David L

Robots Replace Waiters in China http://www.infowars.com/robots-replace-waiters-in-china/

Yes, that's all the present society really cares about---work. It morphed into a total religion with the advent of capitalism, and until we confront this religion of work and understand it, we will continue down the present path of working ourselves out of existence. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/34671/273068.aspx#273068

Yes, I think that's a taste of it. You get a real sense of pleasure when the children are voluntarily helping out, from their own developing sense of rightness. I think that the closer you get to them in the sense of true friendship and appreciation, the more they will want to be around you and thus naturally help out, out of a joy of just being and doing together. Thanks for sharing.

Good call, my friend. You got it bingo...

But what if the reason why I want to "use the 3rd option" of exchange with my child is not because I want him to do it for his own good, but because I have a felt need for a cleaner house than he feels is necessary. At least you are being honest here about your reasons for resorting to bribes, which you admit you do not administer for the child's good (!). By the way, and if I may ask, is a clean home more important to you than a clean relationship with your child? Paradoxically, you may find that if you value more the latter, the former will eventually fall into place without much effort. Is there anything detrimental about making an offer to exchange value for value... like Dayna's list idea? Once again, by offering bribes for home chores, aren't you teaching children that the bribes are more valuable than the inherent independence and wholesomeness of home and family values? You are in effect uprooting the children from their natural bond to their home and its care, preparing them to live for the larger, codependent marketplace of widespread alienation instead. Do you ever do things for immediate gratification rather than for their "inherent benefit and integrity"? Is there anything wrong with that? Yes, I was brought up a bribed child in many ways (school is a supreme example) and I'm still in the process of healing from that unhealthy interference.

It's unclear though why you would resort to this tactic. If you believe that what you want the child to do is for his own good, why not explore (perhaps even with the child) why he doesn't want to do it? If he's incapable of understanding his own self-benefit, how capable is he then of trading for his own benefit? You'll have to confess that you're merely manipulating him based upon his immaturity. Wouldn't it be better in the long run for him to remain as close to the source of his own self-benefit as possible, rather than being distracted by lures away from them? Won't you be creating a bad habit in him, acclimating his mind to doing things, not for their inherent benefit and integrity, but for the sake of something else more immediately gratifying to him? Indeed, might you not be conditioning him deep down to become a bribe-prone individual for life, someone easily manipulated by others, crippled in seeing the virtue of doing beneficial things simply in and for themselves? I've noticed many parents want their children to morph into adults as fast as possible. The paradox is that the best way to do this to let them be children as long as they need to be, while being there for them as an example of what they need to eventually become themselves.

Hmmm. Just wondering if we might be wandering too far from the focus of this thread...

We didn't get increased work, we got it decreased heavily. From what starting time period are you speaking from? 50 years ago? Just because we still work about the same hours doesn't mean we don't have more free time now compared to 50 years ago First off, evidence suggests that 50 years ago we worked significantly less hours than we do today (I'm speaking in particular for America here). Secondly, what do you mean by free time? To most people, it means time free from work, which doesn't seem to be what you mean. Please clarify on your definition if you will. (just think of all the things you almost spend no time doing outside the working hours, that used to take you hours to days to complete, like laundry, communication, transportation (to see friends for instance), just to name a few. Now mentally go back 150 years and think about how much time was freed up thanks to technology for us now.) If the time freed up doesn't give us free time, but only a new set of labors to perform, I don't see any progress made in terms of free time. Please clarify further your argument. Thanks.

Do you think it is possible for a parent to offer a clearly defined reward to a child that...is completely void of manipulation and guilt? Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see how any extrinsically offered reward can be void of a motive of manipulation. You are trying to manipulate the child's behavior, otherwise you wouldn't be offering the reward. Perhaps the right approach here is to explore why it is we feel we can't just ask the child if he will do something we would like him to do, explaining why we would like him to do it. Wouldn't this be a more honest, constructive and revealing approach to our problem than merely resorting to bribes to get what we want?

