Fast food automation...

[MediumTex]

I know this is anecdotal but... I often have problems getting a plumber.  And when I finally find one he is late, often incompetent and charges $80/hour.  Why aren't there more plumbers? Why don't some of these workers displaced by automation become plumbers and charge, say, $50/hour?

I would guess that one IS at least partially an issue of governments and guns, since in most places plumbers need licenses and certifications and things like that.

I suspect that the plumbers themselves, and not government, set up the license/certification requirements.  Like almost all private businesses and professions, they are more than happy to use regulation to keep competition out.

Attorneys are like that as well.

[Kshartle]

I know this is anecdotal but... I often have problems getting a plumber.  And when I finally find one he is late, often incompetent and charges $80/hour.  Why aren't there more plumbers? Why don't some of these workers displaced by automation become plumbers and charge, say, $50/hour?

Unions also play a part.

How does a union of plumbers prevent someone else from being a plumber or employing plumbers in a business?

[Kshartle]

I have a friend in a European country.  He has a PhD in Archaeology. He's been unemployed pretty much his whole life. The country he lives in provides decent unemployment benefits basically enough to live on. Furthermore the law there says that he is entitled to unemployment until the government can find him a job commensurate with his education level, within his field of expertise, and within a certain radius of his residence.  So the only job he's ever had was as a part-time curator at a small local museum.

Is this where we are headed?

Until the government bubble pops

[Kshartle]

I know this is anecdotal but... I often have problems getting a plumber.  And when I finally find one he is late, often incompetent and charges $80/hour.  Why aren't there more plumbers? Why don't some of these workers displaced by automation become plumbers and charge, say, $50/hour?

I would guess that one IS at least partially an issue of governments and guns, since in most places plumbers need licenses and certifications and things like that.

I suspect that the plumbers themselves, and not government, set up the license/certification requirements.  Like almost all private businesses and professions, they are more than happy to use regulation to keep competition out.

This is a very keen observation.

When there is a gun in the room everyone wants to point it at someone else to work for their benefit. Don't confuse it with the free market though...it's nothing of the sort. Not even close.

[Kshartle]

These are excellent observations of what I call the "invisible fist" of the government. It is always in opposition to the "invisible hand" of the market.

When you recognize the "invisible fist" you will find it at the heart of almost every problem blamed on the market. Not everyone I'm sure.....but very nearly all.

Eventually you will see it like second nature. You'll see it when it's three levels removed and spot the impact. It's like when they set off the sprinklers in "Hollow man".

[Kshartle]

I will get to my take on why there is no worry about automation causing social problems or poverty problems and why we can be certain of that.

It's a big topic and I want to put it together in a logical fashion that's easy to follow like a geometric proof or something.

Then if I'm wrong the specific point can be pointed out so I learn something, or teach something.

[Kshartle]

The country he lives in provides decent unemployment benefits basically enough to live on. Furthermore the law there says that he is entitled to unemployment until the government can find him a job commensurate with his education level, within his field of expertise, and within a certain radius of his residence. 

Does it bear repeating his non-productivity is made wholly possible by theft from others? He didn't do the stealing, the "invisible fist" stole for him. His decision to accept the stolen booty is entirel rationale but a complete distortion of how a free society would operate.

[Mdraf]

The country he lives in provides decent unemployment benefits basically enough to live on. Furthermore the law there says that he is entitled to unemployment until the government can find him a job commensurate with his education level, within his field of expertise, and within a certain radius of his residence. 

Does it bear repeating his non-productivity is made wholly possible by theft from others? He didn't do the stealing, the "invisible fist" stole for him. His decision to accept the stolen booty is entirel rationale but a complete distortion of how a free society would operate.

Agree but as Devils' Advocate, just to spur you on...the country feels that there would otherwise be no archaeologists and therefore no archaeology and that culture would suffer as a result.

[Pointedstick]

Agree but as Devils' Advocate, just to spur you on...the country feels that there would otherwise be no archaeologists and therefore no archaeology and that culture would suffer as a result.

It appears that even with that arrangement, your friend is not an archaeologist. Merely someone trained to be one. Similarly, my unemployed friends were trained to be filmmakers, and psychologists, but remain un- or under-employed.

I wonder why you don't see a lot of unemployed electrical engineers?

[Kshartle]

The country he lives in provides decent unemployment benefits basically enough to live on. Furthermore the law there says that he is entitled to unemployment until the government can find him a job commensurate with his education level, within his field of expertise, and within a certain radius of his residence. 

Does it bear repeating his non-productivity is made wholly possible by theft from others? He didn't do the stealing, the "invisible fist" stole for him. His decision to accept the stolen booty is entirel rationale but a complete distortion of how a free society would operate.

