8 ms·

In the idle moments of any day my brainpower eventually leads to these sort of questions that we will have to ask ourselves about the future of societies. (this

In the idle moments of any day my brainpower eventually leads to these sort of questions that we will have to ask ourselves about the future of societies. (this CS + Philosophy degree I "purchased" has been a very expensive anti-sleep aid...) The anthropological world has gone through several ages as far as I can see it, from an Agricultural to Industrial to Mechanized (post WWII) to Digital (post 1990). I made up the names, but I'm sure the paradigms are obvious. I want to make it clear that this "crisis of abundance" is not exactly a new question. Even moving to agrarian living had growing pains. The best example philosophically detailing this, I think, is the work by Thomas Paine called Agrarian Justice. (that's the same Paine as Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Age of Reason) Agrarian Justice is a short pamphlet that I think everyone should read. It details in simple terms how civilized society is different from those who live off the land (such as some Native Americans of the time). Civilization clearly makes some people much better off, but others in civilization seem to be much worse off, condemned to lives of destitution, pollution, etc. Land ownership and development is a clear plus, but in agrarian societies people "lose" their natural inheritance of the land because of this ownership, and land taxes should be levied to make up for the loss of a natural inheritance. In effect Paine advocates for a guaranteed minimum income, way back in 1795. That, to him, restored justice to agrarian society. Nothing was done in 1795, and little to the same effect is being done today, though ownership has become a lot more pronounced (we are no longer largely farmers after all). Unfortunately, I think society today would think the idea far more radical than those of Paine's generation, not least of which we owe to certain political elements. A copy of the pamphlet is hosted on - where else - the official US Social Security website. I really do recommend you give it a read, it isn't long! http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html (If we want to discuss the pamplet itself in depth, we might want to do so on another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5360056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5360056)

_delirium 14y ago
Bertrand Russell is another person who's written on that subject. His question was more or less: if we reach the point where our basic needs can be taken care of by robots, will that mean everyone starts with their basic needs taken care of... or will it instead mean that whoever owns the robots, and claims their labor, will be in a very strong position?
- kamaal 14y ago
  I think our concept of basic needs is highly flawed. The moment some of our basic needs get taken care of, the new ones replace them. In general any thing given away for free, will always be perceived as worthless. That is how it works!
  - johnchristopher 14y ago
    I disagree. I believe that among the things given for free some would be missed less or more than others, like free water compared to free tv if one happened to live in the sahara. Things we are dependent on for daily subsistance are more basic than the ones we easily get used to their absence. > The moment some of our basic needs get taken care of, the new ones replace them. No, the new ones add up to them. The basic needs are still there and it is a priority to take care of them first and before the "new ones". And what would be wrong with a society that would be able to provide basic sustenance to every citizens AND a free internet/tv/car etc. ?
- neutronicus 14y ago
  It depends on whether the people without robots can kill the people who own the robots.
  - yairchu 14y ago
    They can't, because the people who own the robots also own a robotic police force. Two years ago when Mubarak told the Egyptian army to spray protestors with bullets, and the soldiers refused. That's because he didn't have a robotic force. The future is probably going to be horrible.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      You think a robotic police force is going to help a dictator? Maybe for a couple of days, until someone with a conscience and a brain realizes that Robocop is running a vulnerable version of Java and suddenly "your" robotic police force is my robotic police force.
wwweston 14y ago
> In effect Paine advocates for a guaranteed minimum income, way back in 1795. That, to him, restored justice to agrarian society. Another Marxist philosopher, eh? Forced contribution backed up by violence of the state doesn't sound like justice to me, and is fundamentally incompatible with the liberty envisioned by America's founding fathers. If only we'd listen to them, we'd all be better off. Edit: my delivery is either a bit too deadpan, or HN readers have encountered enough would-be libertarians who are completely unaware that Paine is arguably a founding father and Marx wasn't borne until 1818 that my attempt at satire has already been beaten by reality. I'll hope it's the former.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- simonsarris 14y ago
  Oh bull. Failure to pay taxes due is theft from the rest of society. And don't claim any ownership of founding fathers in your ideology - Old Ben Franklin has been sticking it to "all taxation is theft" Libertarians since 1783, in absolute and direct contradiction of your sentiment: > "The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law. > "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
jchrisa 14y ago
Here is a more modern argument for a guaranteed basic income. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Wrong-Lunch-Democracy-Forum/dp/0807047139 http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Wrong-Lunch-Democracy-Forum/dp/0...
sirmixalot 14y ago
Paine's 10% tax rate would be welcomed by even the most ardent Tea Partier.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Isn't his tax rate on all wealth, so 10% of the value of your home and possessions too? Or was it only on income?
hessenwolf 14y ago
What you have written looks really interesting... but I am curious as to why you think this is not already in effect? Just thinking about Ireland, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia... the minimum income concept is firmly ingrained in unemployment benefits and means-tested social welfare. It needs a lot more to really restore equality, because equality of opportunity requires investment in education and rules against monopoly and nepotism/cronyism, but they are there too!
- Mithaldu 14y ago
  As a german who grew up in Eastern Germany i can tell you that the only thing stopping a full base income is influence from american politics. I say full, because we do have a de-facto base income with the unemployment payments labeled "Arbeitslosengeld II". Read up on it. :)
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Certainly in the UK there is no base benefit, no right to an amount to support continued life.

