Sign in to follow this  
jts

basic income

Recommended Posts

Ayn Rand encountered this idea in the form of social credit and was horrified by it, so I guess the horror file cabinet is a good place to put it. Rotten as the idea may be, the speaker makes it sound like almost a half decent idea. Could something like this be done without violating capitalism?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jts said:

Ayn Rand encountered this idea in the form of social credit and was horrified by it, so I guess the horror file cabinet is a good place to put it. Rotten as the idea may be, the speaker makes it sound like almost a half decent idea. Could something like this be done without violating capitalism?

 

 

The best argument for Social Credit I ever read  was by Robert A. Heinlein (when he was young).  Later  on he reversed himself.   He came to the position that any social arrangement that destroyed ones incentive  and desire to sustain one's self by one's own efforts  was a Bad Thing.  

He came to a position that was compatible  with that of Ayn Rand, even though he himself, was never a Randian.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The best argument for Social Credit I ever read  was by Robert A. Heinlein (when he was young).  Later  on he reversed himself.   He came to the position that any social arrangement that destroyed ones incentive  and desire to sustain one's self by one's own efforts  was a Bad Thing.  

He came to a position that was compatible  with that of Ayn Rand, even though he himself, was never a Randian.

 

You did not listen to the video. If you did, you would know that the speaker presents experimental evidence that the basic income does not destroy incentive and desire to sustain one's self by one's own efforts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jts said:

You did not listen to the video. If you did, you would know that the speaker presents experimental evidence that the basic income does not destroy incentive and desire to sustain one's self by one's own efforts.

 

I recalled Heinlein's position.  I have no position on Social Credit.  I assume some people will flourish under the system and others will perish.   TED talks are proof by youtube.  If I want a serious account I read refereed scientific journals.   Economics and Sociology  are not sciences  so I pay no attention to them.  Arguments for Social Credit (or Basic Income)  are hypothetical and since there is no real way of either falsifying them or corroborating them by actual experiment I disregard the matter.  If Basic Income  is adapted by Government,  we both will pay to find out if it works. 

The only non-empirical  arguments I pay attention to are mathematical  proofs.  They have no direct connection to the real solid world and are exercises in abstract logic.   One can check a proof empirically to see if it is kosher.   Once cannot do that with political, economic,  sociological,  or ethical arguments  unless they are totally reduced to mathematics.  Then at least the proofs can be checked even if the theory does not connect to the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I recalled Heinlein's position.  I have no position on Social Credit.  I assume some people will flourish under the system and others will perish.   TED talks are proof by youtube.  If I want a serious account I read refereed scientific journals.   Economics and Sociology  are not sciences  so I pay no attention to them.  Arguments for Social Credit (or Basic Income)  are hypothetical and since there is no real way of either falsifying them or corroborating them by actual experiment I disregard the matter.  If Basic Income  is adapted by Government,  we both will pay to find out if it works. 

The only non-empirical  arguments I pay attention to are mathematical  proofs.  They have no direct connection to the real solid world and are exercises in abstract logic.   One can check a proof empirically to see if it is kosher.   Once cannot do that with political, economic,  sociological,  or ethical arguments  unless they are totally reduced to mathematics.  Then at least the proofs can be checked even if the theory does not connect to the real world. 

In your (own) perfect world. You pay a lot of attention to things that aren't science. It's not hypocrisy and can't be dumnness. I think you're purblind from inside your so-called scientific compartment to what's outside and when you're outside you think you're inside but you aren't. When you're inside OL you're outside. As for economics and sociology I agree with you 100% about the latter and 95% about the former as to their worth. Neither are science. Neither Ayn Rand nor Nathaniel Branden were ever properly grounded in science and thought so broadly of it real science was invisible to both.

--Brant

The philosopher and the scientist should be friends!

The philosopher and the scientist should be friends!

(the musical is forthcoming)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

In your (own) perfect world. You pay a lot of attention to things that aren't science. It's not hypocrisy and can't be dumnness. I think you're purblind from inside your so-called scientific compartment to what's outside and when you're outside you think you're inside but you aren't. When you're inside OL you're outside. As for economics and sociology I agree with you 100% about the latter and 95% about the former as to their worth. Neither are science. Neither Ayn Rand nor Nathaniel Branden were ever properly grounded in science and thought so broadly of it real science was invisible to both.

--Brant

The philosopher and the scientist should be friends!

The philosopher and the scientist should be friends!

(the musical is forthcoming)

That is me.  Blind to most things  other than logic, physical science and math.  If find science fiction  entertaining but I do not take it seriously.

Nerd I was, Nerd I am and Nerd I will be.

I also subscribe to Sturgeon's Hypothesis.  85 percent of most things  is Crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

One thing "crap" is good for--neurological functioning. It's like lifting weights.

--Brant

muscle bound

You want mental exercise.   Try resolving the Collatz Conjecture.   Even you can understand it....

