Automation is advancing relentlessly. Already decades ago, digitization was its partner. In the industry, innovative robots, for example co-robots, are used. Service robots begin to spread in various areas. Systems of artificial intelligence perform tasks of all sorts, even creative activities. The studies on the development of the labor market reach different results. In any case, it can be said that certain jobs will disappear and many people will have to do without their familiar work. It can also be assumed that in many areas less human work has to be performed on behalf (e.g., for customers and employers). As possible solutions to economic and social problems, an unconditional basic income and a robot tax are suggested. This paper presents, discusses and criticizes these approaches in the context of automation and digitization. Moreover, it develops a relatively unknown proposal, unconditional basic property, and presents its potentials as well as its risks.
Automation is advancing worldwide. The use of innovative
robots in the industry and of service robots is spreading.
On production sites and in logistics we find, on the one
hand, systems such as cooperation and collaboration
robots, short-termed “co-robots” or “cobots”, which take on
parts of activities and collaborate closely with people
Studies on the development of the labor market reach
different results. Some assume that much of current human
work can be automated, for example in industry,
agriculture and services
Basic income (also “unconditional basic income” or
“universal basic income”) and robot tax are often referred
to as solutions to economic and social problems
Automation and digitization raise questions of justice.
Accordingly, this term is repeatedly referred to in this
paper. Justice is a central concept of ethics. It is objectively
understood as the basic normative principle of external
coexistence in its cooperative and conflicting aspects
(
According to the idea of the unconditional basic income,
adult or minor, discerning members of a political,
functional or idealistic community receive a fixed financial
amount, without obligation to repay and without direct
consideration
Unconditional basic income is intended to ensure the
livelihood of the members of the community
Advantages of the unconditional basic income are
independence from organizations and persons, an independent
life style, and freedom from worry about the guarantee of a
continued existence
The aforementioned injustice is probably perceived also
by those who would benefit from an unconditional basic
income. This is pointed out in recurring reports and
surveys in the media and is also the opinion of right- and
leftwing politicians
The question of where the money for unconditional basic
income will have to come from is answered differently.
One could start with making taxation more equitable, for
example by drying up tax havens and by persecuting and
punishing tax refugees. It is possible to trim the state
slimmer, to dismantle the debt mountain and to carry out
expropriation – this will be addressed below. Alternatively,
one could invade countries, which is not, of course, an
internationally accepted measure and is associated with
fear, terror and death. Another answer could be to raise a
robot tax
The robot tax is a characteristic of the machine tax,
which in turn can be understood as a value added levy
The machine tax was already discussed in the 1950s and
then again intensively in Germany and Austria in the 1970s
and 1980s
An argument against the robot tax would be that it is not
clear what exactly should be taxed
The first objection to the robot tax is of a technical nature. The machines are often networked systems that work together via various interfaces and collect and deliver data; they communicate with other machines in order to be able to perform a task appropriately or at all. Machine-machine communication is a principle that is increasingly used in industrial settings, by service robots, and by automatic cars that are meant to drive around safely and without traffic jams. In a task that seems to be carried out by a robot, dozens, even hundreds of systems can be involved. For this reason, it is difficult to tax the machine work justly and sensibly.
The first objection is also of an organizational nature (which depends on the technical implementation as well). Thus, in the use of co-robots, as mentioned above, there is a close contact with humans. People and machines take turns constantly, especially in collaboration, everyone does what they do best, and people do the less dangerous, less strenuous and least repetitive jobs, while the robot is not afraid of danger or trouble. It is difficult to say who takes which part, and cooperation and collaboration can change continuously, depending on the production target and the production speed.
The first objection is related to the question which types of robots are involved. It is possible to distinguish between software and hardware robots. The former include software agents, web crawlers, social bots, and chatbots. Even if they are not accepted as robots as such, it has to be taken into account that they can play a role for hardware robots, for example as dialog systems that are integrated into them. So should we also tax software agents and chatbots, and what if they are part of hardware robots? Is there a need for a double taxation?
The second objection is a question of justice in as far as we are accustomed to rewarding commitment, inventiveness and devotion, especially in the economy. Politics awards promotions and prizes, the media report on innovations and put the entrepreneurs in the spotlight. The robot tax obviously punishes companies that are looking for new technical and economic ways. One could argue that in this way one hinders the social progress and adheres to a status quo.
