John ! I actually agree with you in the first part. My thinking was that people will avoid the bad situation you describe and simply hand over what they think their children would need. The standard income goes to everybody and should be enough to live OK. If the state gets to inherit than the state should have to auction those assets immediately say 15 days. I see no reason to not let people earn money. There are no patents so they will have to be very good if someone else is interested in making money, which I think is less important very soon. It is a lot of talk about giving and giving back today. That is all good, but you need to have more than you need to really be able to give. Having the basic will means you can share and give of your surplus. Building corporations with thousands of employees will just not work they will be out- maneuvered by smaller more flexible organizations. I purposely did not say corporations as I think they will be out dated and replaced with another format. Partnerships , coops etc. To make laws to outlaw certain ideas is just backwards, vortex is full of people complaining about how LENR does not get funding because the rules (laws if you prefer) and how that make everybody looking into LENR, an outlaw. You cannot have and eat the cake. Price is not the issue. Cheap and expensive gets a totally different meaning. Composing music is very hard today if you do not follow special format dictated by 'the masses'. The guaranteed income would make some people compose regardless but the market would be limited so their income for sharing the composition would be negligible. Same goes for other art forms. Big government should have no rights. Size becomes a no issue. Criminality would certainly be less - perhaps not so evident when talking about violent crime murder, rape etc.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob, there is one point I thought of when reading Jed's post. > > And that is what is the difference between one robot the size of a human > and 1 robot that is the size of 50 people and has 50-100 arms and other > components? > > What would normally be an army of robots could be made as one single robot. > > I think one catch should be that there is some rule about how many man > hours of work a robot can be allowed to complete each day, again a robot > that worked super fast could really clean up. > > But then who wants to get in the way of efficiency? > And could a large robot used in say mining be again considered only one > robot? > > Efficiency goes up, there really is enough for everyone to have a piece of > the pie, and many without doing anything for it and increasingly that needs > to be the case, but how to get the pie divided fairly while transitioning > is tricky. > > In a way this has already happen, those huge trucks used in mining are to > avoid having to pay lots of people to operate smaller trucks. > > And those so-called smaller trucks are still huge compared to a more > regular truck. > > And a truck is far in a way from a horse and cart. > > There is no point in standing in the way of efficiency which measures to > try and limit robot production and ownership will do. > > John > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jed-- >> >> You noted: "Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, >> powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the >> regulations." >> >> I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic >> Energy Act in this country very well. Energy produced by use of special >> nuclear materials is pretty well regulated. However, as you suggest it >> might be, it is not regulated well in all places on the Earth and may not >> be in the USA either in the future. >> >> Black markets for robots would likely crop up anyway. Regulation on the >> money makers could keep them in control however, if the government decides >> to do so. >> >> I would disagree with you that we nave no right to keep numbers of items >> (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law >> that limits the availability of items. Controlled substances in this >> country are very well controlled as to the amount any person can have. >> Radioactive materials also fall into this category with amounts regulated >> to specific licenses and general licenses issued by governments. >> >> The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a >> computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and >> regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which >> you suggest are a problem. >> >> My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government >> for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. >> This is democracy. Individuals have only certain personal rights as >> provided in constitutions. Corporations and non-natural entities are >> chartered with certain purposes established by governments. These can be >> changed or taken back by the government that approved the various purposes, >> if it is in the interest of the government (the people) to do so. >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:58 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >> >> Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main >>> features of such a law follow: >>> >>> Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. >>> Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an >>> increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be >>> levied. . . . >>> >> >> Similar proposals have been discussed here before. Let me reiterate some >> objections: >> >> First, we do not want to keep the numbers down, and we have no right to >> do that. People and corporations should have as many robots as they want, >> just as they have as many computers as they want. >> >> Second, there is no way to define a robot or to count the number of >> robots you have. A robot can range from something as simple as the >> microprocessor control in a microwave machine, to the Baxter robot, or in >> the future up to a science fiction sentient human-like creature. By the >> first and lowest standard, I own dozens of robots already, and you can't >> tell where one starts and the other ends. There are probably several >> microprocessor controllers inside a Prius or other modern automobile. >> >> I expect that future robots will be modular and networked, with >> attachments or peripherals that can be used by different robots at >> different times. When you need some function that your own robot does not >> do, the robot will download it, or use additional robot intelligence in the >> cloud, or order an attachment part. Trying to counting robots will be kind >> of like trying to count computers. If I have one computer with two screens >> which uses a net-connected stand-alone hard disk and remote cloud storage, >> and both local and cloud-based apps, is that one computer, or two, or many? >> The question is meaningless. Is an iPad or Chromebook a computer at all? In >> 1975 I would have called them "smart terminals" rather than computers. >> >> Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and >> unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. They will >> have as many robots as they want, and they will easily find ways to stop >> the authorities from enumerating those robots. Especially small robots, the >> size of mice or cell phones, which I expect will be ubiquitous sometime in >> the future. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
