> Or we could hustle it out and have everyone desperately seek work to save their lives. Our choice. One leads to greater inequality.
This is a total non sequitur. Machines have been taking human jobs since the late 1800s and adding robots to take/process orders is no different. You discount the notion that new jobs will appear as "the free market argument," but new jobs will be created regardless of any tax on robot labor (negating the utility of such a tax) -- I suspect the driving factor here is the size of the unemployed workforce, not the need for money, ceteris paribus.
Moreover, the two problems you note (government and corporations influence on it) aren't policy or cultural problems (implementation details, if you will), they're problems with the fundamental nature of a powerful state and human society. Never has there existed a society where powerful institutions were not able to influence other, more powerful institutions (i.e. the state) with that said power, and as long as those institutions are run by men that cannot change. Individuals are generally corrupt (to some extent or another, if you give me $5 I'll shut up), and no amount of oversight or transparency will stop corruption so long as a critical amount of power supports that corruption. In simple terms, this is the tyranny of the majority, where "the majority" is measured in terms of power, not votes. This is the fundamental political dilemma, and limiting the scope of the state to only limiting the power of society's other powerful institutions is the only solution that solves this problem empirically, as opposed to the notion that corruption is ok as long as it promotes a certain set of ideals with which I agree.
> Machines have been taking human jobs since the late 1800s
I would add that humans have been paid to do repetitive, automated, routine work for ever, and they do so inefficiently. It's not human nature to stand in a production line for 8 to 12 hours straight placing screws somewhere.
There is something profoundly wrong with the life expectations of some if they are actually defending drone work.
> I suspect the driving factor here is the size of the unemployed workforce, not the need for money
And the difference is? Fundamentally people work to pay bills.
> aren't policy or cultural problems
State is policy and human society is culture. You seem to think the latter terms imply some innate quality absent in the former, but they both change, and that is because they are one in the same. Both have changed rapidly, and it's called history.
> "the majority" is measured in terms of power, not votes.
You're describing corrupt nations. This is blatantly anti-democratic, and there are too many people working to change this in America who have already succeeded to bring us to where we are today, and who will continue to succeed to help build a better tomorrow.
Limiting power is not ideal. Power does not need to be contaminated or broken, and presuming that part of it will never change is discrediting everyone that got us here. It's okay not to be satisfied because that is what will take us even further. But we're not Brazil. And their problems won't go away just by limiting power of government.
This is a total non sequitur. Machines have been taking human jobs since the late 1800s and adding robots to take/process orders is no different. You discount the notion that new jobs will appear as "the free market argument," but new jobs will be created regardless of any tax on robot labor (negating the utility of such a tax) -- I suspect the driving factor here is the size of the unemployed workforce, not the need for money, ceteris paribus.
Moreover, the two problems you note (government and corporations influence on it) aren't policy or cultural problems (implementation details, if you will), they're problems with the fundamental nature of a powerful state and human society. Never has there existed a society where powerful institutions were not able to influence other, more powerful institutions (i.e. the state) with that said power, and as long as those institutions are run by men that cannot change. Individuals are generally corrupt (to some extent or another, if you give me $5 I'll shut up), and no amount of oversight or transparency will stop corruption so long as a critical amount of power supports that corruption. In simple terms, this is the tyranny of the majority, where "the majority" is measured in terms of power, not votes. This is the fundamental political dilemma, and limiting the scope of the state to only limiting the power of society's other powerful institutions is the only solution that solves this problem empirically, as opposed to the notion that corruption is ok as long as it promotes a certain set of ideals with which I agree.