From wiki:  The conjecture can be summarized as follows. Take any positive integer n. If n is even, divide it by 2 to get n / 2. If n is odd, multiply it by 3 and add 1 to obtain 3n + 1. Repeat the process (which has been called "Half Or Triple Plus One", or HOTPO) indefinitely. The conjecture is that no matter what number you start with, you will always eventually reach 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic Income: does it violate capitalism?

It depends on your definition. If by "capitalism" you exclusively mean "an economy where all the means of production are privately owned and the government's only permissible role is to enforce contracts, property rights and prohibit force/fraud/coercion and can ONLY extract the absolute-minimum tax money required to do this, then yes, a basic income guarantee does violate capitalism.

But let us look at how Basic Income is usually supported by pro-market advocates; as a replacement for the current welfare state and for current public services.

When judged by this criterion, a Basic Income is actually an extremely attractive alternative for the following reasons:

1. It allows the firing of a huge number of bureaucrats and the abolition of an immense number of government departments. This solves several Public Choice problems with large, entrenched governments and public sector unions, without allowing those snakes to use "the poor!" as a human shield to justify their own job security.

2. Replacing a welfare system that is designed basically to modify behavior and manipulate what people do with a system that enables individual choice increases the liberty of welfare recipients and lessens the government's ability to engage in social engineering.

In other words, the same "safety net" could be made much less expensive and much less coercive/managerial. A safety net could be provided at both a reduction in the cost-to-liberty and the cost-to-taxpayers than that represented by the current system.

In addition, it could be justifiably argued that an unconditional direct income transfer to someone is LESS coercive than an economic regulation; a transfer requires only the extraction of the tax money (one instance of coercion). An economic regulation requires BOTH the extraction of tax money to fund the regulators and enforcers (one instance of coercion) AND inflicts a second coercion in that it forbids businesses from engaging in a particular course of action (or mandates businesses engage in a particular course of action). You could make the argument that ceteris paribus, the regulatory state is a more important target than a social safety net (and further, that certain kind/s of social safety net are worse than others). 

Personally I think the Basic Income Guarantee (as a replacement for the current benefits system) would be a fantastic way to slim down the welfare state, decrease government social engineering and decrease the overall cost of government, and doing so would be politically palatable since it would retain the safety net. It would represent a net increase in liberty relative to the current system. 

Honestly, I don't think that the 100% abolition of all safety nets is possible, and arguably it is not even particularly desirable. I think the smallest possible government (without some sort of titanic improvement in general moral character of most people) will include a safety net, and the Basic Income Guarantee is the best way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to point out a difference between UBI (universal basic income) and welfare that I suspect most people don't know or forget. In pointing this out, I do not mean UBI is a good idea or better than welfare, merely that there is this difference.

Imagine you are living on welfare. Along comes a job. If you take the job, you get cut off welfare. The job pays less than welfare. Do you take the job? You might take the job out of pride but you can understand that this setup is a disincentive to take the job.

Imagine you are getting the UBI instead of welfare. Along comes a job. If you take the job, you still get the UBI. You don't have the disincentive that you had before.

Imagine you are back to welfare. Imagine nobody wants to hire you because you have no skills and so you go back to school to learn some skills. Then you get cut off welfare because you don't have permission to go back to school.

Under the UBI you could go back to school and still get the UBI.

I do not believe it is possible to know just by armchair thinking whether the UBI would lead to mass laziness.  Intuition in this matter is likely to be misleading. Experiments with UBI seem to produce results that are counter-intuitive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2016 at 9:05 AM, jts said:

You did not listen to the video. If you did, you would know that the speaker presents experimental evidence that the basic income does not destroy incentive and desire to sustain one's self by one's own efforts.

Efficiency in social constructs is a totalitarian's language. And before a politician can give he has to steal.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jts said:

I want to point out a difference between UBI (universal basic income) and welfare that I suspect most people don't know or forget. In pointing this out, I do not mean UBI is a good idea or better than welfare, merely that there is this difference.

Imagine you are living on welfare. Along comes a job. If you take the job, you get cut off welfare. The job pays less than welfare. Do you take the job? You might take the job out of pride but you can understand that this setup is a disincentive to take the job.

Imagine you are getting the UBI instead of welfare. Along comes a job. If you take the job, you still get the UBI. You don't have the disincentive that you had before.

Imagine you are back to welfare. Imagine nobody wants to hire you because you have no skills and so you go back to school to learn some skills. Then you get cut off welfare because you don't have permission to go back to school.

Under the UBI you could go back to school and still get the UBI.

I do not believe it is possible to know just by armchair thinking whether the UBI would lead to mass laziness.  Intuition in this matter is likely to be misleading. Experiments with UBI seem to produce results that are counter-intuitive.

Get rid of job licensing requirements and excuse them from taxes for several years if they get off welfare. Etc. Don't substitute shit for vomit.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling we are heading in this direction, given the expanding power of automation. When machines are doing 95% of the labor and the final price has dropped to where its almost 'too cheap to meter' we would be in such a state by default anyway.

Granted, it is probably going to take a few more generations to get there, we probably won't see it, not unless they figure out how to put our brains in a robot body.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this