> There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person?
Free individuals might give something out of benevolence. But a state institution is not a free individual. It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent about it. As such, there is no such thing as a benevolent state. Instead, you can employ game theory on such entities, to the extent of making them look completely self-serving and even psychopatic, as proven by Nash.
This is why it is so important to curtail the development of big and monolithic bureaucratic organisations, and instead use such principles as those given by Montesquieu, to make natural powers compete for authority.
> You don't see the irony in saying that a person must volunteer their value or be enslaved?
Do you think the person giving you bread should be forced to give you that bread? Nay, it would be far better if there was some kind of mutual exchange. There is none to be had, when the exchange is merely giving out a resource for "free." Except we know that it's not for free, but in return for your good behaviour. Then the exchange isn't free, but depending on an exchange anyway, except you have little to no say in it. Then the one in power of that resource in turn also have absolute power over you. So there should be a way for you to gain that power for yourself, or in the least make sure the one giving you bread does not have monopoly in doing so, because it will inevitably devolve into abuse of power.
This seems to be a kind of mixing of two concepts. First, that "a state that is big enough to give you anything, is big enough to take it all away". And second, that being provided resources "for free" is a forced exchange because you don't have a say.
If the state was a dictatorship, then the point might apply. However, democratic states (to lesser or greater degrees) contain some measure of feedback; and that weakens both of the prongs.
Plainly speaking, a democratic state provides its people bread for free because that's what the people want. The state can't take it all away since it is responsible to the people, and the exchange isn't a one-sided forced deal because the people in the state's jurisdiction have collective power on the state itself.
If that power is the power of the ballot, then the mutual exchange could be seen through an adversarial lens to be "good behavior in return for free bread". But the consequence doesn't hold, as the state doesn't have absolute power over its people. The exchange is mutual because if either party reneges, so does the other party.
But the stronger that feedback is, the less the adversarial model works. Consider a community small enough to support a direct democracy along consensus lines. If the tech existed, such a community could create an automated bakery and then hand all of that bread to its members. Here the members govern themselves; there is no external power that arises out of the state and then unilaterally controls the people.
A larger state may be different, but that difference is a matter of degree. "The one in power of that resource" only has "absolute power over you" if you are not part of it.
This is not a concept, but an observation. What you're talking about already exists. It's the capitalist cooperative, where people voluntarily come together to pool capital in order to build some company that produces things or services that are of benefit to the collective owners and/or their customers.
However, while the price of membership in such a unit decreases with every new participant, the ownership is also diminished with each new owner, until effective control over the unit or process becomes very difficult. This will inevitably lead to frustration and feelings of powerlessness as needed change is slowed more and more.
As the saying goes, more votes, does not necessarily mean more democracy. It simply means that it becomes harder to get anything done. Meanwhile, bureacracies grow and rule uninterrupted under such conditions, since a vote every fourth year, and the meddling of one or two representatives, can only ever make small and incremental changes, instead of giving the organization the far-reaching and overarching reorganization that it actually needs in order to become fair and effective again; a thing that is usually contested and opposed by those making up the bureacracy of that organization in the first place.
Right, so the point that it is a matter of degree stands, and the point that you are not powerless in a state where you are part of the government also stands.
Given those points, it is not impossible to imagine a future state deciding to use some of its resources to constructing an automated production system. Its legitimacy is backed up in two ways: once, by the consent of the governed through the democratic process, and the other, by the positive externalities it grants to the people in common.
If the people of such a future state decides to create a common automation infrastructure, then they may also reach the conclusion that not everybody needs to work. The conclusion you reached in your initial post,
>Because if you cannot offer anything of value, someone else will offer that value on your behalf, making you an extraneous cost which anyone in their right mind would want to remove.
no longer holds, because even in the most selfish system, any bureaucrat who takes the time to "remove" you will have to face the consequences. And therefore, there can exist a state that does not demand everybody work.
To some extent, that already exists today. Welfare states protect (or are intended to protect) people who can't work. The people in a welfare state do not want to leave those who can't work to starvation, and so the state doesn't, either.
I do, of course, agree that states as they exist today are imperfect, sometimes grossly so. But I disagree that there is a necessary implication that everybody has to work. As long as the people have a say, and as long as the people do not only value labor, the state cannot simply rid itself of its unproductive constituents. If anyone "in their right mind" would remove people that are "extraneous costs", then the people are collectively insane - and they are coherently and strongly insane enough to check those who are not.
As automation advances it will be much more self reliant in terms of supply chains and production. It could be conceivable that a small town is completely self reliant, not needing to be an entity the size of a state to achieve it.
> Right, so the point that it is a matter of degree stands, and the point that you are not powerless in a state where you are part of the government also stands.
Not really. The more people who get to vote, the less individual control you get yourself over the outcome, and so the more powerless you become. More votes do not equate more democracy, only less individual power to influence your own future or leadership through the ballot, especially if your choices are limited. Unless you take a more direct action, and go into politics yourself, that is. But who has the time for that?
This is why people are rioting in the streets now, instead of patiently waiting until the voting booths open. It's because deciding between two candidates wouldn't resolve the matter in any meaningful way. Especially since there are no real candidates to vote for, that would make anything but token change for you. Nevermind an independent candidate, who just wouldn't gain any traction at all, or at least not under the American system.
Call me cynical, but representative democracy only works because it gives people the illusion that they have an individual say in politics, but they really don't. However the illusion keeps them blissfull enough to not want to rise up. If it actually mattered, I'm sure there wouldn't be a discussion on whether the Brexit vote should be respected (many wanted to disregard it entirely), or even that my own country of Norway perhaps shouldn't pursue relations with the EU, since a majority voted against membership. Yet here we are, with a de-facto membership of the EU through the EEA. Voting against it really worked. Yay... /sarcasm. So I can full well understand why some people think rioting is a better choice. I don't condone it, and I think there are better ways to protest, but I still understand it.
