's face. Sure that individual would not likely work as a calculator, but perhaps as a chemist, biologist or an engineer... Hell the list of endeavors suited to someone with an analytical mind is endless in today’s world... at the worst, he could easily become head night-manager of any 7-11 in town and if he could be talked out of his green eye-shade... there's potential for the DAY SHIFT!

The point is that the market is fluid, not static and the INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY which is common to the US has and unless crippled by the intellectual limitations of left-think, WILL ALWAYS provide the means of INDIVIDUALS to find their own way to produce products or services which they can exchange for fair value and live a life which THEY feel best pursues their own personal fulfillment.

Now you may say that the guy working two shitty jobs to support his family isn't living the dream... but you aren't him and you don't know what his dreams are... His dreams may not be founded on how he earns a living, but THAT HE EARNS A LIVING to support his family... which is his dream. And that is where the left again fails... you project that the ethereal poor are under privileged... without regard for what THEY DO EVERY DAY to sustain THEIR PERSONAL FULFILLMENT... just because it does not seem equitable with the guy whose third house is on the beach and drives a car that is worth more than the Poor guy earns in a decade, that doesn't mean that choices have NOT been made in BOTH CASES; wherein each one accepted or did not accept or even flat out rejected a certain level of satisfaction; or the need to set aside satisfaction to some unknown distant point.

The poor guy gets to a place of accomplishment and says... "This is GREAT... and stops... or pauses'... While the rich guy rarely stops, barely pauses and moves forward... He is rarely, if EVER “satisfied.”

Which one is "BETTER?" Which one is 'happy'?

The Market works because it's filled with people who need it to work and who get up everyday, one way or another and react to their NEEDS, using their own skill set and imaginations to exchange fair value for fair value until those needs are met; and in so doing, NEW JOBS... NEW "THINGS" are developed out of necessity and OPPPORTUNITY; which one generation never CONSIDERED because the puzzle was not sufficiently developed at that time to make that NEW THING EVEN RELEVANT... let alone feasible at that time.

Now Ed might say that technology will cripple the means of the 'new thing' in short order, THEN WHAT? ... Then he moves on to the next thing... and life goes on... You may say, 'well it's not perfect'... I say it IS PERFECT and the proof that it is perfect is that is HOW IT WORKS... It's natures way and to the extent of our existance, there is no level of perfection which has ever been observed which exists outside of natural perfection.

 

[sealybobo]

Won't work, many jobs won't be done unless people get paid for them, and the money is transmuted into things they want or like.

So we hire Mexicans to do that work. But as Americans, we have everything we need. If we want more than just what we need, then we work for it. If want even more than that, then we go to school to be an engineer, doctor or lawyer. If we start a business and make a fortune, great, but if we just want to exist and fish all day, we can.

Make all the apartment complexes in America free. Heat, free. Water, free. But if you want Cable, you have to pay. But basic tv, free like it used to be. Healthcare, free.

If you want a car, you gotta work. But gas is free. No, just kidding. You have to pay for gas. But gas is regulated by the government. Never again will we be dumb enough to vote in a oil man as president, or a defense contractor as VP.

Free college too. Free food too, but just the basics. No beer, cigarettes, etc. Only oatmeal, eggs, fruits and veggy's. All funded by the government.

And the corporations pay all the taxes. Or the CEO's who make $20 million a year.

With this political philosophy, I won't care that they are sending jobs overseas or hiring illegal workers. We'll need the workers.

This will be a true eutopia. The worst day in human history was the day men stopped working for themselves and started working for other people. When you work for yourself, you do as much as you need and want to do that makes you happy. When you work for someone else, they are always going to want more and more.

This will drive conservatives crazy.

 

[garyd]

And how many guns are you going to hld on the Mexicans to get them to haul of your shit after you dumped it

 

[Pyrite]

That would work just fine if we could figure out some way of getting our food and infrastructure maintainence for free. People do not want to do that kind of work just for the hell of it. Sure, people will organize their local charity or maybe spend a few hours a week on community projects, but they'll need more incentive to produce what we require as a people.

As a side note, this is the political philosophy of the Federation in Star trek (at least after next gen), and it only works there because after replicators, transporters, nearly limitless energy, and hundreds of worlds to live on, all the necessities of life are really taken care of.