6 ms·
> Why would the people who own the factories just give the output to people? What could people possibly offer, when all the things they're capable of making can
by didibus 6y ago
> Why would the people who own the factories just give the output to people? What could people possibly offer, when all the things they're capable of making can be produced at zero cost?
The answer is simple, protection from them taking it by force. This is literally the reason for liberal democracies.
Dictatorship, feudalism, and other forms of authoritarian structure always come with the downside that the ones at the bottom are trying to get the ones at the top. Thus if you are at the top, you live in worry and fear of a rebelion, revolution, a coup, from your family or friends to betray you, etc.
In that scenario, your day job becomes maintaining your power and authority at all times. Which like any other job, is taxing, tiresome, and hard work. So even though on paper it seems you've got all the goods and services at zero cost, there's a tremendous cost to yourself to maintain that position when others are trying to steal it from you.
That's why, the "right to property" is fundamental. You want a society which can guarantee that right, and give you piece of mind that what you own is yours and no one is going to take it by force. So you can relax and enjoy the fruit of your labor (or inherited factories output).
One solution for this is to create a system that is governed by the rule of law, where no players is in such a bad state that they could be willing to risk it all to steal your piece of the pie. Thus a balance must be struck, where everyone can find satisfaction, even if some get to have a lot more than others.
- kukx 6y ago"and give you piece of mind that what you own is yours and no one is going to take it by force" except for the government that takes stuff by force eg by collecting taxes etc.
- didibus 6y agoThat's one solution to not have people take it by force. You agree to a taxation scheme, which trickles down, yet you still retain most of it yourself, and it satisfies everyone. You know exactly how much to give, and you can achieve the right balance of just enough to keep everyone content. So its way better to willingly agree to participate in a tax scheme, than being at risk of beheading from masses or poison in your drink. There are other schemes, but it's always the same idea, you need to keep people happy enough and satisfied so they don't come for your stuff. That way, you can enjoy it in peace. Edit: Well assuming a liberal democratic taxation system. Otherwise taxes can be a way to take even more from people at the bottom, like in feudalism, where land owners tax their labourers for the right to use their land.
- kortilla 6y ago> So its way better to willingly agree to participate in a tax scheme, than being at risk of beheading from masses or poison in your drink. Is it really willingly agreeing when there is no option to opt-out?
- NeutronStar 6y agoDo you drive on the road? Do you purchases food in a store? Do you use electricity? All of those things are supported by taxation at some point.
- 6AA4FD 6y agoThis is more of a hypothetical scenario used to describe the origins of a modern capitalist state, rather than any present scenario. However there have certainly been people in history who have been able to make decisions about what laws they want to be subject to. Political lobbying, international migration, and bribery to the purposes of selective enforcement are all methods people have used to this date in the US. If you're interested in a more theoretical (and less bourgeoisie oriented) discussion of the tensions between a social contract justification for punishment and our practical inability to leave the state, I would recommend "Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play" as well as "A Theory of Justice", both by John Rawls, as well as "The Principle of Fair Play" by A. John Simmons. You may know the second as a standard component of any introductory political philosophy curriculum, and the first and third were parts of a philosophy of law class I took, taken from a textbook by Frederick Schauer. They are quite interesting. The conclusion I have come to is that we are morally bound by the laws of a state in proportion to the degree that they benefit us in comparison to other possible bodies of law. This approximates our willingness to agree to a given scheme of rules if we were presented with free migration between all possible states, and the extent to which we would prefer the state we are actually in, we should be considered to have willingly agreed to their laws even if that did not happen in reality.
- bartvk 6y agoBut there often are forms of opt-out, such as becoming a business owner (mild), or moving country (drastic).
- ncallaway 6y agoYea, exactly. You've drastically reduced the scope of who takes your stuff by force. You codify how much they are allowed to take, and even build schemes where you can ideally have input into that amount.
- oblio 6y agoTaxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#1900s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#1900...
- rizpanjwani 6y ago>The answer is simple, protection from them taking it by force What if you have a factory that produces superior robots that can repel any uprising against you?
- pm90 6y agoAs long as humans exist, there will be someone that finds a way. Sabotaging the factory, reprogramming robots etc are some broad ways in which this can happen.
- xyzzyz 6y agoThose who can do that might as well use their ingenuity to build their own factories and join the factory owning class.
- kazagistar 6y agoThats mighty optimistic, given that most of the world already lives in terrible poverty and the wealthy already often use millitary robots to quell malcontents with sufficient success.
- oliponic 6y agoMost of the world does not live in terrible poverty. Most of the world used to live in terrible poverty. Highly recommend reading "Factfulness" if you still believe miserable poverty in the norm across the world. Your vision is likely highly skewed by the media and your own unusual wealth in the context of the world / history.
- nexuist 6y agoUltimately if you are made of flesh and blood any adventure you partake in is one small piece of lead away from ending. This is why guns are perceived as the great equalizer; no amount of bodyguards or telekinetic combat robots can stop a bullet traveling 800mph+. You could just not go outside, but at that point with the onset of depression from complete lack of socialization and Vitamin D you'll eventually kill yourself, yourself.
- mellow2020 6y ago> The answer is simple, protection from them taking it by force. No force can stand against an infinite amount of drones, to name just one thing. Those who own the means of production that no longer require workers will also own all means of warfare. Few people own more and more, faster and faster. This will not magically wrap around to the opposite.
- VikingCoder 6y agoYou and I are very different people. I asked, "If it costs someone literally nothing to save lives, but they can't profit from it either, how can I CONVINCE them to do it?" And your answer is, "They shouldn't have to. We should militarize the police to protect their rights to be heartless." I don't even know how to respond. No, that's not the right answer.
- zosima 6y agoBut that's not at all what OP answered. Rather that it could be gainful for the owners of the factory to give out part of its produce to provide stability and hence protect the factory.
- oblio 6y agoYou completely misread his answer. Read it again. He just explained that they SHOULD give things away to gain peace of mind.