The utopian trap - intrinsically anti-anarchist/libertarian

[Torero]

Hi all,

 

I want to touch on a subject that I think most of us are familiar with.

 

In discussions with statists, anti-libertarians and others, even just open minded intellectuals (so recognising moral and ethics), at one moment a false trap is set to disgrace the call for libertarianism/end of statism.

 

Many times the question comes up "how would this and that be arranged in a libertarian society?" (see for instance a call for "how will the poor and homeless be fed?" or "how would X work in a libertarian society?").

 

This utopian trap is a false question for two main reasons.

 

1 - it is impossible to portray a libertarian society from the current situation. It would be like someone in 1880 asking "how would X work in 1990?" when all the factors are different. It is the positioning of an unknown future based on the present day factors, technical developments, risks and status of society.

 

The "picture" of a stateless society cannot be painted with the pencils and paint that are created in a non- or even anti-free (statist) situation.

 

2 - the question itself, the desire for an utopia, is a question based on statist doctrine; statists want to "arrange" societies, want to "create and impose things using force".

 

For an anarchist/libertarian/voluntaryist that is an intrinsically impossible standpoint, as the idea of the philosophy is that things are not "arranged", yet follow the natural order, the outcome is based on what people do, how they behave and is thus a logical, non-imposed situation.

 

Stefan in one of his videos (please comment which one it was, I've seen so many) comments on it, but I think it should be spread more and more and even be a standard counterargument against the statists with their imposed arrangements they think of to modify societey.

 

It's a trap set by those people because they can then attack this strawman.

 

Questions like "how would X work, how should Y be arranged, what happens with Z in a stateless society" are trapping questions.

 

My answer would be (and that's what Stefan pointed out in that video as well): "I don't know, and why should I?"

 

I am curious to hear your thoughts, experiences and methods of rebuttal of these intrinsically impossible and trapping questions.

[WasatchMan]

I think the most powerful argument I have heard for this came from Stefan.

 

To paraphrase, it goes something like this:

 

Do you think it was important for people during slavery to figure out how farming would work post-slavery before trying to end it?  Slavery was ended because it is evil for some humans to forcibly own other humans, this is an argument from principle - not pragmatism. Statism should be ended because it is evil for some people to have the legal protection to initiate force against other people - this is the ethical principle.

 

From the pragmatic standpoint, you never could have got the innovation in farming machinery while slavery was still protected by the government.  Who would have predicted that machines that use million year old tree juice would be created to replace the labor of hundreds of slaves? How can we predict what innovation will come along after leach of the state is removed from societies jugular?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

A good and cheeky response is to ask them something like "How will government prevent the inevitable nuclear holocaust?. I mean, we've already been to the brink of annihilation many times so how can you guarantee government won't destroy civilization?" or "How will you prevent government from murdering hundreds of millions of people like it did in the past?"

Keep asking for exact answers they ask for. Statists give their own institution a pass but suddenly become super-skeptics when it comes to freedom. So hold them to the standards they are hold you to. 

[utopian]

Oh heeeell no

 

 

 

 

Shoot I was gonna even make a post on this. Its 12:30 in the morning for me so a short reply will have to suffice for now.

 

Utopia, and socialism, is a technological eventuality. 

 

I got plenty of links about this but because it is so late I will have to just do one example. 

 

 

Consider the case of the machine that can produce 360 burgers an hour;

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8

 

With this robot, you only need one employee to order and insert materials into the machine. The machine can then prepare, completely, 360 burgers an hour. Slower, if you have each burger different with specifications. Regardless, the average burger flipper cannot, himself, produce anywhere near 360 burgers an hour. In addition to this, the employee draws a wage, while the machine does not. There is an argument that the machine draws a wage from utilities, but the employee does too. 

 

Considering this, we can extrapolate that it is currently much cheaper to have the robot do all the work, and since so many burgers can be produced without a wage being drawn, the burgers will always be cheaper than employee made burgers, who, in addition to materials and tools, require a wage. 

 

 

 

Now think about that for a second. Do you have any idea how many jobs exist for flipping burgers? Do you know how much of the economy would be gouged out if we replaced all the burger flippers with machines? I mean it is certainly more cost effective to employ machines to do the work, especially when minimum wage in the US is going up to 15 dollars an hour. Who in their right mind is going to choose an employee over a robot at that rate?

 

 

But then also, you have to think; what are people going to do, if they cant even get a job, flipping burgers?!?!

 

 

The answer is; nothing! We are all going to be without jobs, and we will just get cheap burgers, because we don't have to include the overhead for paying all those employees!

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that is far from the end of it. Cars are now driving themselves. Robots are now manufacturing, and assembling. 3D printers can print pizzas, and HOUSES, and just about everything else. 

 

 

 

 

 

For you to think that utopia is not an eventuality, is for you to say that a robotic workforce is less appealing than a much more costly human workforce. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

For you to think that utopia is not an eventuality, is for you to say that a robotic workforce is less appealing than a much more costly human workforce. 

It would be good if you actually explain why what you describe is utopia or socialism. It's just more mechanized. So what?

[utopian]

It is socialism because, people get free stuff (or nearly free/very cheap stuff) from a robotic work force. It is utopia because, all of our needs are being met with little or no struggle. Which, actually, produces a philosophical issue, but let's not get into that yet.

[shirgall]

Socialists want a classless society but somehow we ended up with a tasteless one.

[LibertarianSocialist]

It is socialism because, people get free stuff (or nearly free/very cheap stuff) from a robotic work force. It is utopia because, all of our needs are being met with little or no struggle. Which, actually, produces a philosophical issue, but let's not get into that yet.

