You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Here's what I said about automated vehicles and basic income at the House of Commons of Canada
It is imperative that you as lawmakers work to make sure that technology like driverless vehicles and the AI that makes it possible, effectively works for everyone, not just its owners
so...theft then?
Nope. For example. Who owns your data? Do you? Steemit recognizes that you do, so you receive an income for it. Apply that to driverless vehicles. Who's generating the data that makes it possible for an AI to learn how to drive? Every driver and every pedestrian that vehicle encounters is who. It's ambient data created by all of us every day.
Next, let's look at who paid for the R&D behind self-driving cars? The government did, with tax dollars. Tax money made this tech possible. In the VC world, the people who put up the money to make something possible tend to get a large ROI. Where is the ROI for tax payers? They were investors in this. Where's their dividend?
What are all these machines made of? They're made of minerals and metals. Who made those? No one did. All someone did was take them out of the ground and transform them. But who owns them? In Alaska the answer to that is Alaskans, which is why they have a universal dividend.
All taxation is not the same. Look at land value taxation for example. That's not a tax on hard work. It's a tax on unearned rent.
UBI doesn't even require taxation. Another way of going about this is an ROI from patent protection. Again, it's taxpayers that are making patent monopolies possible. Why not charge people a fee for continued patent monopolization, and provide that fee to citizens.
Here's the deal. Automation is here and it's real. If you believe taxing those who own the machines that will replace a vast majority of human labor is wrong, then you're going to have a bad time. The economy is going to have a bad time. Our entire distribution system is built on the notion of working for money. So what happens when people just can't earn enough money any more because they can't out-compete machine labor?
Do you seriously think you're on the side of morality here to let half the country starve to death, and violence break out all over as a result of incredible destabilization while a billionaire becomes the first trillionaire?
That's not moral. That's stupid.
That's not moral. That's stupid.
and so it descends to name calling so soon.
There's a difference between calling a belief stupid and calling someone stupid for thinking it. You're smart enough to know that, right?
and there you go again.
condescension is as thing.