One simple way to look at this is via history.. Since the industrial revolution (let's say 1800) we have had automation breakthrough after automation breakthrough. This has been followed by a massive population growth and yet more jobs were created. Yes, exactly the opposite of what we were promised would occur from automation. Remember back in the sixties we were promised this technology would bring us increased leisure in the near future, not increased work. That's one of my points. Both market and statist based societies are about increasing work, not increasing freedom. No doubt we'll keep working until we work ourselves right into becoming robots themselves. (Indeed, how else can you compete with the other robots for "jobs"?) Of course it's entirely correct that jobs are lost, but since technology replaces labour by a minimum of 3-1 and often a whole lot more it frees up the available labour to work in different markets. How about freeing up PEOPLE instead of freeing up labor? Now there's a totally outrageous idea. :-)

Would you say that what truly benefits one truly benefits all?

So which situation does the vacuum example more closely relate to? I'm not sure? Are you suggesting that there is already some kind of an implicit trade or aggrement between a child and a parent where the child is in a sense obligated to clean the house without pay?... that by introducing a monetary reward you are undermining the implicit obligation as well as the relationship? Yes, where there is a feeling of human community without conditions made upon it, the voluntary spirit has the freedom to come forth to offer itself freely. It feels what is appropriate to do without being bribed or coerced by extrinsic motivators, because there is a deeper sense of connection present between all concerned. Offering to pay money for some behavior indicates that there is a lack of this deeper connection between people. That's what needs to be addressed, I would say. While the bribe may win you what you want in the short term, it won't heal the sense of division and separation there. Look at what happens when emergencies occur. When life is on the line, we usually don't stand back and calculate payment or take count of how much time we will contribute to one another to save lives or alleviate each other's suffering. I would say that this more spontaneous, humane behavior indicates we have touched upon our fundamental nature as unconditional caretakers of one another. Thus, it seems we obfuscate that nature when we resort to offering rewards to one another for preferred behavior. I think in the end it makes us apathetic and dulls our sensitivity. It can even make people rebel and do the opposite behavior, because we generally don't like the idea of being manipulated or bribed. It's an insult to our integrity as ethical beings. Not sure if you see what I mean.

Is it bribery to pay a neighbor to cut your lawn for you? How is this different than paying your child to vacuum a room? First try exploring the question this way. If you wanted your wife or girl friend to scratch your back, would you offer first to pay her for it in order to get what you want? If not, why not?

Thanks for the post. I have the book and use it as a reference source in conjunction with the rest of my personal library. I highly recommend it along with Kohn's other books. Regarding your foremost query and the specific example you mention, it seems to me the coins would be a distraction to the child's ability to see and appreciate for himself the value of doing the house work for its own sake, along with you. As I see it, children usually hate house chores not because they are inherently loathsome, but because the parents usually lord it over them in some way, out of their own impatience or sense of entitlement over the child's actions, and it is this infringment upon his or her own individual freedom that s/he really despises and rebels against. Personally I would give the child total freedom from all bribery and manipulative tricks, and let him participate and discover the value of house work for himself, in his own time and space. This of course requires a patience which most parents do not seem to have, which is why they interfere with and corrupt the chlld's natural voluntary impulses early on. You can't be a sincere voluntaryist while resorting to rewards, bribes, or any other manipulative stunts in your relationship with children or anyone else, in my view.

What do you mean by self-contained? Do you mean robots that repair robots, deliver robot parts, etc? Right. We're probably talking about cyborgs at this level though, but who knows. What's halting progress on it becoming self-contained? Apparently the ruling class right now thinks its people owning guns. It's pretty obvious what their general intent is if they manage to take them away from the people. How long till it's likely to happen? If we don't wake up I'd say a few decades, but I'm no expert on this. But the waking up has to happen much faster than this to avoid a fait accompli. What's really going to shake things up is when the automation starts hitting the service sector. There's no way that the displacement can be absorbed. Where are they going to go? Yes, I believe the intent is to minimize the shake up by eliminating people's ability to rebel against this technocracy. We can see this in "gun control" legislation now. The control freaks have always wanted robots, they just needed us to bulid them for them, then they could eliminate us, or give us the option of becomng cyborgs ourselves under their total control (which is euphemistically called "Transhumanism"). Think of all the promises we've been beguiled by: The Green Revolution would end hunger. Computers and automation would bring us increasing leisure. Those were just lies to lure us into the trap we're in now. And "Transhumanism" is the new lie, that we will all be better off and stronger and more intelligent if we submit to turning ourselves into cyborgs. One lie after another into the realm of total enslavement and the final extinction of our humanity.