_delirium 14y ago

Bertrand Russell is another person who's written on that subject. His question was more or less: if we reach the point where our basic needs can be taken care of by robots, will that mean everyone starts with their basic needs taken care of... or will it instead mean that whoever owns the robots, and claims their labor, will be in a very strong position?

kamaal 14y ago
I think our concept of basic needs is highly flawed. The moment some of our basic needs get taken care of, the new ones replace them. In general any thing given away for free, will always be perceived as worthless. That is how it works!
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  I disagree. I believe that among the things given for free some would be missed less or more than others, like free water compared to free tv if one happened to live in the sahara. Things we are dependent on for daily subsistance are more basic than the ones we easily get used to their absence. > The moment some of our basic needs get taken care of, the new ones replace them. No, the new ones add up to them. The basic needs are still there and it is a priority to take care of them first and before the "new ones". And what would be wrong with a society that would be able to provide basic sustenance to every citizens AND a free internet/tv/car etc. ?
neutronicus 14y ago
It depends on whether the people without robots can kill the people who own the robots.
- yairchu 14y ago
  They can't, because the people who own the robots also own a robotic police force. Two years ago when Mubarak told the Egyptian army to spray protestors with bullets, and the soldiers refused. That's because he didn't have a robotic force. The future is probably going to be horrible.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    You think a robotic police force is going to help a dictator? Maybe for a couple of days, until someone with a conscience and a brain realizes that Robocop is running a vulnerable version of Java and suddenly "your" robotic police force is my robotic police force.

wwweston 14y ago

> In effect Paine advocates for a guaranteed minimum income, way back in 1795. That, to him, restored justice to agrarian society. Another Marxist philosopher, eh? Forced contribution backed up by violence of the state doesn't sound like justice to me, and is fundamentally incompatible with the liberty envisioned by America's founding fathers. If only we'd listen to them, we'd all be better off. Edit: my delivery is either a bit too deadpan, or HN readers have encountered enough would-be libertarians who are completely unaware that Paine is arguably a founding father and Marx wasn't borne until 1818 that my attempt at satire has already been beaten by reality. I'll hope it's the former.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
simonsarris 14y ago
Oh bull. Failure to pay taxes due is theft from the rest of society. And don't claim any ownership of founding fathers in your ideology - Old Ben Franklin has been sticking it to "all taxation is theft" Libertarians since 1783, in absolute and direct contradiction of your sentiment: > "The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law. > "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

jchrisa 14y ago

Here is a more modern argument for a guaranteed basic income. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Wrong-Lunch-Democracy-Forum/dp/0807047139 http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Wrong-Lunch-Democracy-Forum/dp/0...

sirmixalot 14y ago

Paine's 10% tax rate would be welcomed by even the most ardent Tea Partier.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Isn't his tax rate on all wealth, so 10% of the value of your home and possessions too? Or was it only on income?

hessenwolf 14y ago

What you have written looks really interesting... but I am curious as to why you think this is not already in effect? Just thinking about Ireland, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia... the minimum income concept is firmly ingrained in unemployment benefits and means-tested social welfare. It needs a lot more to really restore equality, because equality of opportunity requires investment in education and rules against monopoly and nepotism/cronyism, but they are there too!

Mithaldu 14y ago
As a german who grew up in Eastern Germany i can tell you that the only thing stopping a full base income is influence from american politics. I say full, because we do have a de-facto base income with the unemployment payments labeled "Arbeitslosengeld II". Read up on it. :)
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Certainly in the UK there is no base benefit, no right to an amount to support continued life.