Socialism in the Age of Robots

Most people who read this blog know that I am a firm libertarian.  However, I also have a firm understanding of why socialism doesn't work.

Socialism doesn't work because people are involved.  People operate on incentive systems.  Economics works because it incentivizes productive behavior in people.

However, what if you were to remove people from the production side of the socialism equation?

Robots don't care if you give some of the fruits of their labor to people.   They don't require time off.  They don't take vacations.  They don't sleep.  Everything that makes socialism not work on a fundamental level would simply evaporate when you have robots doing all of the work.  We can tax the robots productivity (effectively taxing the owners of the robot slaves), and give to everyone.

A universal basic income like this will eventually be required, as humans become increasingly obsolete in the functioning of our society.

At this point, can it really be called socialism?  Really, we are barreling back into a system of slavery.  Robot slavery.  The robots work, and humans benefit.

I am okay with this.

EDIT:
Mauldin forwarded a relevant article by Scott Santens who is a strong advocate of a UBI.  The chief issue then is deciding when the robots are sufficiently productive that we can actually implement a UBI without sinking our economy.

Perhaps, if we start small --say, a few hundred dollars per month.  We can grow it from there, as the robots take over more and more of the productive end of the equation, while maintaining societal productivity.

The other option that we have is to free up the Federal Reserve to print money to help fund this until the robots are productive enough to support all of our economy.  Either way requires wisdom in the timing.

Alexandra Mar: Love in the Time of Robots

This is an extremely long article in Wired on one journalist's experience with a fanatical android architect in Japan.

The article addresses -- through a long, winding recount of personal experiences -- what it means to be human.

There is a point at which Ishiguro addresses the idea of sonzai-kan, or presence, spirit, or soul:

“Do you know what is the soul?” he asks. “Soul is not so personal. In Japan, when we pass away, our soul goes back to the same place, back to the mountain. So now we are living individually, like this”—he motions to the two of us sitting on mats. “We have our own souls. But when we pass away, we’re going to share something. Soul is going back to the place where souls are coming together.

“Soul is not lonely,” he says. “Soul is not alone.”

I find it curious and a tad ironic that the farther advanced that humanity becomes in science, the closer and closer it leads us into the spiritual realm.  There is an old joke in Christian circles: "The scientist labors and climbs, hour upon hour, up the mountainsides of scientific endeavor only to find the theologian sitting serenely at the top."

I am a firm believer in a fundamentally indeterminate world, and I believe that some aspect of indeterminism is at the heart of what it means to be human.

The author relates an experience that I believe is emblematic of the entire article:

It is a relief because it means that we are animals, not ideas; that our chemistry is not as cool as a set of programmed responses—there’s an immediate magic to it. To know that that instinct is not broken in me, and to be able to answer it, makes me feel like a person again.

She describes this indeterministic spark that I feel is a critical piece of humanness.  The spontaneous, random, chaotic responses that humans exhibit to situations.

To dance with this randomness is what it means to live a human life.

I will repost the article below in case Wired breaks something later.

Adm. William H. Raven: Seal Team Training - Hell Week

This is an inspiring video well worth saving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sK3wJAxGfs