The second objection also touches on the issue of
justice, because the subject of a task is committed to its
execution, since it cannot find a way out through progress, and
the regulatory, which is applied to the economy to affect,
so to speak, the weakest link in the chain, namely the
worker. This may sound cynical, because, according to the
common view, many people are threatened with
unemployment through automation, but it is precisely the
question of what kind of work and unemployment one deals
with. One is not unemployed, one might say, but free from
work
The concept of expropriation is not new. It has already
been present in Marxism. “Expropriation of the
expropriators” is the magic formula
Expropriation can therefore be an effective means of fighting against poverty and of doing away with the unfair distribution of resources. However, there must be clear limits. One approach would be to expropriate not the rich, but only the super-rich. This could be combined with the approach of not completely expropriating them, but, for example, only half, while freely movable and immovable means would be taken into account. Not only private and business people could be targeted, but also big-tech companies like Amazon, Apple and Facebook, and institutions, such as churches and sects.
In the end, one could pursue a similar objective as with
the poor, who are tolerated only to be exploited, and as for
the developing countries that are supported so that they can
be exploited as not only the dependency theories claim
Ultimately, one has to ask whether expropriation is really so unjust. Billions of assets can be got almost only by illegal means or by exploitation of human labor. In the future, one could even achieve this without the use of manpower and the creation of a robotic labor force. Either way, it might be morally justifiable to take a good portion from the persons who have taken so much for themselves. Of course, illegal means, if they exist, should be eliminated, although the expropriation would suffer as a result.
An alternative idea to an unconditional basic income is that
of basic property or unconditional basic property,
according to which every person gets a plot or a building or
something else at their birth or at their majority
Firstly, it is striking that we are being thrown into a divided world, in which there are territorial borders and private properties. This was not always the case. The early humans often simply took the land they needed. When they came to populated areas, they had to arrange themselves as individuals or groups with the people who lived there which they did in a peaceful or warlike manner; but uninhabited areas were often freely available, and even if a state was already the owner, it was mostly possible to purchase plots, even entire areas at favorable conditions. In other cases, invasions and warlike acts of states led to the seizure of land and the expulsion of the natives.
Borders do not always mean the exclusion of the public – cities have a mandate to cultivate places and make them available to the whole population, and countries and municipalities have the duty to preserve and protect forests, meadows and lakes so that they serve the general public for recreation. In some countries, the sea or the beach must be accessible in principle and a private property should keep a little distance. Of course, the super-rich have always found ways and means to avoid these rules.
Compared to this early situation, perhaps idealized and simplified, today’s human beings are, apart from family property, inheritance, etc., largely destitute and without possessions at their birth. For decades, humans must not only earn their living (which was always the case for the majority of people), but also try to change their own ownership structures. There appears to be a certain injustice in this fact.
Basic property seems to be an answer to this injustice. Moreover, it eliminates a former injustice, because while thousands of years ago it was a question of sex, coincidence, happiness, power and violence, everyone would be given a gift at birth or at their majority.
Of course, the question arises immediately as to the kind of donation. So far, land and buildings have been mentioned, without specifying their size (which does not seem necessary in the present article). In principle, both lead to certain problems and new injustices.
In the case of a plot, the first question is where it should come from, since the world has been divided up already and belongs to either the public or the private sector. One obvious solution is a nationwide expropriation, which could cause, however, considerable turmoil. An alternative is the decision to reserve spacious, uninhabited land for future generations. Of course, there are not many areas available, and some of them are difficult to use because they consist of desert, swamp, virgin forest or mountain ranges.
A challenge is, therefore, the location of the land or building. This will be discussed more generally at this point. One suggestion would be that the property or habitation is in the country or in the region where the birth takes place. Families could easily stay together and plan for their future, as long as they are not constantly on the move. It is also important that someone takes care of the land and building and protects them. However, this concept could again lead to space and distribution problems. Another possibility is to have an AI system make the assignment. Personal factors could play a role, as well as facts regarding the availability and distribution of territories. One could also leave it all to chance.
Another question is whether it is allowed or even a necessity to trade with the donated possession. That seems, basically, sensible. In the course of time, one could develop different preferences and needs and want to exchange ones land or house in the North against a plot or building in the South (or vice versa). A sale could also make sense if someone moves in with somebody else, who needs money more than land property or home ownership, or in the event of an emergency. There is a danger that, due to unfortunate circumstances or negligent actions, one will lose ownership forever. However, one would only have reached today’s level where there is no basic property.
There are, of course, other ways of transfers, for example monetary gifts, gifts of gold, silver and precious stones, valuables of all kinds, etc. One of the central problems here is of course theft, and even an individual marking of the goods is not able to solve all problems. Here also one would have reached today’s level, where there is no basic property at all. The donation of shares would be another interesting approach, but it is also associated with various problems.
A variant of basic property is the basic possession (of land or buildings). The transfer takes place temporarily, more specifically for a lifetime, and with reference to a concrete person (so that an inheritance is excluded).
