Fully Automated Luxury Communism

[theprestige]

Abject poverty is the natural state of man, not a product of the American way.

I agree with this opinion.

---

The human condition is death, staved off by hard work and good luck. Some people have better opportunities. Others put in more effort. Everyone rises and falls on some combination of the two.

---

Inheritance is a case of one person choosing to turn their hard work and good luck into better opportunities for someone else. This choice is made possible by the institution of private property.

 

[Brainster]

And of course making good decisions in who your parents are is the most important decision of all, as such it gets the highest rewards.

It always amuses me when somebody makes this argument. The notion seems related to the old euphemism of the stork bringing babies to the proud parents. Baby #15 goes to the grinding poverty family, while baby #16 is deposited on the doorstep of the Gottbux mansion. And if you think about it like that, yes, it does seem super-unfair that #16 got so many advantages compared to the unfortunate infant who came off the assembly line just before him.

Of course, basic biology sort of blows that notion out of the water. Baby #15 could not just as easily have been born to the Gottbux clan. There was no luck or unfairness involved.

 

[Drewbot]

It's from Marx. It has to do with those who are able to taking care of those who aren't able. Basically describing a decent society.

A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.

Milton Friedman

Do you think the problem with socialism is, that socialism does not produce greater productivity than is produced in Capitalism?

I would maintain that Capitalism, through it's greater productivity, helps more people than even a properly integrated Marxist civilization, simply because there is not enough product generated to help everyone.

 

[Distracted1]

Abject poverty is the natural state of man, not a product of the American way.

Poverty is a relative term, no?

Would an individual human alone on the Earth be living in "poverty"? How about two humans?, or 2000?

Only when the actions of other humans restrict a humans' access to available resources does "poverty" become a concept with any real world implication. That makes it an "unnatural state" IMO -at least for an individual human.

 

[Distracted1]

I agree with this opinion.

---

The human condition is death, staved off by hard work and good luck. Some people have better opportunities. Others put in more effort. Everyone rises and falls on some combination of the two.

---

Inheritance is a case of one person choosing to turn their hard work and good luck into better opportunities for someone else. This choice is made possible by the institution of private property.

A dead person can turn nothing over to anyone- they are dead. Living people can choose to accept that something that used to belong to a dead person now belongs to someone else- or not.

 

[acbytesla]

Because private property is a thing. And most people through most of history have considered providing for their descendants after their death to be one of the most meaningful dispositions of their private property.

Not understanding this is, I think, an anti social trait.

And also a communist trait. But I repeat myself.

---

I think a lot of the anti inheritance attitude is rooted in a belief that individual wealth belongs to the state, and that the individual is merely borrowing it. They're supposed to return it to its rightful owner, not pass it on to their family and friends.

No. It is the idea of meritocracy not aristocracy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Poverty is a relative term, no?

Would an individual human alone on the Earth be living in "poverty"? How about two humans?, or 2000?

Only when the actions of other humans restrict a humans' access to available resources does "poverty" become a concept with any real world implication. That makes it an "unnatural state" IMO -at least for an individual human.

I only view it as an absolute measure.

 

[theprestige]

A dead person can turn nothing over to anyone- they are dead. Living people can choose to accept that something that used to belong to a dead person now belongs to someone else- or not.

Semantically boring.

Think of it this way:

Q. Who owns private property when the current owner dies?

A. The current owner decides that while they are still alive. The rest of us uphold the decision because we desire the same when it's our turn.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Semantically boring.

Think of it this way:

Q. Who owns private property when the current owner dies?

A. The current owner decides that while they are still alive. The rest of us uphold the decision because we desire the same when it's our turn.

Most people have a preference because they stupidly believe in the afterlife. Their opinion means little to me on the subject.

 

[theprestige]

Well.

 

[Distracted1]

Semantically boring.

Think of it this way:

Q. Who owns private property when the current owner dies?

A. The current owner decides that while they are still alive. The rest of us uphold the decision because we desire the same when it's our turn.