Agree but as Devils' Advocate, just to spur you on...the country feels that there would otherwise be no archaeologists and therefore no archaeology and that culture would suffer as a result.

To be the government's advocate you have to play Devil's advocate so your first sentence is redundant.    - Said in jest although there is truth in jest.

I know you know this but I'll answer anyway. If people value the services of an archeologist they'll be willing to pay for them. Either he can be an entrepreneur or a smart business guy or gal can employ him for profit. The profit will display the worth to everyone and prove the value.

Even though prostitution is illegal prostitutes can still make a buck. Clearly they perform a valuable service to some.


One small point: Countries don't think, feel or make decisions. Only individuals can. I know you know this but it's an important principle for us to keep in mind. Many people don't understand this by default and I am guilty of being lazy with my language and reinforcing this. When people don't get that concept....they are missing reality and will draw incorrect conclusions about the world.

[Mdraf]

Right. Since the country is a democracy one should read "the voters in the country feel..."  Hint: the same voters  feel that solar and wind energy should be heavily subsidized.  But I don't want to hijack the automation thread !!!

[Kshartle]

Right. Since the country is a democracy one should read "the voters in the country feel..."  Hint: the same voters  feel that solar and wind energy should be heavily subsidized.  But I don't want to hijack the automation thread !!!

This is a very good point when people worry that without the government who will take care of the poor or educate the roads.

Q -"Do you live in a Democracy"?
A -"yes it's wonderful"
Q-"Do you believe that Democracy reflects the will of the people"?
A-"Yes I told you it's a great form of government"
Q-"Does your democracy provide for the poor"?
A-"Yes otherwise they would starve"
Q-"If the democracy reflects the will of the people, and provides for the poor, then the people clearly want the poor cared for...."
A-"uuuuhhhhh"
Q-"Why do you need the government to care for the poor if that's what people care about and want"?
A-"Head explodes"

This works less well in Dictatorships.

Guys this is intended to be a little funny. I think there's a lesson here but I'm not holding it out neccessarily as rock-solid hard evidence of anything, just a thought exercise.

[doodle]

Right. Since the country is a democracy one should read "the voters in the country feel..."  Hint: the same voters  feel that solar and wind energy should be heavily subsidized.  But I don't want to hijack the automation thread !!!

This is a very good point when people worry that without the government who will take care of the poor or educate the roads.

Q -"Do you live in a Democracy"?
A -"yes it's wonderful"
Q-"Do you believe that Democracy reflects the will of the people"?
A-"Yes I told you it's a great form of government"
Q-"Does your democracy provide for the poor"?
A-"Yes otherwise they would starve"
Q-"If the democracy reflects the will of the people, and provides for the poor, then the people clearly want the poor cared for...."
A-"uuuuhhhhh"
Q-"Why do you need the government to care for the poor if that's what people care about and want"?
A-"Head explodes"

This works less well in Dictatorships.

Guys this is intended to be a little funny. I think there's a lesson here but I'm not holding it out neccessarily as rock-solid hard evidence of anything, just a thought exercise.

Kshartle,

Is our government no longer of, by, and for the people? I mean the will of the people is to have a government, no? If the will of the people decided they didn't want a government, then they wouldn't have a government and they would create some other organization to take care of the poor.

However, at the end of the day and despite all these clever "lessons" we live in an imperfect world filled with conflict in which there must be a final arbiter of right and wrong and someone to enforce decisions . That institution that has the ability to enforce societies norms and laws is called government. Absent this institution, humans would simply revert back to the law of the jungle because there would be no legal recourse if one were wronged. We would live in a world where might made right.

There is a reason why drug cartels settle disputes with bullets while legal corporations mediate their problems or go to court. One type of business has no recourse in government system of justice, while the other does.

[Kshartle]

Is our government no longer of, by, and for the people? I mean the will of the people is to have a government, no? If the will of the people decided they didn't want a government, then they wouldn't have a government and they would create some other organization to take care of the poor.

Saying it's the will of the people to have a small group run it all by force is like saying it's the will of people born in Muslim countries to be Muslim. No it's not. They're born into it.

They voted in Iraq. Saddam got 99%.

Here 99% of the votes are split between two sides of the same coin.

Freedom isn't on the ballot. You can only choose your master.

If you try to act like you're free, really act like it, guys in blue costumes will come to kidnap you and put you in a cage. If you resist your kidnapping  hard enough they will shoot you.

To deny this (in my opnion) is just a defense mechanism to sheild you from reality. It's called Stockholm Syndrome.

We should stop and contiune this elsewhere. Perhaps a different thread is more appropriate. This one should go back to automation.

[Kshartle]

Unions also play a part.

How does a union of plumbers prevent someone else from being a plumber or employing plumbers in a business?

[Sorry for the delay in responding; work gets in the way of keeping up with you guys and the speed with which some threads move.]

By making the rules and barriers to entry insurmountable. This in turn allows for the monopolistic overpriced incompetence.

As TennPaGa noted a couple of posts earlier:

I suspect that the plumbers themselves, and not government, set up the license/certification requirements.  Like almost all private businesses and professions, they are more than happy to use regulation to keep competition out.

This is not a concrete answer. They can make up whatever they want. How do they actually go about preventing people from working as plumbers? Making up rules doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything.

[MediumTex]

Insurance is one obstacle you run into that makes it very hard to work without a license.

Good plumbing gigs (like working on commercial jobs) require plumbers to have insurance.

Insurance companies require plumbers to have licenses.

And that's how the barrier to entry is created.

If you want to break the law requiring certain professionals to be licensed, many other opportunities are opened up, as well as many other risks.

[Kshartle]

Insurance is one obstacle you run into that makes it very hard to work without a license.

Good plumbing gigs (like working on commercial jobs) require plumbers to have insurance.

Insurance companies require plumbers to have licenses.

And that's how the barrier to entry is created.

If you want to break the law requiring certain professionals to be licensed, many other opportunities are opened up, as well as many other risks.

I don't know what you're last sentence is referring to.


The first three sentences don't have anything to do with unions. I thought the question was "how do unions bar people from working"?

[MediumTex]

One of the things unions and trade associations will do is lobby to make sure that licensure requirements are not relaxed.  This doesn't bar people from working.  It just requires them to get a license to work.

What I meant by the breaking the law comment was that if you don't mind breaking the law, a lot of this stuff wouldn't be of any concern to you and you could just work without a license at whatever profession you selected until you got arrested.

[Kshartle]

One of the things unions and trade associations will do is lobby to make sure that licensure requirements are not relaxed.  This doesn't bar people from working.  It just requires them to get a license to work.

What I meant by the breaking the law comment was that if you don't mind breaking the law, a lot of this stuff wouldn't be of any concern to you and you could just work without a license at whatever profession you selected until you got arrested.

Now we're getting there. The union hasn't prevented work. The insurance company hasn't prevented it. The people charged with kidnapping prevented it.

Moral of the story...if the license is market driven then it has value. It demonstrates competence to potential insurers and customers. If it's required by law it's just another gun in the face preventing free voluntary exchange.

The union has just asked criminals with guns to reduce competition with the threat of kidnapping. It's just another form of mafia control.

Except we all accept it as normal and call it government. It's the "not-so-invisible fist".

[MediumTex]

One of the things unions and trade associations will do is lobby to make sure that licensure requirements are not relaxed.  This doesn't bar people from working.  It just requires them to get a license to work.

What I meant by the breaking the law comment was that if you don't mind breaking the law, a lot of this stuff wouldn't be of any concern to you and you could just work without a license at whatever profession you selected until you got arrested.

Now we're getting there. The union hasn't prevented work. The insurance company hasn't prevented it. The people charged with kidnapping prevented it.

Moral of the story...if the license is market driven then it has value. It demonstrates competence to potential insurers and customers. If it's required by law it's just another gun in the face preventing free voluntary exchange.

The union has just asked criminals with guns to reduce competition with the threat of kidnapping. It's just another form of mafia control.

Except we all accept it as normal and call it government. It's the "not-so-invisible fist".

As with most of your posts, I don't disagree with the principle you are highlighting--i.e., that ultimately all government has to offer is coercion.  The thing is, though, many private sector interests have figured out ways of leveraging this coercive force through lobbying and other forms of advocacy for their own benefit.

This is what trade groups and unions have done in creating barriers to entry through various legal requirements to practice a trade or profession--i.e., they have harnessed the coercive power of the state for their own benefit.

When you follow most government policies to their core, you find private sector interests that benefit from a certain set of public policies cheering the government on through campaign contributions, lobbying, etc.

Government stupidity doesn't occur in a vacuum.

[Pointedstick]

When you follow most government policies to their core, you find private sector interests that benefit from a certain set of public policies cheering the government on through campaign contributions, lobbying, etc.

Government stupidity doesn't occur in a vacuum.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quips on the subject:

http://www.newapproachtofreedom.info/pe ... ction.html

Because man has not mastered the problem of achieving prosperity, he has turned to government for its solution. Thus he has complicated his problem, for government offers no solution to the problem of prosperity, while its intervention in this primary problem brings the additional problem of how to govern government. When government undertakes to solve man's problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant. Thus it has failed in both spheres. By intertwining the prosperity problem with the political problem man has snarled the threads and no solution of either is possible without separation.

Unfortunately, we can talk about non-coercion until we're blue in the face, but ultimately I'm pretty sure everyone in this forum is familiar with it and even agrees on a certain level. Discussions are much more interesting when we can move beyond, "well if government didn't exist, everything would be so much better!" And I say this as someone who was guilty myself until very, very recently. The obvious answer is, "okay I agree… but since government does exist and does do these things, where does that leave us?"

[doodle]

When you follow most government policies to their core, you find private sector interests that benefit from a certain set of public policies cheering the government on through campaign contributions, lobbying, etc.

Government stupidity doesn't occur in a vacuum.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quips on the subject:

http://www.newapproachtofreedom.info/pe ... ction.html

Because man has not mastered the problem of achieving prosperity, he has turned to government for its solution. Thus he has complicated his problem, for government offers no solution to the problem of prosperity, while its intervention in this primary problem brings the additional problem of how to govern government. When government undertakes to solve man's problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant. Thus it has failed in both spheres. By intertwining the prosperity problem with the political problem man has snarled the threads and no solution of either is possible without separation.

Unfortunately, we can talk about non-coercion until we're blue in the face, but ultimately I'm pretty sure everyone in this forum is familiar with it and even agrees on a certain level. Discussions are much more interesting when we can move beyond, "well if government didn't exist, everything would be so much better!" And I say this as someone who was guilty myself until very, very recently. The obvious answer is, "okay I agree… but since government does exist and does do these things, where does that leave us?"

If government didn't exist, coercive force would just be assumed by someone else. The mafia are a non governmental organization for example that likes to shake people down. Just cause you eliminate government, doesn't mean that suddenly all force and coercion within a society will disappear. Given our present state of human evolution, I would say it would become worse.

[Pointedstick]

I agree with you, doodle, that violence is simply present the human heart, and eliminating government would not eliminate violence. However, I'm less convinced that it would result in more violence. Government typically suppresses private violence, it's true, but it then substitutes its own violence on a massive scale, calling it "war", "regulation", "taxation", and so on and so forth.

Is government violence greater or smaller than the aggregate of the private violence it suppresses? Is it more or less brutal or avoidable?

I suspect these are unanswerable questions. But regardless, I will agree with you that the prospects for living in a violence-free society are remote.

[doodle]

I agree with you, doodle, that violence is simply present the human heart, and eliminating government would not eliminate violence. However, I'm less convinced that it would result in more violence. Government typically suppresses private violence, it's true, but it then substitutes its own violence on a massive scale, calling it "war", "regulation", "taxation", and so on and so forth.

Is government violence greater or smaller than the aggregate of the private violence it suppresses? Is it more or less brutal or avoidable?

I think the answer it depends on a lot of variables and circumstances and also on the way the government is set up.

You know, I'm listening to the 5th lecture in this humankind course and they are talking about the agricultural revolution. The question is, why did humans leave a hunter gatherer type lifestyle where they had diverse healthy diets, freedom, little work, interesting daily tasks, good social relations...for a peasant lifestyle with little freedom, an unhealthy monotonous diet, lots of boring toil, more conflictual social relations etc... I'm not done with the video,  but it's an interesting question. Anyways, our present society that came from the developments of the agricultural revolution has a built in hierarchical structure. Why did strict hierarchies and power structures evolve with agriculture and settlements when they really didn't exist among hunter gatherers? I'm sure that there are compelling reasons for their existence.  I also believe that if one is honest,  they will find that if you really want to return to a time of ultimate freedom, you must abandon this modern world we live in. A highly complex world of nine billion people divided into nation states and all competing over a limited amount of property doesn't sound like the ideal conditions from which to launch an anarchist revolution.....unless you are looking to create a lot of death and destruction.

[Pointedstick]

You know, I'm listening to the 5th lecture in this humankind course and they are talking about the agricultural revolution.

Jeez, I'm really behind. I gotta catch up to you.

I also believe that if one is honest,  they will find that if you really want to return to a time of ultimate freedom, you must abandon this modern world we live in.

Yes, I think you're right. One of my friends built her own house with her husband out in the boonies and is probably the freest, happiest person I know. Of course, there's a lot of the modern world she's had to give up: television and internet access, for example. Most of her entertainment comes from board games and library books.

The distance means she's car-dependent, which means that she needs to bring in money from some source, leading to a job... It's a rabbit hole. But realistically, having a moderately challenging, low-stress job to make enough money to buy the few things you need from civilization and doing the rest yourself really seems like a great balance of the two.