Our current competition with neomarxist China is not fair because we are not making adjustments fast enough. If we are to compete with them we must, while staying within the capitalist market system, as opposed to the socialist market system, change the way we do business.
Robots, left to themselves, will cause demand collapse and destroy our economy.
Tariffs, managed with skill, can protect our markets from offshore robot production.
Licensing fees, allowing robots to do business here, distributed as dividends to all citizens will ensure continued prosperity.
Let us grow fat on the backs of robots.
The key concept to any discussion of robot competition is that of mechanical working animals. Working animals amplify the labor of human beings. They increase human productivity. They are autonomous in their natural habitat. Autonomy being the ability to thrive and multiply without intervention. However, in society theirs is a milieu of regulation reaching into the dim recesses of history. Their owners are subject to regulation and redress for damages. The Greek concept of ownership by legitimate use [The Institution of Property, C Reinhold Noyes] is fully apparent in justifying that regulation. Critically, they must be directed, managed by human agency to be at large in society. Some legal person must be responsible for their behavior. They cannot just BE in Western Civilization.
These critical points lead us to a rumination on mechanical working animals as a possible construct of AI driven automata. They do amplify the labor of human beings. In fact, they defy the understanding of amplify, The effects of robots building robots [The Economic Singularity] are so enormous and world-changing that the mind can only contain them with difficulty. However difficult, the fact remains that they fulfill the conditions of utility required to make them members of society. Like working animals they are becoming autonomous on the factory floor, their designed habitat, which is in society and demands a legal environment and like working animals they are not possibly legal actors because they are not human beings. They must be owned by a legal person and subject to regulation and redress of damages including a loss of jobs and income to the society as a whole.
I am talking about the limits of organic disruption as a positive catalyst for change as opposed to pernicious disruption, autonomous robots, which must be managed and for which legal models of regulation exist.
We cannot afford to be drawn into an automation competition with a centrally managed economy. They have tools we don't have. We must maintain capitalism and markets and still adjust to autonomous robots on our, on humane, terms.
Do Well and Be Well.
Comments
Post a Comment