I would prefer "evenly" but "fairly" would be better than what we have now. If AI and robots are going to make infinite progress and replace all labor, then I definitely would want "evenly".
I don't really want to live in a world where someone bagging groceries makes the exact same living as someone researching cures for cancer
I think both of those people have inherent value and I don't think there is anything wrong with bagging groceries, but I don't think the work they do is equally important and it would be unjust to reward their work equally as a result
What would keep people from circumventing a roboticized society and forming their own human-based society? Buy good and services produced by other people and avoid and or penalize members who cheat -ostracize them. There can be parallel systems. Pretty much only communist systems prevent non-communist systems from operating. In capitalist systems communist systems that form from time to time fail because members grow disillusioned with the inevitable slackers and because they operate within a greater society can't just send slackers to gulags or re-educational camps.
In an hypothetical future where society has completely broken down because of extreme concentration of wealth (and means of production and everything) I can see there not being any possibility for a human-based society. In such a doomsday scenario, regular people wouldn't be able to trade anything because they wouldn't be able to produce anything, because all the land will be taken over by the very few ultrarich. Nowhere to live, nowhere to grow food, etc. Essentially surplus population. No government to protect you either, since it will have been coopted by the ultrarich (essentially, them becoming the government). Enforcement could be done by robots, and robots do not revolt or go on strike, nor will they question orders. Maintenance can be done by other robots, harvesting, even health care for the ultrarich.
So how (in this admittedly doomsday scenario that I hope won't come to pass) will a human-based society be able function?
Unless expropriation happens the rich can’t simply take over land. They still have to buy it. Ted Turner, Bill Gates still had to buy land from individuals. So unless people sell all their land to these people, there will still be land.
First, let me clarify my dystopian scenario is extreme. I'm aware of this, and I'm not saying it will necessarily come to pass.
(edit: removed a wall of text that was repeating my previous comment).
What I describe can start gradually, like arguably it may be already happening, and pick up speed after a certain tipping point. After enough automation + concentration of power and wealth has been achieved, then the masks can fall off.
And then...
> Unless expropriation happens
Exactly. If you're completely amoral and powerful, you only buy or ask for permission if the other side has something to bargain with (such as labor or violent revolt). If they don't anymore, and you have all the force in the world, why not simply take whatever you want?
In the USSR, Cuba, China, etc., where expropriation or nationalization happened, first they confiscated everyone’s firearms. That’s always step one to take rights or property from people.
I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments or individuals from going too far. Yes there was ruby ridge and Waco and Kent state and others but still the government has to think hard before it goes further encroaching on liberties. All those examples are tragedies; however in a society with oppression not only would that be routine but they’d be hidden or accepted as fate of counter revolutionaries.
> In the USSR, Cuba, China, etc., where expropriation or nationalization happened, first they confiscated everyone’s firearms.
I don't think this is strictly the order of how it went in any of those cases, even though, of course, access to weapons will be heavily controlled and restricted in any country with a strong centralized government. And rivals will be disarmed.
> I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments
I honestly believe this is a red herring. It made sense in the age of musketry and whereabouts, when the weapons available to civilians vs governments were technologically not too dissimilar, but I think in this day and age believing civilians can have AR-style rifles or shotguns and compete with a government-like army of helicopters, rocket launchers, aircraft, drones (even before we get to the AI-autonomous robots in my scenario) is completely absurd. Or even biochemical weapons if they designed to unleash them (and they could be conceivably be of the kind that damages humans but leaves the planet relatively unharmed). Even assuming guerrilla warfare, that only matters when the intent isn't just extermination, which is reasonable to assume in the current world, but what about a dystopian future?
So I think the 2A makes no difference, because the tech gap would be huge. It already is, imagine in the future.
I think both of those people have inherent value and I don't think there is anything wrong with bagging groceries, but I don't think the work they do is equally important and it would be unjust to reward their work equally as a result