The robotic revolution isn't self-contained yet. Human workers are still required to get it to that point. In the meantime they have to "buy" things in order to enable them generally to keep working toward that end. Once the system of robotized production becomes self-contained, humans become irrelevant along with their purchasing activities. Those who own the robots (or cyborgs for that matter) don't need to pay them to work. The labor market---and all markets---become irrelevant.

Not sure why you're cynical regarding the general point of the article. Do you doubt that the dizzying advance in robotic technology is replacing human labor? That's its very purpose, no? Regarding who will buy the products these robots make, they won't be NEED to be bought by the ruling class that owns them. The products will simply be used and consumed by this rulng class itself, that is, by the owners of the robots. (This is a major reason why "gun control" is now on their agenda, as I see it).

Regarding the pursuit of truth, for someone to pursue truth impiies that truth is one thing and the pursuer of it is another. Which further implies that there is no truth to the pursuer at all---he is merely a made up mental fiction, like the state. Fully realizing this pierces the illusion of free will.

Hmmm. Thanks for pointing this out, I just got so energized by the terminology used that I felt compelled to address it, not wanting people to be led down a path of initial misunderstanding (from my point of view.) I'll watch this tendency of mine in the future, and be more tactful. My apologies and thanks again for bringing it to my attention.

In the case of markets, free is an adjective, giving it a definition of "Not under the control or in the power of another." A free market is freedom, to think otherwise is just silly. If markets aren't free, people can't be. By definition. People ultimately don't depend upon markets, markets depend upon people. You can live in a commune, for example, where people share everything without price tags put on them. It's like a large extended family, that's all.

If that's true, is it bad? How does one "create" a market and how does a market divide people? I seem to recall you insinuating that people should not be free to associate with whom they wish. I don't say the price tags are bad. I say they do not indicate freedom. What would be the net effect of everyone in your family putting price tags on everything in your home, including their own contributive actions and speech? Markets divide people by prohibiting them from spontaneous, free sharing. A boundary is created which locks everyone into conditional giving and receiving. It's a restrictive inhibition, based upon self-concern, among other things. How are markets created? Wow, that's a vast question worth exploring. I don't see how you see me insinuating that people should not be free to associate with whom they wish. Freedom of association is one expression of freedom. If you are afraid to associate with poor people, it simply tells you something about your own level of freedom, that's all. When you are scared, you aren't free, obviously.

The term "free market" is a total oxymoron, and a wildly successful example of Orwellian doublespeak. The ruling class created the term so that, in the mind of its subjects, markets would always be associated with "free", and thus people would unconsciously see markets as something very desirable and attractive. But a market has nothing but price tags, so by definition it's the total opposite of "free"---it's a trap, beguling the unwary into the "divide" part of the total strategy of "divide and conquer"---- that is, first you create the market to divide human beings from each other, then you create the state to conquer them. There are of course many creature comforts and material benefits that arise out of markets, but without a foundation in true freedom, they always lead to subjugation and tyranny. The idea that a society can be fundamentally based upon the "free market" without becoming a statist tyranny is as silly as believing that a small government won't become a big one. In order to have freedom, you first have to have freedom. Period. Only people can be free, not markets.

Thanks for the point, well taken. James Tracy's work does propose the possiblity that the event may never have happened at all, that's one reason why it's probably good to hear him speak at length without being demonized by the desperate, stuttering MSM and their flailing credibility in journalism reporting. See for example this seemingly desperate attack on him, quite relevant to our topic here...

Statist media attacks Florida professor for questioning Sandy Hook http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_lZhxsDAHJM

Fair enough.