That makes "the rest of us" the final arbiter of what happens to the things that formerly belonged to a person who is now dead.
We concur on that.

 

[Cabbage]

It always amuses me when somebody makes this argument. The notion seems related to the old euphemism of the stork bringing babies to the proud parents. Baby #15 goes to the grinding poverty family, while baby #16 is deposited on the doorstep of the Gottbux mansion. And if you think about it like that, yes, it does seem super-unfair that #16 got so many advantages compared to the unfortunate infant who came off the assembly line just before him.

Of course, basic biology sort of blows that notion out of the water. Baby #15 could not just as easily have been born to the Gottbux clan. There was no luck or unfairness involved.

Actually, it's YOUR post that is the one confusing the issue, treating babies as if they come off some assembly line in heaven. "We can't send Baby #15 to the Gottbux family; this here's a poverty-gene baby!"

You're completely missing the point: The reward (or lack thereof) of the family a baby is born to is not due to the baby's choosing or the merit of his/her abilities; as far as the baby's will is concerned, it is chance.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, it's YOUR post that is the one confusing the issue, treating babies as if they come off some assembly line in heaven. "We can't send Baby #15 to the Gottbux family; this here's a poverty-gene baby!"



You're completely missing the point: The reward (or lack thereof) of the family a baby is born to is not due to the baby's choosing or the merit of his/her abilities; as far as the baby's will is concerned, it is chance.

Chance yes. Unfair no.

 

[Cabbage]

Most people have a preference because they stupidly believe in the afterlife. Their opinion means little to me on the subject.

I can't even imagine why you would believe this. The preference is for leaving material things to those you leave behind, often children. A desire to leave your children well off is rather independent of one's belief or disbelief in an afterlife.

 

[Cabbage]

Chance yes. Unfair no.

I'm not claiming it's unfair. In fact, I would need a rigorous definition of "unfair" (with respect to this situation) before I could even begin to agree or disagree.

 

[Distracted1]

I can't even imagine why you would believe this. The preference is for leaving material things to those you leave behind, often children. A desire to leave your children well off is rather independent of one's belief or disbelief in an afterlife.

It's kind of odd if you think about it though.

Once I cease to exist there will be no "me" to take satisfaction from the benefits my offspring might get from the material wealth they will have ownership of.

Recognizing that, the only satisfaction I can take from it is the fantasy that it will be appreciated. Similar to the justifications for people purchasing lottery tickets -knowing how worthless they likely are- so that they might enjoy thinking about how they might spend their winnings right up to the point when the numbers are actually drawn.

Once death occurs,it can be of no consequence to me whether my heirs are given my wealth or not by definition.

This seemingly irrelevant philosophical argument actually has had a real-world consequence with the re-branding of "inheritance tax" to "death tax". That was a bit of a disingenuous shift of focus, it is much easier to convince people of the rediculousness of "taxing death" than to convince them that it is somehow unfair that someone receiving an unearned windfall should probably pay some taxes on said windfall (as if they had won the lottery).

 

[curious cat]

....................................

But in a post-scarcity economy, that problem simply doesn't exist. Given sufficient technology, we could make everyone "rich". That is, adequate housing, food, entertainment, fulfilling work/hobbies, and what not.

The problem is how to get from here to there.

Exactly. And it not a "problem". It is a fatal flaw of the whole project. Resources are limited, people needs and demands are not. You can't fulfil unlimited demand with limited resources, period. This system is a pure fantasy and stupid fantasy at that.

 

[Cabbage]

It's kind of odd if you think about it though.

Once I cease to exist there will be no "me" to take satisfaction from the benefits my offspring might get from the material wealth they will have ownership of.
Recognizing that, the only satisfaction I can take from it is the fantasy that it will be appreciated. Similar to the justifications for people purchasing lottery tickets -knowing how worthless they likely are- so that they might enjoy thinking about how they might spend their winnings right up to the point when the numbers are actually drawn.

Once death occurs,it can be of no consequence to me whether my heirs are given my wealth or not by definition.

This seemingly irrelevant philosophical argument actually has had a real-world consequence with the re-branding of "inheritance tax" to "death tax". That was a bit of a disingenuous shift of focus, it is much easier to convince people of the rediculousness of "taxing death" than to convince them that it is somehow unfair that someone receiving an unearned windfall should probably pay some taxes on said windfall (as if they had won the lottery).

Unlike the afterlife, a vast majority of people believe that the world (and others in it) continue after their own individual death. I think the highlighted part borders on solipsism. It is meaningful to them while they are alive and therefore that's when (and why) they choose to do something about it. I don't find it odd at all that people find comfort that their children (or others they care about) will be well provided for after they (the parent) dies.

And a comparison to a lottery? You think the satisfaction that knowing your child will be left a million dollars is as worthless as a likely losing lottery ticket? It's not even the same sport, bro.

Worthless (in my opinion) is making plans so that your "life in heaven" will be rewarded: Plans like not eating pork or observing the Sabbath or whatever. Making plans for those you actually leave behind, on the other hand: That is very real.

But sure, I've known some people with this sort of attitude: What does it matter what I do for anyone? We're all gonna die anyway.

 

[Distracted1]

Unlike the afterlife, a vast majority of people believe that the world (and others in it) continue after their own individual death. I think the highlighted part borders on solipsism. It is meaningful to them while they are alive and therefore that's when (and why) they choose to do something about it. I don't find it odd at all that people find comfort that their children (or others they care about) will be well provided for after they (the parent) dies.

And a comparison to a lottery? You think the satisfaction that knowing your child will be left a million dollars is as worthless as a likely losing lottery ticket? It's not even the same sport, bro.

Worthless (in my opinion) is making plans so that your "life in heaven" will be rewarded: Plans like not eating pork or observing the Sabbath or whatever. Making plans for those you actually leave behind, on the other hand: That is very real.

But sure, I've known some people with this sort of attitude: What does it matter what I do for anyone? We're all gonna die anyway.

The satisfaction derived is the same between the un-drawn lottery ticket and how good it is going to be for my heirs when they get my stuff. Both can only be enjoyed prior to the actual "drawing" in that they are both fantasies that can only be enjoyed before the fact.
Actually, one could say that it is at least possible that one will see the realization of the lottery fantasy.
Actions taken to try to achieve a result after death can only be enjoyed or appreciated as fantasy, even if they actually do turn out exactly as hoped, since the one doing the hoping will no longer exist after the action takes effect.

 

[Cabbage]

The satisfaction derived is the same between the un-drawn lottery ticket and how good it is going to be for my heirs when they get my stuff. Both can only be enjoyed prior to the actual "drawing" in that they are both fantasies that can only be enjoyed before the fact.
Actually, one could say that it is at least possible that one will see the realization of the lottery fantasy.
Actions taken to try to achieve a result after death can only be enjoyed or appreciated as fantasy, even if they actually do turn out exactly as hoped, since the one doing the hoping will no longer exist after the action takes effect.

I think you're thinking more chronologically while I'm thinking more probabilistically:

But the reality of the inheritance coming to fruition is quite large (as far as I know, barring unusual circumstances, it is in fact guaranteed). For the lottery ticket: Vanishingly small. The satisfaction of a pipe dream lottery win is absolutely not the same as the satisfaction of a well planned and solidly probable benefit for someone. You're introducing a chronological element where there doesn't need to be one: It makes one feel better now that they've planned for their children's future without them. Of course it doesn't affect the deceased one after they've deceased: It affects the survivors in the future and that is comforting to those still alive in the present. And this isn't some futile probability game like the lottery: It's actually part of law.

Do you feel the same way about organ donation? You know it does make a difference to those receiving the inheritance or the donation, even if you aren't around to witness the difference you make. For some people that means a lot while they are alive. If it means nothing to you then, well, I can't help you.

Anyway, there's no requirement that satisfaction can only be obtained at when a decision comes to fruition. Knowing that your loved ones will be provided for in the future after you've passed is satisfying to many people while they are still alive.