> even in the most selfish system, any bureaucrat who takes the time to "remove" you will have to face the consequences. And therefore, there can exist a state that does not demand everybody work.
Depends on the system in place. And it would be at the eternal scorn of those who have to work, but still pays the full cost of all those who don't. Because UBI isn't "free." And let's face it, such a machine wouldn't be "free" either, although it stands to reason that if it was made really big, then it would certainly be cost saving enough as to preclude all competition from all those who don't have the means to build such a machine themselves. As such, it would be clearly monopolistic.
In essence, it would be unfair to all those who would otherwise compete by baking bread of their own, because it would make bread-baking entirely unprofitable for everyone, just like slavery made low-end work unprofitable both in Rome and in pre-civil war USA. People somehow forget to mention that the war wasn't just about emancipation, but also because slavery gave slave owners such an unfair advantage that it put a lot of people out of honest work. Thus there would be something in it for every baker to throw a wrench into such a monopolistic machine.
If the only way to build such a machine, is to build it big, then it stands to reason that only big players can build it. So what makes you think they'd do it out of pure benevolence, without anything to gain from it? Surely, giving elites peace from the "rabble" might be a good enough reason? In fact, large swathes of the people would become complacent and dependent on the machine. So anyone who could gain control over it, would also stand to gain untold power for themselves and their group.
I think a fair few people would aspire to such power, and some might even be willing to murder for it. If you were somehow able to defend that coup, either diplomatically or by force, you would in effect gain dictatorial power over anyone it served. And nevermind democracy. You now have the power to decide what people vote, or no bread for you! And so, even if it was made with good intentions and for benevolent reasons, the machine may well come under the control of evil. Worst of all, if evil ever got control over it, many would come to their aid, simply to make sure they would continue to come first in the bread-line.
Now consider a crisis sweeping the world, say, destroying crops around the world; the guys who are getting stuff for free, would be the first to be cut out of the service of that machine. Only those who worked and saved would afford bread in such a time, as everyone would be made to pay. Except those who relied solely on the machine would starve, because they wouldn't have anything saved up to pay for bread. And so you'd have new upheavals.
The only way to alleviate such an extreme amount of power, would be to make sure there is competition for it, so that several machines were made to compete with each other to offer the best bread. And for that to be possible, you need people who also add value by working in various ways.
But without any incentives to do so, one might revert to letting the state do it. And then it would be in the interest of the state to keep that power to themselves, and prohibit anyone else from having it. Good luck saving it from the psychos and sociopaths that usually want to climb to those heights.
> If the people of such a future state decides to create a common automation infrastructure, then they may also reach the conclusion that not everybody needs to work.
If they provide no value, then they are also worthless and expendable. If their worth is only potential, then don't be surprised if they're treated like cattle by those owning or controlling that infrastructure.
> To some extent, that already exists today. Welfare states protect (or are intended to protect) people who can't work. The people in a welfare state do not want to leave those who can't work to starvation, and so the state doesn't, either.
Except it's an inherently unsustainable system unless most people in that country also contributes to it. We're now in a situation where more and more countries cannot afford the welfare states they once created. And now while the coffers are empty, and the jobs are drying up, people want UBI? Who's gonna pay for it? The only reason rich people would pay for it, is to insure safety for themselves. So in essence, they would pay for security against the masses. It's the same reason the patricians of Rome did it. Well, Ok, whatever you say, it did work for a time... For that reason. So that's at least something, I guess. But whatever that was, it wasn't freedom.
There is already solutions that lets people stop working, however: Income based on interest, dividends and rising asset values. This is when the value you add back to society has become intrinsic to the property that you own. But most people have neither the means nor the knowhow for how to get there. Perhaps this is what schools should focus on in the near future, then?
>If they provide no value, then they are also worthless and expendable.
This doesn't have to be the case, only the most nihilistic and privileged view of the world can produce such statements. People are not valuable because of their ability to produce capital, reducing things to these terms is a deficiency in both mental models and morality.
> It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent about it. As such, there is no such thing as a benevolent state.
A state is only benevolent if every single citizen is benevolent? That seems like a pointless assertion.
In a democracy, in theory, the majority is what matters.
Thankfully, it's because a lof of politicians have read Socrates, and taken his lesson to heart; that majority rule is indeed dictatorial, and so we should strive to also let the minorities be heard. That doesn't mean it is always fair, though. Sometimes it also leads to minorities gaining dictatorial rights when they shouldn't.
> There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person?
It's not what you can think of that matters, it's what the people who control the state apparatus can think of.
The vast majority of human beings are capable of empathy. Such people are usually found towards the bottom to middle of most hierarchies, because their empathy makes it painful to fuck over all the other claimants and collateral damage that they need to crawl over to get to the top.
You could look at capitalism is a sociopath-containment vehicle. If there were no sociopaths, there would be no need for capitalism: people would produce what was needed and freely share it with the people who need it most. However, there are sociopaths, and throughout history they've usually just taken all the excess production, enjoyed it, and left the people who produced it destitute. It was a big innovation to be able to channel that selfishness and will to dominate other people into productive uses that make the rest of society more efficient.
There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person?
> That is why an economy must rely on the basis of voluntarily offering something of value. Because the alternative is literal enslavement.
You don't see the irony in saying that a person must volunteer their value or be enslaved?