Having a debate with one of my mates on Facebook, If your interested. I've obviously borrowed from a few Mises sources to support my argument, but interested to hear what you fellows make of it ?
So who makes the machines to make the machines?
edit: Also his first rebuttal against communism is shady. He says it has negative connotation and then in the same breath says capitalism is a nasty piece of work (negative connotation). So maybe he's not against negative connotation? Maybe he is agreeing it is communism? He's very unclear. Ask him to define capitalism. He thinks communism has a negative connotation (but isn't a nasty piece of work?). And capitalism is a nasty piece of work (but that isn't or is negative connotation?). Yes, he's very unclear.
As a worker's productivity increases, the amount of profit gained form that employee's labor increases. If the labor force is now creating more profit per employee, the employer would want to hire even more employees to gain more profit.
Would you rather have 5 guys with teaspoons digging, or 5 guys with shovels digging? If you have 5 guys with teaspoons digging, why would you fire 4 upon getting one shovel? The other 4 were digging because it was profitable for the employer, so they will continue digging. As more money comes in, more shovels will be purchased.
I would consider joining the group, but it sounds too much like central planning to me.
Ash Lawson:i won't get into Intellectual property simply because i haven't made up my mind on it yet.
Lots of good literature on here explaining why intellectual property is bad bad bad.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
You need to point out that machinery and capitalism correlate for good reasons that you've stated, but there's no conflict between having a free market intentionally choose primitive organization for the sake of maintaining labor. Look at the Amish communities, they are the result of free and voluntary association. No amount of advancement in society can take their lives away from them. Even if the rest of the world becomes like the matrix, the Amish will continue their existence if their property rights are respected.A rich capitalist pig cannot take anything away from you. Socialism is possible under capitalism, you just can't force people to join your commune.
wilderness:So who makes the machines to make the machines?
I make them. But i always ask myself, since it was easier for me to make a machine that makes machines... certainly wont those machines make the same choice?
It could very well be that at some point humans will not have to work anymore.+ Jobs aren't really a good thing in the first place - They imply that there are unfulfilled needs...but I have not put a lot of thinking in how such a society would look like - we got enough problems to deal with in the present state.
But who knows, human society will definitively face a dramatic shift in values when all resources become abundant, (maybe even life) and older ethical consideration will become more and more irrelevant.
Some interesting points raised here, I'd like to thank you for all your responses. I'm looking forward very much to his reply, then i can decide which avenue to take.
On the IP stuff, i will look into it, its just not come up much in my thoughts. Right now i'm really just trying to work on strengthening my argument against socialists. I do this by going to as many socialist workers party meetings as i ca :) I don't really say much at these meetings because I'm afraid of public speaking but I'm trying. I find theres no better way to test and strengthen your philosophy then by listening to oppositions pov.
Ok here it is guys, those who's blood is likely to boil best look away.
Ash Lawson: Ok here it is guys, those who's blood is likely to boil best look away. Niall Meadows Corporatism is capitalism and the day will come where machines make work redundant. Which could be sooner than we think if we put our minds to it.Interesting movies worth watching are Food inc and Michael Moore's, Capitalism a love story. I would be interested in your running commentary on how capitalism is a good thing.
And thus Michael Moore's whole movie is a strawman, admitted by the man himself.
Economics in One Lesson - Chapter 7- The Curse of Machinery
Zeitgeist Addendum is what he's seen... full of fallacies at every turn. Essentially, this guy is now supporting technocracy / anarcho-communism... he just doesn't know it.
Points to home in on, who owns the means of productions? Private ownership or public?
Also the calculation argument, i.e no price mechanism
Essentially he is living in a post scarcity world utopia. Economic ignorance is his first problem that will need to be overcome.
Ash Lawson: Niall Meadows Corporatism is capitalism and the day will come where machines make work redundant. Which could be sooner than we think if we put our minds to it.Interesting movies worth watching are Food inc and Michael Moore's, Capitalism a love story. I would be interested in your running commentary on how capitalism is a good thing.
Here's a short piece I wrote on this topic, as a response to an article published by the Washington Post: Technology, Machinery and the Human Laborer. This is a topic that is sometimes misunderstood by even Austrian economists! (Well, I'm not sure misunderstood is the right term; perhaps "not completely thought out"). Or, maybe I am missing something...
Not related to what I wrote, or to what your friend wrote, the Ricardo Effect suggests that as labor becomes more expensive in relation to capital (that is, when demand for consumer-goods decrease because savings goes up and capitalists begin to invest), entrepreneurs will replace labor with capital-goods (i.e. machinery). Jesús Huerta de Soto, I believe (I am too lazy to open the book, but I think this is what he suggests), says that this will lead to unemployment, although this unemployment will be soaked back up during the final stages of production. I don't believe this will lead to unemployment. I think that these workers will instead be re-structured in the capital-goods industry.
Hes arguing for the creation of strong AI. My argument is that strong AI will never serve humanity. To become intelligent requires learning. There are two types of learning, supervised learning and unsupervised learning. I will address the two types of learning separately.
Supervised learning - a computer program is taught how to think by interacting with a human user that acts as the programs oracle, if the program becomes confused it will ask the oracle to clarify. There are a host of problems with this approach to AI, however if they could be overcome an intelligent slave machine could be built.
1. A human being is actually not an oracle. If the computer asks the oracle a question and the oracle gives the wrong answer, an incomplete answer, or no answer the AI learning has been stunted and will fail. So lets say the computer asks the oracle, what is this attribute called "sweet."
2. A computer can not be told about an experience in enough detail to actually "be" that experience. So an ai always will fundamentally get incomplete answers.
3. One human being can not physically sit long enough to answer all the machines questions in sufficient detail that ai is satisfied. Therefore we need multiple oracles.
4. Multiple oracles are impossible because human beings disagree, the ai has no reliable standard of truth.
Because of these problems and probably more I'm forgetting the supervised learning of an AI from knowing nothing to knowing what a human knows is impossible. So what about learning that doesn't require an oracle?
Unsupervised learning - through the use of differentiation of things based on statistically significant differences all information and data about the world can be separated and classified in a method that leads to understanding. There are problems with this though in relation to the premise.
1. Essentially the unsupervised AI is a completely closed system, the human cannot relate anything to it. If it could be related to it is pure chance that this occurs. There is meaning in this world it has created, but there is no reason to believe that this world could be represented or related to a human being.
2. The internal world of the AI does not include things that a human experiences.
So really supervised AI is the only path that leads to the machine managed world, but I have to ask: If we create a machine that is essentially a copy of a human being, why not just use human beings? Surely it is much easier to breed than to create an AI.
Ugh, I actually stomached that Michael Moore clip. In the end he just concludes that everyone should have a free ride... College? Should be free. Health care? Should be free.
Who pays for it? Ask Mike, he'll tell you the "rich" will, while simultaneously advocating that people shouldn't be rich. Yeah, right...
twistedbydsign99: wilderness:So who makes the machines to make the machines? I make them. But i always ask myself, since it was easier for me to make a machine that makes machines... certainly wont those machines make the same choice?
yeah, but a person makes the machines that makes the machines first. Then we'll see how this pans out. The Technocrat was more like a gitty-kid that found a new toy. He didn't offer anything substantial. Like the how, why, what, etc....
Ash Lawson:Corporatism is capitalism
Ash Lawson:Which could be sooner than we think if we put our minds to it.
Ash Lawson: I would be interested in your running commentary on how capitalism is a good thing.
You and your friend have alot of Ladyattis to go through.
Zeitgeist/Venus Project Into:
Technological Unemployment Coupled with Price System:
Leveer13 is a Poopy Head Saga:
Price System/Capitalist Strawman Busting:
Full Automation System Busting:
This is my reply, i hope its ok. Wrote this a little hung over from last night. lol
Ash Lawson
Corporatism is so very different from capitalism, for a true Laissez Faire capitalist society, lets define the role of government. I like to define government as most Libertarians do, the way Jefferson put it. That you have a right to your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness /private property. That government should exist only to protect those rights, to provide protection from force or fraud and to provide a place where people you solve they're disputes, nothing more. Once government starts doing other shit, for example getting involved in the economy and mixing shit up, its no longer capitalism because it begins to distort the marketplace. Once government gets involved in the private affairs of its people it become corporatism because of special interests, we have winners and losers. Winners being corporations like Shell, Monsanto, Coca-Cola. They all get special favours from the government. And the losers being us, through taxing (government stealing by use of force - aka corporatism) we have to bail out the banks and all the other infallible giants. In a true capitalist society employing Austrian economic theory, this could not happen, you wouldn't have these mammoths (simply because the regulations/lies the government sold you, said to protect the consumer actually protected the corporation - from competition), unless of course the goods they produced where so highly valued by the public.To be honest you seem a little brain washed from Mr Moore and his leftist propaganda, i feel nothing i really say here is gonna change your mind so i suggest you do a little research into corporatism. Food Inc is a lovely little example of Corporatism at work, notice the good farmer outside in the fresh air complaining about government regulation. Then the big bad giant companies protected by whom with all the regulations? I recommend you watch food inc another time with this in mind. The key thing to remember all along is central planning (government) is a bad thing, you seem to want more central planning albeit run by experts in they're fields (who may have conflicts with other exerts in that area). So true capitalism, the only way to progress society as a free and prosperous people.
