But Wouldn’t Robots Take Over?
"what if robots become so good that they are better than humans at everything? Wouldn’t we all lose our jobs, and hence our livelihoods, while the rich have their corporations run by robots and retain all their profits?" ... The misunderstanding arises because of the failure to see the market as a dynamic, responsive mechanism, but rather as a fixed and machine-like device existing outside the realm of human desires.
"what if robots become so good that they are better than humans at everything? Wouldn’t we all lose our jobs, and hence our livelihoods, while the rich have their corporations run by robots and retain all their profits?"
...
You forgot the </shameless plug> tag
Good read! Your writing style is getting really good.
Thanks! And yeah, shameless plug :P
We've gotta get the word out about this blog!
Wheylous: But Wouldn’t Robots Take Over?
Nice writing, buddy. Very clear and concise.
I have an interesting deviation, though. While economically this makes absolute sense, there has been a growing trend of people I've met with in different social circles, and they've come to the same concern: they believe robots will physically take over humanity, as in the sense of Terminator of The Matrix.
What do y'all think of that? I say if it has a CPU, it can be killed.
That's a separate article! :D I have not thought it through.
Taken to the limit, the corporations will be made up of only the owners and the robots, while the rest of the masses are poor and jobless
Not sure if you were trying to get this across, but I believe if it were taken to the limit the robots themselves would be capable of running the businesses. Robots would produce other robots and design new robots.
“but what will we do when we need not labor to survive?” I propose we worry about that when we get there – we’ll have nothing else to do!
Definitely clever, but I don't think we'll have to worry about anything. It would be great if nobody had to labor anymore and we could all do leisurely things. Those who enjoy work (take for example, the person who enjoys splitting logs for the fireplace) can do so because they enjoy it -- not because if they don't they freeze to death.
Also, I read your draft on pastebin (you linked to it on another forum site). Had some thoughts on that, too:
The voluntaryist’s suggestion that the core responsibilities of the state – provision of courts, police, and national defense – be demonopolized (that is, allowed to work in private hands instead of being financed by coercive government taxation.
Well, the police and courts are not necessarily monopolized today. There are private security firms as well as private arbitration agencies today. I think what you mean to say is that those services should be provided by the private sector only.
And checks and balances do sort of limit politicians and gov. officials because politicians and gov. officials generally want more power for themselves. If one politician or judge steps over the "line" (whether a social norm or a constitutional boundary), other politicians and judges will try to knock him down. That's what keeps politicians in check.
I like the part about checks and balances in the private sector (if one still accepts C+B as protective factors in the public sector), but I think denegrating the C+B in the public sector damages your later argument about C+B in the private sector.
I have to get back to writing my term paper so I can't make a back-and-forth out of this. Hope it helps.