I agree, I would say communism is inevitable once production, the willingness of people to do productive labour x productive ability, outstrips average consumption wants by at least a reasonable large percentage of people (maybe a large majority, not sure). People think I want to cut down the tall poppies, to involuntarily steal from some to give to others, under the conditions of scarcity. Far from it, I simply want people to pursue their rational interests when such a state of affairs is possible. I genuinely believe that period is near or now for much of the first world. But it stands to be proven, and so people must come to the conclusion themselves, by their own volition.

 

A for Anything sounds like an interesting novel (haven't read it tbh) discussing an extreme post scarcity capitalist economy, though I would imagine if such a society were real, anything but communism would have been rejected long ago.

[utopian]

^ someone rep this guy for me plz.

[J-William]

^ someone rep this guy for me plz.

You can easily donate and do it yourself.

[utopian]

Is that what that does? I had no idea.

[David Ottinger]

I tend to answer this sort of question in multiple ways, but given the framing of his/her question, the person is more often than not looking to conclude with, "Therefore the state."      So, first I address that by pointing out that the notion, "X is impossible in the absence of a state," sets up a false dilemma whereby the answer is either the state or nothing happens, and usually that "nothing" is tied to the notion that the issue in question will actually worsen as a result of inaction.


So, first I need to get the person to understand that there are alternative solutions other than state intervention.  So, is it possible to solve X without the state?  If they say no, then they need to explain that.  Usually this goes into discussing the nature of governance, and why this individual omits self-governance.  All forms of governance begin with self-governance.


If they say yes, then that changes the focus of the discussion from this false dilemma towards contemplating why a free market solution is better -- well, after you pose the argument.   And, the simple answer to why it's better is because of variety.  In short, the state provides a one size fits all solution while the market can cater to niches.   The power graph or longtail graph illustrates this concept rather well, and also gives you the principle as to why this is the case.

A great analogy is considering TV programing before youtube, and comparing that to how much time is now spent browsing youtube over networks deciding what you're allowed to watch, let alone at what time.  

Essentially, what you're comparing here is:  Design vs Emergence.

So, ultimately, my conclusion ends with pointing out that the individual's question is asking me how things ought to be designed thereby missing the point regarding emergence -- which is what free market solutions promote.

Emergence has no set solution because the solution takes the form of market interests. The longtail graph is an illustration of how far and wide people's interests can be.

Given that the initial question admits there is demand, then there is economical incentive to supply services to meet such demands.  

All that is left to figure out is the logistics of an issue, and then formulating a strategy for executing an economically feasible venture.  

The logistics of issues do not change by deferring all responsibility to a monopolistic entity like the state.  

Then, this takes me to my 2nd point as to why free market solutions are better.   The monopolistic nature of the state is not an economically feasible solution because all monopolies are inefficient, and at worse, ineffective at allocating resources.   

This typically leads the discussion towards whether or not market forces can produce monopolies.   And, the simple answer to that is:  No.  Due to the principle of equal consideration, one cannot trade him/her-self into a monopoly.  Monopolies are achieved via unscrupulous means, or better said: via acts of conquest.

Of course, before moving into that topic, the statist needs to acknowledge that the previous question has been resolved.  Although, this tends to get tricky because the statist insists on you giving him/her a design.  Thus, they're not actually mentally adapted to contemplating this discussion until they are willing to permit emergence as a possibility.  

Essentially, it's like asking, "If the USSR doesn't distribute the bread, how else would the bread be distributed?"    And look at how the market provides various ways for you to get bread.  

Why wouldn't that work for everything else? 

[David Ottinger]

Socialists want a classless society but somehow we ended up with a tasteless one.

 

 

Yup, because what they want is the homogenization of society, not equality.

 

As I understand it, we argue for the equality of law, but they argue for economic equality.   The latter being an impossibility.   An analogy I like to use is: That's like demanding everyone to be born beautiful. 

[Torero]

Wow, many replies, I was without internet a few days. And wrote a response to the first three offline:

 

Thank you all for your interesting and well formulated answers,

 

Let me put my statist red hat on (no, I don’t really own one ) and play devil’s advocate. Because if it would be so easy and people would read, capture and understand philosophy, we would already have abolished statism just like slavery long ago and because there’s more than ratio, reasonable debate. Especially statists will try to avoid that debate and start throwing in non sequiturs and emotional arguments (which are not necessarily invalid as we are emotional creatures and ratio alone is thus not enough to convince people) to maintain the illusion of the need for states/governments/whatever kind of system based on coercion.

 

I think the most powerful argument I have heard for this came from Stefan.

To paraphrase, it goes something like this:...

 

 

I do remember this from Stefans video and of course I agree with the rational response and compelling comparison, but red hat me, “your typical statist”, will answer along the following lines:

 

“Governments protect the people from slavery; in a stateless society there would be nobody to stop immoral people from keeping slaves” – spot the utopian trap I set here; using the present day statist situation to discard and disgrace a stateless one.

 

On the second post

 

A good and cheeky response is to ask them something like "How will government prevent the inevitable nuclear holocaust?. I mean, we've already been to the brink of annihilation many times so how can you guarantee government won't destroy civilization?" or "How will you prevent government from murdering hundreds of millions of people like it did in the past?"

Keep asking for exact answers they ask for. Statists give their own institution a pass but suddenly become super-skeptics when it comes to freedom. So hold them to the standards they are hold you to. 

 

Also here, wearing my red hat, I’d say that “governments prevent wars [and I will downplay the wars caused/started by governments – nearly all]” – here the trap is not utopian but the fallacy is clear as well; it comes from the (arguably false) belief widely held amongst both socialists/leftists and conservatives/rightists that people are intrinsically bad and “should be governed, otherwise they will turn out to be the barbarian monsters that they are from birth”.

 

That it’s a fallacy that humans are barbarian monsters is clear every day. All around us we see that the vast majority of people are not vicious or monstrous, because that would destroy business, social structures and respect and confidence. Yet the mass media are painting a grim picture with false pencils showing (sometimes faked, many times exaggerated, always with an agenda) the immorality of men and the morality of governments.

 

The response by user utopian:

 

1 – I think you use a different definition for utopia than me, and probably most people. To call utopia an “inevitable future” in my opinion is not right. A utopia is a desired, wanted, idealised, instigated and ‘perfect’ future, not an inevitable one. If you can even speak of “inevitable futures” anyway, because for an inevitable future to exist, one needs determinism (I understood a very dirty word on this forum, and just as “we have no free will” or “free will is an illusion” a nonsensical word anyway; at every moment every individual has choices; in a deterministic world something like creativity would not exist). It may well be the statist will portray the “utopia” of a stateless society as “inevitably immoral and wrong, leading to the first two points (slavery and wars)”, but that doesn’t make it an inevitable one. It would be falling for the fallacy, or willingly stepping into the trap set by the statist.

 

2 – the example of the hamburger flipping robot is a funny one but I think it is not the best argument.

You say “burgers can be produced by a machine (a robot), which would make hamburger flipping people redundant, because of costs [and solely that]”. In theory that may be true, but in practice we already see it’s not. In Portugal you have machines like a soda dispenser, where one can ‘order’ a burger. I haven’t tried it myself, a friend of mine living there has and of course it is horrible.

 

Rather than the hamburger flipping example, let’s take another, similar example; Starbucks. Or any similar brand of coffee preparing business (here in Colombia the concept was already working (Juan Valdez & OMA) long before Starbucks entered the country, which only happened a year ago).

 

It is already very easy to not have to stand in line and order your favourite coffee from a machine and it’s not too hard to program a machine/robot such that it would make equal or even better coffee than someone pushing a button on a machine and adding some syrup and cinnamon and all.

 

Still, people are people, emotional, social beings and we like the social interaction, the possibility to outline what we want and how the coffee should be. And on top of the joy of meeting a (hopefully) smiling person behind the counter, we want to be able to communicate with the coffee maker in case things go wrong.

 

A funny dystopian movie which I reckon most of the people here have seen (if not, please do so!) is Idiocracy (2006) with this scene as a gruesome example:

 

 

Although it is a comedy and of course exaggerated to be funnier, the underlying fears, objections and problems with such a society/situation are very real and in my opinion well presented.

 

People will be people and want to interact socially with other human beings of flesh and blood.

 

That makes the “inevitability” of the argument tricky.

 

Another example are these horrible menus and options of call centres. How many of us really do want to evade human contact and are happy with the limited, preselected, prefab options and on the other hand how many of us want to talk to a human being to explain a problem, file a complaint or any other necessary interaction?

 

If a “robotic society” is the inevitable one, it would already be embraced by us in cases where it’s possible. Luckily that’s not the case.

 

Back to the burgers; you’re right robots could “take over” and flip hamburgers faster, cleaner and cheaper. But those rational arguments are not enough; the interaction, ability to intervene, change, communicate etc. are more important than pure rational financial numbers.

 

Of course in a free market (or the current corrupted “free” market) there would be companies starting businesses like this; with robots and without humans. But I do not think they will be very successful and only be a niche market. For the reasons outlined above and although human failure can be a pain in the ass, machine/robotic failure is far more impacting, frustrating and less quick to correct.

 

3 – the idea that “humans will have no jobs (anymore) when robots ‘take over’ their work” is a typical statist/leftist meme (no, utopian, don’t worry, I am not calling you a statist or leftist! ). In their minimalistic mindset a job is a “god-given right for life” and a job is a fixed, static object that “disappears” and that ‘fact’ will be “bad for workers”.

 

A job is simply the execution of a vacancy; an amount of work that needs to be done. It is far from static and fixed, yet dynamic and mobile, just like we humans are (otherwise we would never have evolved/adapted so quickly).

 

After the inventions of so many mechanical, “robot-like” goods for humanity there was no “sudden shortage of jobs” or “miserable conditions for workers as machines took over”, the job market simply shifted. For example washing machines, weaving industrialisation and (robotic) vacuum cleaners did not make people jobless [and needing government support, see I am still wearing my red hat ], yet opened up new opportunities, shifted the attention to new areas. Suddenly there was more time for other activities and new vacancies appeared.

And still up to today we have tailors, cleaning persons and people washing by hand. And the list is virtually endless; despite Amazon.com we still have book stores, on top of massage chairs we (still) have massagers, good hotels have personnel leading you to your room, etc. etc.

 

If one vacancy disappears, another vacancy will open up and people will jump into that and so shift the professional participation in societies.

 

----------------

 

In short; you see I, as the red hat wearing statist, will start to throw in irrationality to keep defending an irrational and highly immoral system; statism and I am looking for more arguments and discussion to tackle these. If pure philosophy, reasonable rationality and mere morale would be enough, “we would already have won” as nobody would defend or even fight for growing such an immoral system...

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It is socialism because, people get free stuff (or nearly free/very cheap stuff) from a robotic work force. It is utopia because, all of our needs are being met with little or no struggle. Which, actually, produces a philosophical issue, but let's not get into that yet.

Getting free stuff is not socialism. Socialism is social or common ownership of the means of production. The closest socialism gets to "free stuff" is the economic fallacy of "free at the point of use". 

A near fully mechanized society does not mean utopia. Maybe a robotic workforce will send us all into a depression. Human desires are practically infinite. New "needs" arise. Human exist on a hedonic treadmill. No matter how many of out problems you solve through mechanization we tend to return to the mean. A robotic workforce could equal hell for all you know.

[Torero]

I tend to answer this sort of question in multiple ways, but given the framing of his/her question, the person is more often than not looking to conclude with, "Therefore the state."      So, first I address that by pointing out that the notion, "X is impossible in the absence of a state," sets up a false dilemma whereby the answer is either the state or nothing happens, and usually that "nothing" is tied to the notion that the issue in question will actually worsen as a result of inaction.

 

 

So, first I need to get the person to understand that there are alternative solutions other than state intervention.  So, is it possible to solve X without the state?  If they say no, then they need to explain that.  Usually this goes into discussing the nature of governance, and why this individual omits self-governance.  All forms of governance begin with self-governance.

 

 

If they say yes, then that changes the focus of the discussion from this false dilemma towards contemplating why a free market solution is better -- well, after you pose the argument.   And, the simple answer to why it's better is because of variety.  In short, the state provides a one size fits all solution while the market can cater to niches.   The power graph or longtail graph illustrates this concept rather well, and also gives you the principle as to why this is the case.

 

A great analogy is considering TV programing before youtube, and comparing that to how much time is now spent browsing youtube over networks deciding what you're allowed to watch, let alone at what time.  

 

Essentially, what you're comparing here is:  Design vs Emergence.

 

So, ultimately, my conclusion ends with pointing out that the individual's question is asking me how things ought to be designed thereby missing the point regarding emergence -- which is what free market solutions promote.

 

Emergence has no set solution because the solution takes the form of market interests. The longtail graph is an illustration of how far and wide people's interests can be.

 

Given that the initial question admits there is demand, then there is economical incentive to supply services to meet such demands.  

 

All that is left to figure out is the logistics of an issue, and then formulating a strategy for executing an economically feasible venture.  

 

The logistics of issues do not change by deferring all responsibility to a monopolistic entity like the state.  

 

Then, this takes me to my 2nd point as to why free market solutions are better.   The monopolistic nature of the state is not an economically feasible solution because all monopolies are inefficient, and at worse, ineffective at allocating resources.   

 

This typically leads the discussion towards whether or not market forces can produce monopolies.   And, the simple answer to that is:  No.  Due to the principle of equal consideration, one cannot trade him/her-self into a monopoly.  Monopolies are achieved via unscrupulous means, or better said: via acts of conquest.

 

Of course, before moving into that topic, the statist needs to acknowledge that the previous question has been resolved.  Although, this tends to get tricky because the statist insists on you giving him/her a design.  Thus, they're not actually mentally adapted to contemplating this discussion until they are willing to permit emergence as a possibility.  

 

Essentially, it's like asking, "If the USSR doesn't distribute the bread, how else would the bread be distributed?"    And look at how the market provides various ways for you to get bread.  

 

Why wouldn't that work for everything else? 

Excellent elaborated points and well-explained. I agree with almost everything. Very good post.

 

What I do not agree with -although I very much like the oneliner- is "Design vs Emergence".

 

I remember from one of Stefans videos (I think it's the outstanding video on "Why Nazism is socialism and why socialism is bad" (paraphrased)) where he points out that socialism is NOT a planned economy (contrary to what the school books say). I suffer from limited bandwith now, so cannot look up the exact quote, but it was very well argumented why socialism is a chaotic and not a planned/designed economy.

 

Another point is the proposed impossibility of monopolies in a free market. This is not "putting on my red hat", yet something I struggle with for real; how to prevent a monopolist monster in a free market situation.

 

What would be possible for a powerful individual/group of individuals in a free market, with absence of states, is taking full control over a niche market. Either by controlling the product itself (highly advanced rare technical knowledge for instance) or by completely wiping out the competitors by force/threatening/buying off all competition.

 

Of course the approach that is taken in Freedomain Radio is of "philosophy via the womb"; i.e. developing more and more morale and statelessness through education and upbringing based on principles, so creating a "society" of moral individuals, but is that enough to prevent monopolies from emerging?

 

Coming back to your post, which I think is an example of rational response and detailed discussion, there are many examples of agorist (my pragmatic philosophy in this immoral statist situation) solutions already working now (and you see the states and their useful idiots -statists- fighting to stop these initiatives).

 

The YouTube vs TV example is a great one, which I used in previous discussions with statists as well.

 

Another example I want to add (and promote) is AirBnB. For those who don't know it; it's a system where people rent their houses/rooms/apartments to serve as "hotel". You simply look for the accommodation you like, talk to the owner directly and pay him/her without interference of immoral power players. It's my favourite way of travelling, something I do a lot both business-wise and privately.

 

But thanks again, DavidOttinger, great reaction.

[Torero]

Getting free stuff is not socialism. Socialism is social ...

ProfessionalTeabagger, sorry for cutting your quote, it's NOT what you said, but I had to think of it and thus have to respond.

 

Socialism is nowhere social. Social behaviour in anyones opinion doesn't include force.

 

An example: most of my friends back home (so not in Colombia) are poorer than me. To me, that's not a problem, on the contrary; I have no problem supporting them directly (if they cannot afford a train ticket to see eachother, I'll pay). In my experience it also works much better and the non-socialists are actually the more social people.

 

Social behaviour is actually increased in a non-socialist state; non-leftists in my experience are far less concerned about "spending a penny more to make people happy", regardless of their personal wealth.

 

I highlighted it because still so many statists/leftists are following the Newspeak of the word "socialism", they really are convinced that socialism leads to social behaviour or that people opposing statism/socialism are a/antisocial human beings.

 

So no attack on you or anything of that kind, just wanted to make the point, which is floating in the back of my head all the time.

[utopian]

 

1 – I think you use a different definition for utopia than me, and probably most people. To call utopia an “inevitable future” in my opinion is not right. A utopia is a desired, wanted, idealised, instigated and ‘perfect’ future, not an inevitable one. If you can even speak of “inevitable futures” anyway, because for an inevitable future to exist, one needs determinism (I understood a very dirty word on this forum, and just as “we have no free will” or “free will is an illusion” a nonsensical word anyway; at every moment every individual has choices; in a deterministic world something like creativity would not exist). It may well be the statist will portray the “utopia” of a stateless society as “inevitably immoral and wrong, leading to the first two points (slavery and wars)”, but that doesn’t make it an inevitable one. It would be falling for the fallacy, or willingly stepping into the trap set by the statist.

 

MY definition of a utopia, is more like a state of humanity which is as perfect as it can be, before considering the problems inherent to a perfect world. It never fails to amaze me how short sighted libertarian perspectives can be, as is apparent in this quote. As long as there exist laws of physics and other such things, a large part of the universe is indeed determinable. True, individuals have free will. It is hard to determine which choice an individual may choose.

 

But even the choices of individuals are determinable. I used to be a cage fighter, and jiujitsu was my specialty. I knew, when I came to a certain position, what choices my opponent had. I knew if he would make one move I could counter with a certain move, and if he made another move, I could counter with a different move. There were no other choices, except the ones I had already determined. This fact is largely known among jiujitsu practitioners, and extrapolates into everything else in life. The only issue is, an individual having the foresight and/or imagination to be able to make such determinations. Free will is negligible here; you only have so many things you can choose from.

 

But consider something also; my example with the burger machine had nothing to do with a state. It was pure economics. The state had nothing to do with this example. For anyone who cares to study the principles I argued, the inevitability of a utopia becomes as obvious as the inevitability of "what goes up...". 

 

 

 

 

2 – the example of the hamburger flipping robot is a funny one but I think it is not the best argument.

You say “burgers can be produced by a machine (a robot), which would make hamburger flipping people redundant, because of costs [and solely that]”. In theory that may be true, but in practice we already see it’s not. In Portugal you have machines like a soda dispenser, where one can ‘order’ a burger. I haven’t tried it myself, a friend of mine living there has and of course it is horrible.

 

Your argument here is simply an unfounded negation. Oh, how horrible it is for soda machines to exist, where I can just walk up, insert a dollar, press a button and get a soda! People hate this so much! Nobody uses these things because of course they are so horrible!" You are missing the fact that, in practice, dispenser machines are quite prevalent and in use, and there is nothing horrible about it.  

 

 

 

 

Rather than the hamburger flipping example, let’s take another, similar example; Starbucks. Or any similar brand of coffee preparing business (here in Colombia the concept was already working (Juan Valdez & OMA) long before Starbucks entered the country, which only happened a year ago).

 

It is already very easy to not have to stand in line and order your favourite coffee from a machine and it’s not too hard to program a machine/robot such that it would make equal or even better coffee than someone pushing a button on a machine and adding some syrup and cinnamon and all.

 

Still, people are people, emotional, social beings and we like the social interaction, the possibility to outline what we want and how the coffee should be. And on top of the joy of meeting a (hopefully) smiling person behind the counter, we want to be able to communicate with the coffee maker in case things go wrong.

 

 

You have some kind of valid point here, although it's not the standing in line that is the problem, as that happens at starbucks and other places too, not just machines. You still seem to be ignoring the fact that hiring people to make coffee is more costly than having robots do it.

What is valid here is that people are emotional social beings who like interaction. Now I did say in my burger machine example that you still did need employees to insert materials and take orders, giving customers that interaction. I myself understand this principle, enjoying going down to the local starbucks to flirt with the cute cashier while I get a coffee. 

 

Regardless of this, businesses of all kinds are currently looking to maximize profits, and realizing that they can cut a lot of their overhead by replacing employees with machines, ESPECIALLY when minimum wage is going up to 15 dollars an hour in places like the US. No doubt businesses will reduce wages down to one or two pretty faces that bring in customers in order to cut down on overhead costs. Again, let me remind you, none of this has anything to do with the state yet (except maybe the mandating of minimum wage), we are just talking corporations and economics. 

 

 

A funny dystopian movie which I reckon most of the people here have seen (if not, please do so!) is Idiocracy (2006) 

 

 

I argue we are ALREADY seeing an Idiocracy. And yea, I did see that movie.

 

 

People will be people and want to interact socially with other human beings of flesh and blood.

 

That makes the “inevitability” of the argument tricky.

 

Another example are these horrible menus and options of call centres. How many of us really do want to evade human contact and are happy with the limited, preselected, prefab options and on the other hand how many of us want to talk to a human being to explain a problem, file a complaint or any other necessary interaction?

 

If a “robotic society” is the inevitable one, it would already be embraced by us in cases where it’s possible. Luckily that’s not the case.

 

 

True people want to interact with real people, and true this makes things tricky. Also true is the mechanic of the problem with things like call centers. But again, there is short sightedness here. Technology is ever improving, and we are supposedly going to reach genuine AI some time around 2035. When that happens, all the conveniences of having a real human being will also be available with robots. 

 

What is false in this quote, is the idea that it is not the case that we are not already embracing robots. Let me introduce you to Baxter, the manufacturing, assembling robot that is taking all those jobs in America RIGHT NOW;

 

http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/

 

Again, I must respectfully bring up a foresight issue here. Burger machines, Baxter robots, 3D printers... we are very much in the process of accepting and improving a robotic workforce, and installing it in our economy. I am not saying humans will be COMPLETELY removed from the workforce... but largely. And with enough time, it could be quite possible.

 

 

3 – the idea that “humans will have no jobs (anymore) when robots ‘take over’ their work” is a typical statist/leftist meme (no, utopian, don’t worry, I am not calling you a statist or leftist!   ). In their minimalistic mindset a job is a “god-given right for life” and a job is a fixed, static object that “disappears” and that ‘fact’ will be “bad for workers”.

 

A job is simply the execution of a vacancy; an amount of work that needs to be done. It is far from static and fixed, yet dynamic and mobile, just like we humans are (otherwise we would never have evolved/adapted so quickly).

 

After the inventions of so many mechanical, “robot-like” goods for humanity there was no “sudden shortage of jobs” or “miserable conditions for workers as machines took over”, the job market simply shifted. For example washing machines, weaving industrialisation and (robotic) vacuum cleaners did not make people jobless [and needing government support, see I am still wearing my red hat ], yet opened up new opportunities, shifted the attention to new areas. Suddenly there was more time for other activities and new vacancies appeared.

And still up to today we have tailors, cleaning persons and people washing by hand. And the list is virtually endless; despite Amazon.com we still have book stores, on top of massage chairs we (still) have massagers, good hotels have personnel leading you to your room, etc. etc.

 

 

I am not saying that individuals cannot still do the jobs. With burger machines, individuals can still create burgers. The thing is, it will always be at a higher cost, costing more time, or money, or both. It will simply always be much more efficient to let the robot do the work. The individual down the street selling one pizza at 10 dollars an hour every 10 minutes, will always close down in the face of the robot up the street making 10 pizzas for two dollars every 10 minutes. It's simple math.

 

But that is a good thing, you see, because of your other noted principle; that when robots fill in for some work, people are able to concentrate on other work. As robots begin to fill in all the simple work that is available, people will have to go to college to get educated to do the work robots cannot yet do. That takes time however.

 

 

Getting free stuff is not socialism. Socialism is social or common ownership of the means of production. The closest socialism gets to "free stuff" is the economic fallacy of "free at the point of use". 

A near fully mechanized society does not mean utopia. Maybe a robotic workforce will send us all into a depression. Human desires are practically infinite. New "needs" arise. Human exist on a hedonic treadmill. No matter how many of out problems you solve through mechanization we tend to return to the mean. A robotic workforce could equal hell for all you know.

 

Sure it is. If one guy makes 10 loaves of bread, and the government taxes some bread and gives it to the poor, that's free stuff, and that's socialism. I think you are speaking to the mechanic of when you take something from the first guy, it makes it not free because that guy worked to make it. But when its a robot making the bread, there is no person that you took the stuff from. 

 

Your view of what would happen with a robotic work force seems limited by your imagination. There is a problematic mechanic inherent to the idea of getting all the free stuff you want from a robotic workforce that would "equal hell"; the idea that you don't have to work any more. That you don't have to struggle, that you don't have to make something of yourself. Life becomes pointless without struggle; without the prospect of doing something hard, and being proud of yourself for it. If a robot is doing all the cooking, I become pathetic because I never learn to cook. However, despite the robotic workforce existing, I can still make myself cook something, and be proud of myself for doing it. Still, my achievements will always seem somewhat pointless when A robot could have done something for me in half the time. 

[Torero]

Utopian, in short your response boils down to two points:

 

1 - things are determinable

2 - economy/costs are the highest, most valuable (pun intended, as always) benchmark

 

the first point is only valid in a "god-like" environment, which we humans can never reach. Yes, in a "god-like" state, there's determinism; all our choices are bound by physical laws, so in that sense it's "determined".

 

But to us, simple, ant-like humans, we have a zillion amount of choices. At any moment. And thus exponentially; the outcome of a series of choices, however physically determined (better: predictable) is impossible to outline beforehand.

 

The second point I very much object to. Humans are far from pure economical beings. We care so much more about quality, respect, love and understanding than about pure economics. Measuring life purely and solely along the economic measure is a very limited view on life.

 

Examples are all around. A simple example; if economic/finance would be our only measure in life, everyone would drive the cheapest car, dress in the cheapest clothing and live in the cheapest homes.

 

Evidently that's not the case; humans are so much more than economic machines....

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Sure it is. If one guy makes 10 loaves of bread, and the government taxes some bread and gives it to the poor, that's free stuff, and that's socialism. I think you are speaking to the mechanic of when you take something from the first guy, it makes it not free because that guy worked to make it. But when its a robot making the bread, there is no person that you took the stuff from. 

No it is not and I just gave you an argument for that and you ignored it. Socialism is social or common control of the means of production. The example you give is not remotely analogous to your original claim which was that getting stuff for free from a robotic workforce is socialism. Socialism does not equal getting stuff for free. You are wrong.

 

 

 

Your view of what would happen with a robotic work force seems limited by your imagination. There is a problematic mechanic inherent to the idea of getting all the free stuff you want from a robotic workforce that would "equal hell"; the idea that you don't have to work any more. That you don't have to struggle, that you don't have to make something of yourself. Life becomes pointless without struggle; without the prospect of doing something hard, and being proud of yourself for it. If a robot is doing all the cooking, I become pathetic because I never learn to cook. However, despite the robotic workforce existing, I can still make myself cook something, and be proud of myself for doing it. Still, my achievements will always seem somewhat pointless when A robot could have done something for me in half the time. 

My argument was that all our needs being met by a robot workforce is not necessarily utopia. I am responding to your claim about these things being socialism and utopia and telling you why your claims are wrong. Do you understand?

[utopian]

 

 

Socialism is social or common ownership of the means of production. The closest socialism gets to "free stuff" is the economic fallacy of "free at the point of use". 

 

That seems applicable in a very dictionary definition of socialism. But so then, what would you call America's educational system for grades 1 through 12, if not socialized? Food stamps? Obamacare?

 

You cannot have a direct control of people in America today under your definition, that would be slavery. But, you can tax the bread maker, buy his bread with the money you taxed, give some poor people some food stamps and have them get the bread. America is still supposedly a democracy, so those taxes are commonly owned by the people, to give them benefits as described.

 

 

And for clarity, what do you define a utopia as.

[Torero]

America is still supposedly a democracy, so those taxes are commonly owned by the people

 

The word "so" is pretty strange in this respect. What is the causal relation between the two parts?

[utopian]

The word "so" is pretty strange in this respect. What is the causal relation between the two parts?

 

Well, if you would read my condensed history of money post;

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44606-a-condensed-history-of-money-and-its-impact-on-today/

 

Which I suspect you wont because of its length, you might derive that we don't actually have a democracy in America any more, but what we actually have is "the government show" where we still think we have a democracy, secretly controlled in the background by the Federal Reserve. But please, lets not introduce that right now, one thing at a time here.

 

 

 

 

 

And for the record, I would like to say that, at my heart, I would love to be libertarian. I would absolutely love to be able to go out in the woods somewhere and build myself a house to myself, furnished by the creations of my own education. There is no land, however, that I can simply claim, without being bothered here in America by the Federal government. I have to somehow provide estate tax, and that means I have to play state games. Read my post and you will see I have studied the state long and hard. I am on their side, but only so far as it pleases me. If libertarianism ever outdoes the state and works, be sure to let me know.

[Torero]

It's late as we are in the same timezone, but there are some 199 countries to go outside of the US....

 

Will read your topic tomorrow, good night, sleep is not taxed still...

[LibertarianSocialist]

Yup, because what they want is the homogenization of society, not equality.

 

As I understand it, we argue for the equality of law, but they argue for economic equality.   The latter being an impossibility.   An analogy I like to use is: That's like demanding everyone to be born beautiful.

 

Here is a quote from State Socialism and Anarchism summarizing what socialists really believe:

 

"From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly."

 

It is us who argue for the equality of law. Capitalism is institutionalized privilege. Equality is simply a result of abolishing capitalist monopoly and privilege.

That seems applicable in a very dictionary definition of socialism. But so then, what would you call America's educational system for grades 1 through 12, if not socialized? Food stamps? Obamacare?

 

You cannot have a direct control of people in America today under your definition, that would be slavery. But, you can tax the bread maker, buy his bread with the money you taxed, give some poor people some food stamps and have them get the bread. America is still supposedly a democracy, so those taxes are commonly owned by the people, to give them benefits as described.

 

 

And for clarity, what do you define a utopia as.

Sorry utopian, ProfessionalTeabagger is right. What you are referring to is nationalization. The confusion is a unfortunate result of the historical conflation of 'state socialism', better defined as 'state capitalism' (and was by Lenin of all people), with the real principles of socialism.

[regevdl]

My approach is this:

1.  First, proactively address the predictable arguments from the statist. 

Example:  The state is there to stop slavery/prevent XYZ horrible act of humanity, etc.  ----  States made it legal for these atrocities to occur, so it's hard to argue historically that they prevented or stopped them.  Even when states did 'stop' it, it was after the public had a moral repulsion against it and cried to the gvt.  The gvt didn't suddenly have a moral epiphany.

 

if that doesn't work then I try plan B which is explaining fthat first....ask them the courtesy to keep an OBJECTIVE mind during your explaination and they are welcome to return to their original convictions after you finish explaining.  This sounds cheesy but I have been using this for years and it works well.  It doesn't mean that by the end they instantly agree with me but it does help in putting their guard down.  The thing statist LOVE to think they are is...open minded, until you challenge their viewpoints.  So when I ask them to keep an open mind and be objective for 5 minutes.... they sort of have to...for their own vanity.  lol  

 

that anarchists or the approach to statelessness is not to do it BEFORE people have had a full grasp of morality and universiality and consistency.  People like to throw 'Somolia' as a stateless example but they became stateless before they went through the necessary and often times multi-generational steps of awakening philosophically and morally, etc.  So anarachists are at least realistic in that they see far into the future that what they do now will resonate and carry on with others...like a wave that starts far in the middle of the ocean, eventually catches momentum and reaches the shore.

 

With that said (if they are still willing to listen lol) Laws are simply unrealistic because it gives the illusion of spontenous order.  Something that often the statist accuse Libertarians or anarchists of demanding.  That's it's a naive approach to spontaneous order.  When in fact, laws and voting is the naive belief that by putting in a new face, everything will be better.  By signing a new law on a piece of paper, all will be well and if not, then you just do it again and again and again....

 

The fact that there are laws and punishment and people STILL break it shows no evidence that state-fullness even works.  It's a false positive.  Who knows maybe statelessness WON'T work, but often they use the existence of the state in which we have no choice in as if it IS there by choice.  

 

I remind people that solutions to MANY of the issues today are already in place and would still work the same in a stateless society.  This usually catches their attention.  Mediation (or Dispute resolution).  Is often used between people who want to avoid the costly and unjust Justice system.  This is from individuals to multi billion dollar corporations.  Privatized police (look at detroit!), etc.  There are MANY examples ...just do your research beforehand so you have them locked and loaded.  

 

Those who push for statelessness are prepared and accept that it may not and most likely will not occur in their lifetime but doesn't stop them from pushing for this goal (as many statists need their ' mark' to be seen in their generation...it's about vanity and 'legacy).  ...btw....listen to Stef's RvsK reproduction series..it sort of touches on this and is FASCINATING! 

 

In our desire for a stateless society we work on peaceful parenting (and there are many linear logical and practical arguments on this that even the most resistant statist has to pause for thought).  A few examples being that if we stop bribing kids and using punishment as a deterrant rather use moral arguments and universally preferable behavior, then there will be a wave of a generation that will find the 'rewards and punishments' of gvt repulsive and will find other ways to sustain in society and it will grow and it doesn't even take a majority in a population to make this drastic change.  Even if gvt still exists, it will eventually reach a point where those who want to pay into it and reap the rewards will and can and those who don't won't and if there are so many, the gvt won't have enough resources to 'catch the tax slaves' just as many stopped slavery by simply stop catching the slaves...so on and so forth.  

[regevdl]

Oh heeeell no

 

 

 

 

Shoot I was gonna even make a post on this. Its 12:30 in the morning for me so a short reply will have to suffice for now.

 

Utopia, and socialism, is a technological eventuality. 

 

I got plenty of links about this but because it is so late I will have to just do one example. 

 

 

Consider the case of the machine that can produce 360 burgers an hour;

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8

 

With this robot, you only need one employee to order and insert materials into the machine. The machine can then prepare, completely, 360 burgers an hour. Slower, if you have each burger different with specifications. Regardless, the average burger flipper cannot, himself, produce anywhere near 360 burgers an hour. In addition to this, the employee draws a wage, while the machine does not. There is an argument that the machine draws a wage from utilities, but the employee does too. 

 

Considering this, we can extrapolate that it is currently much cheaper to have the robot do all the work, and since so many burgers can be produced without a wage being drawn, the burgers will always be cheaper than employee made burgers, who, in addition to materials and tools, require a wage. 

 

 

 

Now think about that for a second. Do you have any idea how many jobs exist for flipping burgers? Do you know how much of the economy would be gouged out if we replaced all the burger flippers with machines? I mean it is certainly more cost effective to employ machines to do the work, especially when minimum wage in the US is going up to 15 dollars an hour. Who in their right mind is going to choose an employee over a robot at that rate?

 

 

But then also, you have to think; what are people going to do, if they cant even get a job, flipping burgers?!?!

 

 

The answer is; nothing! We are all going to be without jobs, and we will just get cheap burgers, because we don't have to include the overhead for paying all those employees!

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that is far from the end of it. Cars are now driving themselves. Robots are now manufacturing, and assembling. 3D printers can print pizzas, and HOUSES, and just about everything else. 

 

 

 

 

 

For you to think that utopia is not an eventuality, is for you to say that a robotic workforce is less appealing than a much more costly human work

 

For me, I guess I always have confusion when I see people use the word 'utopia' because it's a loose or subjective term, isn't it?  You described a lot of technological labor replacements for humans and yes, those exists and are becoming more popular for sure.  Is that really utopia?  for me is sounds like a nightmare for the human existence.  On one hand I have great respect for the inventors and creators of such machinery but it still needs to be kept in balance, so to call a total robotic takeover utopia, sounds...I can't think of the word but maybe, not accurate but again, we need to agree on what 'utopia' even means or how its defined or how it would manifest so all could see this 'utopia'.  Because my version of utopia is not a full on robotic takeover.  

 

When we see how many jobs there are flipping burgers and thus the robots that come out of it....it actually makes me sad because that is how unbalanced the UNeducated and UNskilled workforce is compared to Educated and Skilled are in the society.  So it's a bitter sweet 'celebration' of technology in my humble opinion.

[utopian]

 

Evidently that's not the case; humans are so much more than economic machines....

 

The problem here is that, in the eye of the statist bankers, you and everyone else is nothing more than a human resource. A commodity, to be bought, sold and traded like a piece of meat. Much of our economic problems happen because these people are successful at what they are doing. These people care nothing for your libertarian ideals. Indeed, they hope you indulge in ideals regardless of statist games, because those kinds of actions get you further into their trap. 

 

I wish I could just matrix style download everything I know about money into your head. You really should take a look at my condensed history of money. Go on being human, making mistakes and living outside your financial means. Just make sure to always sign on the dotted line, so we can keep a record of all your debts that will certainly come back to bite you in the ass while you're out fulfilling your humanity.

 

 

Oh, and by the way, there are only three countries in the world not controlled by a private central bank, and those are Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.

 

 

 

Sorry utopian, ProfessionalTeabagger is right. What you are referring to is nationalization. The confusion is a unfortunate result of the historical conflation of 'state socialism', better defined as 'state capitalism' (and was by Lenin of all people), with the real principles of socialism.

 

Very well, I can accept that what I might have actually been talking about is "nationalism". But if socialism is indeed "common control of the means of production" then I maintain that socialism is a technological eventuality, and cite the case of 3D printers as an example. The patent on 3D printers has expired, meaning the "common control of the means of production" is now available to anyone. Expired patents are an eventuality for any technology.

 

 

For me, I guess I always have confusion when I see people use the word 'utopia' because it's a loose or subjective term, isn't it?  You described a lot of technological labor replacements for humans and yes, those exists and are becoming more popular for sure.  Is that really utopia?  for me is sounds like a nightmare for the human existence.  On one hand I have great respect for the inventors and creators of such machinery but it still needs to be kept in balance, so to call a total robotic takeover utopia, sounds...I can't think of the word but maybe, not accurate but again, we need to agree on what 'utopia' even means or how its defined or how it would manifest so all could see this 'utopia'.  Because my version of utopia is not a full on robotic takeover.  

 

When we see how many jobs there are flipping burgers and thus the robots that come out of it....it actually makes me sad because that is how unbalanced the UNeducated and UNskilled workforce is compared to Educated and Skilled are in the society.  So it's a bitter sweet 'celebration' of technology in my humble opinion.

 

Aah, how refreshing to see someone able to derive the philosophical predicaments from yet unfulfilled scenarios. On one side of the coin, you get everything you want, cheap or free, from a robotic work force. On the other hand, you can see the philosophical nightmare of never having to do anything for yourself.

 

It is, at least, a good thing that we philosophers are considering the issue before it happens, because we will have the answers for the world when the world begins to run into these problems.