You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Does the World Need a Universal Basic Income? Could Steem Power It?
I'm hesitant to read the article because I already disagree pretty strongly with the assumptions made here:
people would still be forced to labor under a boss
"Forced" how? Via a gun? I work for myself as do many others and I think many more will as well. The idea of "laboring under a boss" is, to me, an anachronistic one. The global economy has no borders.
capital can only make profits through exploitation
That, to me, is just silly. They should watch some lectures from Yaron Brook on YouTube. Or maybe start with this interview on the Ruben Report (which is a great show): Ayn Rand: Philosophy, Objectivism, Self Interest (full interview with Yaron Brook)
I think production is going to handled via automation.
Forced by what Max Weber called the whip of hunger.
If the choice is between selling one's labor and homelessness or starvation, one is forced in a sense every bit as meaningful as if he were held at gunpoint. He has no choice in the matter.
Which is why Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is so important. If we're talking about life and death situations (war, extreme poverty, starvation, etc), then morality has different standards, IMO. To argue "human beings should be free to exist without providing any value to anyone else" is, to me, a silly concept because human beings need food, shelter, clothing, etc. I lean towards materialistic determinism which implies none of us have a "choice" in some sense. To me, what works, is giving someone many different choices as to how to provide value to others (what you call "selling one's labor"). If one boss is a dick, there are many other options in the Internet world today (including being your own boss). If your skills aren't valued by the market, that means they aren't valued by other human beings enough to exchange tokens of value they worked to earn.
To me, many of the anarcho-communist ideas sound like people upset at having to provide value to others instead of just taking value all the time.
This is a pretty egregious straw man.
This sounds nice, and it is very convincing to people who have an abundance of options and the resources to pursue a wide range of opportunities. That's simply not the case for the majority of humanity.
This glosses over the fact that "the market" is dominated by concentrated wealth. You're framing the interests of money as the interests of people, when it couldn't be further from the truth. The majority of humanity has no measurable wealth to influence the conditions of the market.