Venus Project argument

Economics Political Theory
1

Having a debate with one of my mates on Facebook, If your interested. I’ve obviously borrowed from a few Mises sources to support my argument, but interested to hear what you fellows make of it ?

Technocrat joined the group The Venus Project.

Ash Lawson
Dude its just Communism wrapped in a nice name

Mon at 19:17 · Delete

Technocrat

i think that’s a little over simplistic.

Tues at 04:05

Ash Lawson
what’s the difference ?

Tues at 09:35 · Delete

Technocrat

Communism is a old term with a negative connotation, as it has always been intertwined with a dodgy totalitarianism regime. Technocracy is a better term. Capitalism is a nasty piece of work, this it the best alternative i have found.

Tues at 12:23

Ash Lawson
Ahh c’mon bro, real laissez faire capitalism has barley been tried, this is a lord keynes bastardisation of capitalism much like the Soviet union was a bastardisation of Marxist theory. I still fail to see major difference between technocracy and communism. Found this post which is kinda funny.

Communism: “Let’s get rid of government and private property and the economy, and we’ll all share things, and people will work instead of screwing around all day because they will feel like working just out of the kindness of their hearts.”

Technocracy: “Let’s get rid of government and private property and the economy, and we’ll all share things, and people will work instead of screwing around all day because they will feel like working, just out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’ll be like Star Trek, where it’s all like high-tech and shit, and everything that we need will be provided by machines that operate on magic and the power of positive thinking.”

Yesterday at 16:10 · Delete

Technocrat

Star Trek is a sort of a reasonable example on how it could work.

I suppose this is the basic concern is: As machines become more advanced and automate more and more functions there will be less and less for people to do.

I don’t think anybody could disagree with that because its so very well established.

So you can see the problem. Obviously capitalism goes out the window straight away because there would be too few jobs as even engineers and administrators would get replaced my machines.

We could begin that change today, rather than waiting around for it to happen. I would like to see it sooner rather than later and be ready for the change, rather than putting my hands over my eyes and pretending that everything can continue are it is forever.

Yesterday at 17:40

Ash Lawson
No way bro, you just presented a major fallacy. Leftist’s technophobes use this one the entire time, its retarded. Basically the argument is that the ‘Capitalist entrepreneurs’ benefit and the workers gets screwed because in some factory somewhere machinery has taken over a ‘few’ workers jobs right ? Well here’s just one example of how more machinery would benefit society.

The following is an extract from Henry Hazlitts - Economics In One Lesson, which I highly recommend.

“At this point, it may seem, labour has suffered a net loss of employment while it is only the manufacture, the capitalist, who has gained. But it is precisely out of these extra profits that the subsequent society gains must come. The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possibly he will use part of them in all three: (1) He will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines, say to make more coats (making machines require labour right !); Or (2) he will invest the extra profits in some other industry; Or (3) he will spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever course he takes, he will increase employment”.

Thus machinery benefits society.

Yesterday at 22:03 · Delete

Technocrat

When the machines make the machines and the machines are managed by the machines nobody will be employed. 100% automation. What then.

The only way Capitalism can survive is to delay things, which it does a very good job of. Patents for example.

Yesterday at 23:33

Ash Lawson
At each stage of the manufacture of machinery you mention - from the very bottom to the top, there are jobs for the machines designers. Unlike socialism, capitalism does not rely on fear. Capitalism relies on belief, belief in the inexhaustible creativity of free persons. That machinery also requires human management, labour is also required for transportation and engineers are necessary to maintain the equipment.
You also fail to see the bigger picture here, that machines benefit society as a whole, that say in industry - lower prices, which will lead to cheaper goods. That machinery has made the workplace safer, or can do jobs that, for a human would be impossible, machinery in hospitals saves lives, the list goes on and on.
Now where do you draw the line, was it a mistake for the hunter-gatherer to make his stake into a spear, his spear into an arrow ! Do we stop advances in technology for the sake of rationing labour ?
The central lesson is that we should try to see all the main consequences of any economic policy or development—the immediate effects on special groups, and the long-run effects on all groups.
You also mention that the only way capitalism can survive is to delay things, which i disagree with because what we have today is Corporatism which does delay ‘things’, because of special interests.
i won’t get into Intellectual property simply because i haven’t made up my mind on it yet.

Nature based economy?
2

So who makes the machines to make the machines?

edit: Also his first rebuttal against communism is shady. He says it has negative connotation and then in the same breath says capitalism is a nasty piece of work (negative connotation). So maybe he’s not against negative connotation? Maybe he is agreeing it is communism? He’s very unclear. Ask him to define capitalism. He thinks communism has a negative connotation (but isn’t a nasty piece of work?). And capitalism is a nasty piece of work (but that isn’t or is negative connotation?). Yes, he’s very unclear.

3

As a worker’s productivity increases, the amount of profit gained form that employee’s labor increases. If the labor force is now creating more profit per employee, the employer would want to hire even more employees to gain more profit.

Would you rather have 5 guys with teaspoons digging, or 5 guys with shovels digging? If you have 5 guys with teaspoons digging, why would you fire 4 upon getting one shovel? The other 4 were digging because it was profitable for the employer, so they will continue digging. As more money comes in, more shovels will be purchased.

I would consider joining the group, but it sounds too much like central planning to me.

4

Lots of good literature on here explaining why intellectual property is bad bad bad.

5

You need to point out that machinery and capitalism correlate for good reasons that you’ve stated, but there’s no conflict between having a free market intentionally choose primitive organization for the sake of maintaining labor. Look at the Amish communities, they are the result of free and voluntary association. No amount of advancement in society can take their lives away from them. Even if the rest of the world becomes like the matrix, the Amish will continue their existence if their property rights are respected.

A rich capitalist pig cannot take anything away from you. Socialism is possible under capitalism, you just can’t force people to join your commune.

6

I make them. But i always ask myself, since it was easier for me to make a machine that makes machines… certainly wont those machines make the same choice?

7

It could very well be that at some point humans will not have to work anymore.+ Jobs aren’t really a good thing in the first place - They imply that there are unfulfilled needs…but I have not put a lot of thinking in how such a society would look like - we got enough problems to deal with in the present state.

But who knows, human society will definitively face a dramatic shift in values when all resources become abundant, (maybe even life) and older ethical consideration will become more and more irrelevant.

8

Some interesting points raised here, I’d like to thank you for all your responses. I’m looking forward very much to his reply, then i can decide which avenue to take.

9

On the IP stuff, i will look into it, its just not come up much in my thoughts. Right now i’m really just trying to work on strengthening my argument against socialists. I do this by going to as many socialist workers party meetings as i ca :slight_smile: I don’t really say much at these meetings because I’m afraid of public speaking but I’m trying. I find theres no better way to test and strengthen your philosophy then by listening to oppositions pov.

10

Ok here it is guys, those who’s blood is likely to boil best look away.

Technocrat

Corporatism is capitalism and the day will come where machines make work redundant. Which could be sooner than we think if we put our minds to it.
Interesting movies worth watching are Food inc and Michael Moore’s, Capitalism a love story. I would be interested in your running commentary on how capitalism is a good thing.

11

And thus Michael Moore’s whole movie is a strawman, admitted by the man himself.

Economics in One Lesson - Chapter 7- The Curse of Machinery

Zeitgeist Addendum is what he’s seen… full of fallacies at every turn. Essentially, this guy is now supporting technocracy / anarcho-communism… he just doesn’t know it.

Points to home in on, who owns the means of productions? Private ownership or public?

Also the calculation argument, i.e no price mechanism

Essentially he is living in a post scarcity world utopia. Economic ignorance is his first problem that will need to be overcome.

12

Here’s a short piece I wrote on this topic, as a response to an article published by the Washington Post: Technology, Machinery and the Human Laborer. This is a topic that is sometimes misunderstood by even Austrian economists! (Well, I’m not sure misunderstood is the right term; perhaps “not completely thought out”). Or, maybe I am missing something…

Not related to what I wrote, or to what your friend wrote, the Ricardo Effect suggests that as labor becomes more expensive in relation to capital (that is, when demand for consumer-goods decrease because savings goes up and capitalists begin to invest), entrepreneurs will replace labor with capital-goods (i.e. machinery). Jesús Huerta de Soto, I believe (I am too lazy to open the book, but I think this is what he suggests), says that this will lead to unemployment, although this unemployment will be soaked back up during the final stages of production. I don’t believe this will lead to unemployment. I think that these workers will instead be re-structured in the capital-goods industry.

13

Hes arguing for the creation of strong AI. My argument is that strong AI will never serve humanity. To become intelligent requires learning. There are two types of learning, supervised learning and unsupervised learning. I will address the two types of learning separately.

Supervised learning - a computer program is taught how to think by interacting with a human user that acts as the programs oracle, if the program becomes confused it will ask the oracle to clarify. There are a host of problems with this approach to AI, however if they could be overcome an intelligent slave machine could be built.

  1. A human being is actually not an oracle. If the computer asks the oracle a question and the oracle gives the wrong answer, an incomplete answer, or no answer the AI learning has been stunted and will fail. So lets say the computer asks the oracle, what is this attribute called “sweet.”

  2. A computer can not be told about an experience in enough detail to actually “be” that experience. So an ai always will fundamentally get incomplete answers.

  3. One human being can not physically sit long enough to answer all the machines questions in sufficient detail that ai is satisfied. Therefore we need multiple oracles.

  4. Multiple oracles are impossible because human beings disagree, the ai has no reliable standard of truth.

Because of these problems and probably more I’m forgetting the supervised learning of an AI from knowing nothing to knowing what a human knows is impossible. So what about learning that doesn’t require an oracle?

Unsupervised learning - through the use of differentiation of things based on statistically significant differences all information and data about the world can be separated and classified in a method that leads to understanding. There are problems with this though in relation to the premise.

  1. Essentially the unsupervised AI is a completely closed system, the human cannot relate anything to it. If it could be related to it is pure chance that this occurs. There is meaning in this world it has created, but there is no reason to believe that this world could be represented or related to a human being.

  2. The internal world of the AI does not include things that a human experiences.

So really supervised AI is the only path that leads to the machine managed world, but I have to ask: If we create a machine that is essentially a copy of a human being, why not just use human beings? Surely it is much easier to breed than to create an AI.

14

Ugh, I actually stomached that Michael Moore clip. In the end he just concludes that everyone should have a free ride… College? Should be free. Health care? Should be free.

Who pays for it? Ask Mike, he’ll tell you the “rich” will, while simultaneously advocating that people shouldn’t be rich. Yeah, right…

15

yeah, but a person makes the machines that makes the machines first. Then we’ll see how this pans out. The Technocrat was more like a gitty-kid that found a new toy. He didn’t offer anything substantial. Like the how, why, what, etc…

16

No. Corporatism is where the government gives corporations all these breaks and subsidies. Capitalism is a dirty word used by marxists because they can’t argue rationally. “Capitalism” is all about free and voluntary association, and self ownership. Does he reject either of these? Does he really think I shouldn’t be able to choose who I deal with? Does he really think I don’t own myself?

Join an Amish community then. No one is forcing you or anyone else to use new technology.

Well. corporatism is a bad thing, while true freedom is a good thing. All the lamest industries in America are highly regulated and subsidized: Health care, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, banks/financial groups, the military industrial complex, insurance. These industries have very very high profit margins and are also the most regulated.

Conversely, look at relatively unregulated, internationally competitive industries: Consumer electronics, anti-virus, search engines, clothing, tools, personal hygiene, small oil & gas, etc. Practically no regulations on these, all of them internationally competitive, low profit margins, low prices. This is the free market at work.

In summary why does the price of healthcare rise annually? Because the AMA & Friends lobby government. Why do the the price of processors and RAM go down every year or even every month? Because there’s practically no regulation and a lot more competition between firms. What arrangement is sustainable? Whats his problem?

17

You and your friend have alot of Ladyattis to go through.

Zeitgeist/Venus Project Into:

Re: Critique of the book: “Economics In One Lesson”, debunking Capitalism - Pt. 6#### Why Energy “Credits” from Zeigeist: Addenum will never work…#### Corrections and further criticisms of the Venus project

Technological Unemployment Coupled with Price System:

Re: On Technological Unemployment (Response to “LadyAttis”).

Leveer13 is a Poopy Head Saga:

Technological “unemployment” is horseshit…#### Technological “unemployment” is horseshit… part 2#### Re: Technological “unemployment” is horseshit… part 2####

Price System/Capitalist Strawman Busting:

Additional considerations on the problem of the Venus Project proposition(s).

Full Automation System Busting:

Further rants on the Venus Project

18

This is my reply, i hope its ok. Wrote this a little hung over from last night. lol

Ash Lawson

Corporatism is so very different from capitalism, for a true Laissez Faire capitalist society, lets define the role of government. I like to define government as most Libertarians do, the way Jefferson put it. That you have a right to your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness /private property. That government should exist only to protect those rights, to provide protection from force or fraud and to provide a place where people you solve they’re disputes, nothing more. Once government starts doing other shit, for example getting involved in the economy and mixing shit up, its no longer capitalism because it begins to distort the marketplace. Once government gets involved in the private affairs of its people it become corporatism because of special interests, we have winners and losers. Winners being corporations like Shell, Monsanto, Coca-Cola. They all get special favours from the government. And the losers being us, through taxing (government stealing by use of force - aka corporatism) we have to bail out the banks and all the other infallible giants. In a true capitalist society employing Austrian economic theory, this could not happen, you wouldn’t have these mammoths (simply because the regulations/lies the government sold you, said to protect the consumer actually protected the corporation - from competition), unless of course the goods they produced where so highly valued by the public.
To be honest you seem a little brain washed from Mr Moore and his leftist propaganda, i feel nothing i really say here is gonna change your mind so i suggest you do a little research into corporatism. Food Inc is a lovely little example of Corporatism at work, notice the good farmer outside in the fresh air complaining about government regulation. Then the big bad giant companies protected by whom with all the regulations? I recommend you watch food inc another time with this in mind. The key thing to remember all along is central planning (government) is a bad thing, you seem to want more central planning albeit run by experts in they’re fields (who may have conflicts with other exerts in that area). So true capitalism, the only way to progress society as a free and prosperous people.

19

Hey can i just ask those who quoted the guy to edit out his name in they’re posts pls. I’ve changed his name to technocrat. I realise i should of changed his name before directly copying and pasting, it was wrong of me, sorry for the inconvenience, won’t happen again. I will continue to keep you updated on the debate.

thanks.

20

that was a good response except, which may not bother your argument with the Technocrat at all, but optimally bothers liberty is you mention government is to protect rights and pointed out that’s what Jefferson mentioned. Jefferson undoubtedly supported this as he was part of the political establishment of the U.S. government. That is not arguable. But to say government (the initiator of coercion for a territorial monopoly) is to protect rights in and of itself is an impossiblity. But to the main point of the discussion you are having with the technocrat I don’t think it necessarily will harm your response in general. I think the main theme in your response was corporatism and upon that fact your response was excellent.