Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Your argument about the washing machines probably allowed people to go to > work, not lose their jobs. > Many housemaids made a living doing laundry and other housework in the 19th century. There were so many that magazines at the time announced a manpower (womanpower) crisis, called "the Irish maid problem." > My only argument is that, if some technical advancement is undesirable > from the standpoint of welfare in the society, it could become regulated or > even out-lawed. Robots are no exception. > First, that would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. We have always allowed technology that is undesirable, as long as it is not hazardous. The government has no business regulating or banning things merely because they are undesirable or immoral. Second, whether the outcome is beneficial or deleterious depends entirely on politics and upon our will. Whether robots will be good or bad for society depends on how we choose to use them. > You seem to imply that only the quality of safety is ok to assure by > regulation. My argument is that there are other values (environment > values, for example) . . . > I said destruction in general not just safety. Environmental hazards and pollution are bad even if they hurt no one. For that matter, anything that hurts property values is bad. Anything that annoys people such as loud music must be regulated. However, a robot working in your house does not affect your neighbors, and it is no one's business but your own. I can imagine that a time may come when any condition that improves > efficiency in manufacturing relative to the use of a natural persons > labor and thereby reduces the need for employment may become regulated or > out-lawed, even if such unemployment is caused by a robot as you define it. > That would be a fascist solution to a problem that easily be solved by capitalistic methods. I would say this is already happening in some communities, particularly in > Europe, where the efficiency of fast-food restaurants is not allowed in > favor of traditional eating establishments that provide opportunities for > traditional food preparation and serving and allows for full employment of > the local folks involved in retail food preparation. > That is insane. That reminds me of the Bastiat's Negative Railroad, or his Candle Maker's Petition: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html > As more and more people become adversely affected with the growing > population and improved "efficiency of robots" negating substantial > employment, I hope the society will take action, (regardless of the > perceived "rights" of corporations or some few individuals to make a profit > by eliminating jobs) to correct the adversity. > Suppose I persuade people to work for me for free, because I am a cult leader (or more realistically because I need people to help me work on cold fusion). That is economically bad for those people and for the rest of society. I'm getting labor for nothing in return. Functionally, it is the same as me buying a robot, or an improved computer program to speed up the work. For example at this moment I'm dictating to NaturallySpeaking rather than having a human secretary take dictation and type this message. Would you pass a law preventing me from doing this? - Jed
