Do we need the state to protect us from the AI Revolution?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/robots-politics-automation-technology-216220

I saw this article when I opened a new tab in firefox today and gave it a quick look over. The author's ideas on how robotics and AI will alter the economic and social future seems pretty reasonable and likely to to me. The thought of robots and AI handling much of the mundane tasks people currently do seems very likely, especially when you will have open source AI and can 3d print the machine it will run to perform the task/tasks. The costs necessary to maintain an employee versus the cost of the machine will force the issue. Burger King having human employees will not be able to compete at a pricing level with McDonalds with its automated restaurant, no matter how much better people my like the food better or the human interaction. This necessity to compete will spread through out the economy and many jobs will be replaced with robots and AI. This transformation to this mixed economy is coming and many jobs will be taken over by an automated process rather than a human employee.

There will be lots of good and bad through this change, however that is not what really caught my attention. What caught my attention was the authors comments on government regulating, taxing, providing programs, etc. to control and manipulate economic and social changes as a result of AI displacing workers. I know what the author is stating is true and will happen. But the, I don't know, attitude or feeling of how it was stated that government will need to do these things seemed to imply an obvious necessity for the state to intervene like there is no alternative. And what really bothers me is that this belief in the governments role to control economics and society is the only option and the holy, or righteous position, is the most common belief by far for people globally. I can make statements about the violence and slavery these people are unknowingly advocating for. How you don't have the right to claim ownership over other people and their property to exert that kind of control. But I've found that to lots of people that doesn't matter. They are scared and allowing the state to control and manipulate gives them comfort and disassociates the responsibility for the harm done from them and places it on some nebulous idea of government that is doing what it needs to do for their benefit.

However, I think allowing the state to exert further control over our lives does not provide a greater benefit for our lives on the hole, or for the lives of those who will loose employment because of this economic transformation. There is a great opportunity for a greater standard of living, increase in free time and therefor an increase in creativity and innovation to make ones life better. Take economics out of the equation for a moment. It takes X amount of labor and Y amount of resources to create all the stuff (Food, housing, cloths, electronics, toys), as well as services we need and want. Because of the amount of labor necessary to acquire the needed resources and the labor required to create all the stuff and services is done by people, those people are spending a significant amount of time providing their labor. If a machine can be smart enough to do that labor for the person, that frees up time and energy to be spent by that person doing what ever they would rather be doing. So the person who is working a register, or digging ditches, or answering phones, or doing filing, or changing tires, or doing real estate appraisals like I do, does not have to use up time and energy in the labor necessary for those goods and services to exist, and therefore are free to do more of what they would like to do. The robots do the mundane and people get to be free of it. But then lets bring back the reality of the economics of it all. There was a person who needed that paycheck from that telemarketing job to pay their rent, buy food, pay the electric bill and so on. That person my get evicted, may freeze on the street and die. The government answer is that person will get a subsidy of some sort to sustain them, others will be taxed to pay for the subsidy, that taxation will also be used to manipulate the economy in way that some people will think is best, which will maintain I higher cost to those goods and services whose production is being taxed, which will maintain, or even elevate prices, which very likely would have dropped as the cost of production was significantly decreased. Since there is a lot of free time to people who can no longer find employment, and since their survival and well being is provided by the state, the state will likely move towards a state labor force where those on the dole and work for what they are getting. It will be the response of the right to the welfare being proposed by the left. This is just the first level of what is likely to happen with the state being utilized to solve this problem. But look at the result. No decrease in labor for people and no decrease in prices to allow for the lessor level of income due to reduced labor. Only the rich will benefit from the states interference, which will be the exact opposite of the rhetoric used to implement these laws.

The alternative is allowing each individual to deal with the changes to their own situation as best they can. It still means that person who lost their telemarketing job might die. But why did people move to asking the state to take care of the situation? They didn't want that telemarking employee, or themselves, to die. I imagine if the state was not there to care for the unemployed masses in this situation, many people would find ways to help. People would be helping their brothers, sisters, children, aunts, uncles, parents as best they can, and that really takes care of a large portion of those affected. There are also plenty of people out there that will start organizations to help out, businesses who are laying off large amounts of employees will likely have programs for those who lost their jobs to keep a good public image. And there will be people who will die in the cold, starve to death, turn to crime and general bad things. It also happens now and would happen in the possible state managed scenario. Bad shit happens. However, this new technology offers so much that the state will be to quick to take away. The opportunity for so much self sufficiency, decentralization and economic freedom is very exciting, which the state will squash. It always has and always will. Its the nature of centralized control with the permission to use deadly force without real accountability.

Just think of the possibilities with me for a little bit. Imagine the costs of solar panels that could be produced by a robot, whose materials were mined by a robot, where the facilities used for production were constructed and maintained by robots. The same goes for the batteries and other electronics for a self sufficient power supply. Those costs could be attainable by sitting with a sign on the corner of the walmart shopping center for a couple days. Labor intensive, but resource cheap building materials will dramatically lower building costs lower the costs of housing and the ability for people to build and start communities in more outlying areas. The ability to earn money online, like here on steemit, will allow for people broader opportunity for income. With all this lowering the cost of living, while increasing the opportunity for people to earn an income doing what they want. I like audio stuff. I would love to build audio stuff, record people, do my own recordings and more. I can do these things too. But I can't pay my bills by doing these things. I might work most of a work weak and make $100. But what if $100 could sustain my life. Then why do I need to do this job I hate? So what does it matter if this job I hate is no longer needed by me? It doesn't. The job I was doing was a waste of time for me and a waste of money for whoever was paying me. Now I can make something I enjoy doing and someone can get the benefit from something I cared about doing.

But who knows how it will all turn out. Its the scary part of freedom. However, I believe a free transition through this change in labor force will result in a better future for all, then one controlled by the state. AI and robotics may not be the tools for our freedom, but how we deal with this future may be the catalyst to help us obtain it.