Hey can i just ask those who quoted the guy to edit out his name in they're posts pls. I've changed his name to technocrat. I realise i should of changed his name before directly copying and pasting, it was wrong of me, sorry for the inconvenience, won't happen again. I will continue to keep you updated on the debate.
thanks.
that was a good response except, which may not bother your argument with the Technocrat at all, but optimally bothers liberty is you mention government is to protect rights and pointed out that's what Jefferson mentioned. Jefferson undoubtedly supported this as he was part of the political establishment of the U.S. government. That is not arguable. But to say government (the initiator of coercion for a territorial monopoly) is to protect rights in and of itself is an impossiblity. But to the main point of the discussion you are having with the technocrat I don't think it necessarily will harm your response in general. I think the main theme in your response was corporatism and upon that fact your response was excellent.
It can seem like you cant win when debating followers of Jaque Fresco. The answer you get when you try to use standard socialist calculation arguments is to deny the basic premise of economics; the assumption of scarcity. They claim that in their utopia there big brother super computer will do everything for them and super quick(utilising a series of tubes for delivery, you just have to enter your needs if I remember correctly). So far so Star Trek. Now I am not going to argue with the idea that such a future is possible. That is not the dodgy part. It starts getting dodgy when you ask them how this world is to be achieved. The answer usually given is that we have to stop using money. For them the 'money system' is the problem.
The core of there economic beliefs is the need in a capitalist system for so called 'Cyclical Consumption'
the idea that we cannot stop the circulation of money from producers to consumers and back because the system will collapse.
What Fresco draws from this is
"Nothing physically produced can ever maintain an operational lifespan longer than what canbe endured in order to maintain economic integrity through ‘cyclical consumption’."
He is saying in essence that capitalism in its very form prevents the design things that can last (virtually)forever. And actually tries to use the water diamond paradox to prove that capitalist actors will CREATE scarcity where there is none because scarcity is profitable! Once we are freed from this then we can escape scarcity by designing things that will never break down.
This is how he will create his Utopia. In effect he pulls a slight of hand. Hiding scarcity behind the curtain. He actually thinks that removing money will usher in a utopia and not destroy civilisation. Venus fans don't seem to get the simple logical progression of: remove money > regress to barter> breakdown in the division of labour > productivity drops off a cliff > millions die. Fresco relies on a variation of Marxist false consciousness for why a post money world will work. 'Vanity, Ego, Jealousy and Greed' are all results of 'the system' remove it and humanity can be perfected. LOL and he says he's not utopian.
There is a whole load more stuff like this in the Activist Orientation guide and all you need to debunk it is in the first chapter.
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf
here are some bloopers for you amusement
"There is also the Investor who gives fiscal support to an Employer/Owner/Producer, or trades in the Financial markets forgain. This isn’t relevant to the context for an investor is not required to exist in order for the market system to operate."
“ monetary system’s foremost motivating principle is Profit, or the acquisition of money throughthe exploitation of others.”
"through the "advent of Technology and the elimination of Scarcity, 99% of all economic theory is now an outdatedand irrelevant practice"
“On yet another level, it should be pointed outthat the central banks of nearly all countries also create scarcity within the money supply itself inorder to keep pressure on the market system.”
The "money supply is expanded, typically creating “economicgrowth” (That's right boys and girls just crank up the money supply and grow, grow, grow!!! Inflation? whats that?)
not just a money crank, an allover crank.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring