4 ms·

Your link doesn't address full collective ownership, you just talk about the group of people that band together to buy a machine. In a country where we're unwil

Your link doesn't address full collective ownership, you just talk about the group of people that band together to buy a machine. In a country where we're unwilling to invest in basic maintenance of our critical infrastructure, how would you keep the machines from falling apart? What happens to the ownership of local machines when someone moves? How do you ensure that a broken machine doesn't impoverish a community? More importantly, how does your solution of inventing a new machine to solve poverty help anyone in the decades before we're able to build it? What's the backup plan if you're wrong about the feasibility of this machine? You seem to be trying to get rid of economics by solving scarcity rather than come up with solutions to economic problems.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
A few things: The follow on essay to The Machine is The Corporation, which talks a little about the logistics of such a thing. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ Certainly, I’d like to write a book on these ideas, and I have a lot more to flesh out. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing! Much of what I want to accomplish is not to get rid of economics, but make it work for regular people. I think that can be done by making sure the people own the means of production and making sure that no one is unfairly exploited for their labor. That is not in my mind getting rid of economics. And surely, I believe we can realize the benefits of these ideas almost immediately, and I advocate for doing that on my website, http://Reboot.love http://Reboot.love. Specifically, I think that we can encourage robotics engineers to develop open source solutions, and we can encourage investors and policy makers to fund training so more people can understand how to benefit from these open source designs. I foresee real economic benefits to these ideas helping people within ten years. I believe the reach of these ideas can be broader and more immediate than a UBI. Even if a UBI were implemented in, say, France or Canada, billions would still be without it. But if we design open source productive machinery that can be made in a small shop, everyone from Kenya to Bangladesh to Detroit and Watsonville can benefit. That’s what I’m working towards.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

A few things: The follow on essay to The Machine is The Corporation, which talks a little about the logistics of such a thing. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ Certainly, I’d like to write a book on these ideas, and I have a lot more to flesh out. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing! Much of what I want to accomplish is not to get rid of economics, but make it work for regular people. I think that can be done by making sure the people own the means of production and making sure that no one is unfairly exploited for their labor. That is not in my mind getting rid of economics. And surely, I believe we can realize the benefits of these ideas almost immediately, and I advocate for doing that on my website, http://Reboot.love http://Reboot.love. Specifically, I think that we can encourage robotics engineers to develop open source solutions, and we can encourage investors and policy makers to fund training so more people can understand how to benefit from these open source designs. I foresee real economic benefits to these ideas helping people within ten years. I believe the reach of these ideas can be broader and more immediate than a UBI. Even if a UBI were implemented in, say, France or Canada, billions would still be without it. But if we design open source productive machinery that can be made in a small shop, everyone from Kenya to Bangladesh to Detroit and Watsonville can benefit. That’s what I’m working towards.