A guiding principle is that any property has its limitation in the death of the individual. With the concept of inheritance and transfer, one partly revokes this idea, and distributes assets and real estate for generations. But one does not profit from this oneself – the despicable Mammon is particularly despicable, because one cannot infinitely feast on it, no matter how one has acquired or used it.
One can feast infinitely on nothing, but the planet will
whiz another few million years through space and from the
point of view of ethics – including environmental ethics – a
lot speaks in favor of saving it
In the case of basic possession, not only inheritance, but also trade and sales would be excluded. At best, subletting could be possible; one could – for example – temporarily provide a rented apartment to persons against remuneration.
It has been found that unconditional basic income provokes skepticism even in the individuals who would benefit from it. It is conceivable that unconditional basic property with all its challenges would face less resistance. Especially if it can be taught that the earth has been divided among the powerful and influential, and that this is not necessarily a law of nature, sympathy for the idea could arise. We were thrown into the world, and it is hard to see why not everyone can have the same starting conditions. This idea of justice can be discussed in business ethics.
In this respect, it is amazing that basic property has not found a larger following so far. People have resigned themselves, apparently, to a fundamental injustice, and the majority of the population, fed with alms and exploited, does not seem to mind spending the best hours of the day and the best years of life taking this as a matter of course.
Especially when land and buildings are given away, the
question arises of when the system reaches its limits. It
would be possible to pair it to a targeted and categorized
population threshold. This could serve, in principle, the
protection of the environment and animal welfare, the
protection of natural resources and the preservation of
livelihoods. This mission is pursued by the movement of
the Antinatalists
Birth control by the state is a vision of horror. The
onechild policy largely failed in China and has been replaced
by a new order
A concrete suggestion could be that everyone can bring one child directly or indirectly into the world. A couple would thus be able to have two direct descendants, a family consisting of three adults, accordingly three. For each additional child, so the idea, a child tax would have to be paid, which in turn would finance measures in environmental protection or in social care. The amount could orient itself at the unconditional basic income. A drawback would be that especially wealthy people could afford large families. Specifically the owners of factories in which automation has progressed could put as many children into the world as they like. This may seem unfair or inappropriate.
Free distribution of contraceptives, increased social justice, better education and increased prosperity are also remedies that can reduce the birth rate and lead to less controversy than a direct birth limitation or the selling of indulgences of a special kind. However, such measures need a lot of time and could be ultimately too late. An unconditional basic income also may contribute to the target, as well as unconditional basic property.
Some of these tasks can only be solved if not a single nation takes care of them, but a community of states. A world government or a commission for the future could take care of them as well as a (still to be defined) world bank. This would be, regardless of UN, World Bank, etc., a new, revolutionary step. Global mediation would thus be theoretically required. This mediation should have all means available to implement the tasks.
The political feasibility of such a project is completely uncertain. Currently, the world’s powers, which would be vital for the reorganization, are rather distant from each other. The tendency toward national solutions is increasing, not only in Spain, Belgium and Denmark. At most, regional and global disasters could contribute to the insight – or on the contrary could cause panic.
The practicability of global mediation is difficult as well. There are enormous logistical and administrative efforts required. Lands and buildings must be designated, freed and distributed, while always being adapted to the current death and birth rate. Moreover, one is faced with the challenge of an increasingly economically and socially fragmented world. Not everywhere the described automation takes place, and not everywhere at the same pace as with us.
Lastly, it is a question of massive interventions in personal rights, particularly in the case of birth control. The question is whether the survival of our species and our environment including all animals would not justify personal limitations. The answer is not easy, especially in the light of the fact that in the past, in the case of freedom and security, one often preferred security against freedom and has therefore created a monitoring system in many countries.
Especially in times of increasing automation and autonomization in the context of digitization, as they arise in the modern working world and in industry 4.0, radical or innovative approaches are required. In the present article, it was shown that the unconditional basic income has both advantages and disadvantages and that a robot tax could fail due to technical and organizational difficulties.
The proposal for unconditional basic property (including the idea of basic possession) was presented and discussed. Fundamental objections were found, but also general benefits. One should not underestimate that the spreading of the idea could draw attention to the current system’s obvious flaw, which can be summarized somewhat shallowly: the world is starkly divided among the rich and powerful. The danger is that automation and autonomization will increase inequality and injustice. That, however, is exactly the point at which objections from social and scientific sides are raised.
Other approaches may be developed in research projects,
financed by the public sector, but also by companies. Even
already known proposals could not be dealt with here, such
as the one that every citizen participates as a shareholder in
companies in which people no longer work