> I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production.
The problem with automation is that more and more people end up without job. That's the only problem with automation I see. As for worker-owned production; in the face of automation, in my opinion it's a medium-term solution only.
> If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth.
But that's not what happens. Fist, no one "figures out a way to create the machines". You build upon the collective knowledge of you society to improve on existing designs. And it's the use of this collective knowledge that indebts you to society.
Second; even if someone figures out a way to improve a machine and automate more work; that person won't be the one to collect the gains. Instead it will be the employer, while the ingenious employee gets a modest one-time bonus.
> We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place.
Usually the owners of production capacity are not the managers of production capacity. The times where the factory owner was sitting in a bureau above the manufacturing floor are long past.
> That is the very premise of a liberal economy.
Which is not the economy we have.
> I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.
You see, there's the problem; there is no free market. What we have today is a system of crony-capitalism where those with wealth have the power to shape the rules of the market to their advantage while everybody else loses out.
I haven't thought about the aspect of our debt to collective knowledge.
It's true that we owe a lot to our society. If I couldn't find a doctor, a pharmacist, an Internet Service Provider, a supermarket I wouldn't be able to live.
But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?
The fact that we don't live in a liberal economy may be true, and I'm probably too naive in my thinking.
I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.
> But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?
This is a very good question. One to which I hope to find an answer someday.
> I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.
I too think that a market is a better solution for resource distribution than a centralized planning system. Let's get rid of incorporation. Level the playing field. Demolish the abomination of legal personhood. Minimize the capability of a market participant to externalize costs. There are many ways in which the current market implementation suck. Maybe we can fix it?
Wow :), "demolishing the abomination of legal personhood" is not needed. We need to fight monopolies and demolish market entry barriers not the "legal person".
The legal personality is a fundemantal concept of our law system. For example states are legal persons, that is how you can sue the state and get compensation. Publicly traded incorporations on the other hand are a bit tricky. My professor always said these types of corporations are the greatest invention since the steam engine.
Maybe we could further this analogy. Banning steam engines would've probably sustained the growth of industralization. Without industralization we could avoid the inhuman treatment of workers, the pollution. But at the same time, we wouldn't have improved, we wouldn't get to achieve the level of productivity we have today.
On the other hand the law of corporations is getting insanely complex and it must be simplified.
It takes time and stability to cultivate a healthy law culture, and at our current state I believe that new advancements in this field of law will be made.
If we could minimize corruption and try to stick to a Randian ethics standard, whilst providing free and decent healthcare and education, I believe that the society will continue to improve. I think it's not the idea of the current market that sucks, the problem is at our implementation.
The problem with automation is that more and more people end up without job. That's the only problem with automation I see. As for worker-owned production; in the face of automation, in my opinion it's a medium-term solution only.
> If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth.
But that's not what happens. Fist, no one "figures out a way to create the machines". You build upon the collective knowledge of you society to improve on existing designs. And it's the use of this collective knowledge that indebts you to society.
Second; even if someone figures out a way to improve a machine and automate more work; that person won't be the one to collect the gains. Instead it will be the employer, while the ingenious employee gets a modest one-time bonus.
> We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place.
Usually the owners of production capacity are not the managers of production capacity. The times where the factory owner was sitting in a bureau above the manufacturing floor are long past.
> That is the very premise of a liberal economy.
Which is not the economy we have.
> I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.
You see, there's the problem; there is no free market. What we have today is a system of crony-capitalism where those with wealth have the power to shape the rules of the market to their advantage while everybody else loses out.