[ExI] The Robot Big Bang
markalanwalker at gmail.com
Mon Feb 23 15:21:16 UTC 2015
Yes, Friedman is mentioned briefly. It is interesting that BIG is a policy
rather than a political philosophy, hence, there is a certain convergence
between otherwise radically different views. For example, radical
socialists also endorse BIG as a second best remedy. I confess I am not
sure I understand Friedman's view. He seems to argue the conditional: If
you are going to give welfare, then we should have BIG. As I understand
him, his argument is twofold: one reason has to do with efficiency. It cuts
out a small army of bureaucrats managing welfare programs. BIG also stops a
lot of the paternalism of contemporary welfare programs. However, I don't
see Friedman arguing straight up that we ought to provide BIG. Perhaps I am
wrong. I confess I haven't studied Friedman extensively.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Dr. Mark Walker
Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies
Department of Philosophy
New Mexico State University
P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3B
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> Mark Walker <markalanwalker at gmail.com> , 22/2/2015 8:38 PM:
> I'm writing a book on BIG to be published later this year. One of the
> arguments for BIG is that it will help soften the blow of technological
> unemployment. I also argue BIG will increase gross national happiness and
> gross national freedom.
> Make sure to clearly bring up the libertarian proponents of BIG. If
> conservatives find out that Friedman was in favour of it, and that it will
> cut welfare, then you can at least confuse them.
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat