Pages:
Author

Topic: Basic income guarantee - opinions&criticism welcome (Read 14356 times)

newbie
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
I'm German too, and I actually was at the Grundeinkommenskongress in Munich yesterday (briefly only though). My view on it is divided.

I welcome it in a very pragmatic sense for drastically reducing bureaucracy of our social system (only in theory though... we're in Germany after all  Roll Eyes). I furthermore welcome the idea of eliminating existential fears, which I'm confident will create a better and more human standard of living with more care and happiness, and I do believe (unlike most libertarians) that a society with insufficient equality can not realize its full potential.

My main issue with it then is that most models require the "big state" solution which may become corrupt over time (see GEMA - what a great idea in its beginning, democratic and all, but look what it has become  Angry). Unconditional my ass, more and more conditions *will* sneak in through the back door, just watch.

So I'm looking for other ways to achieve something similar to a basic income guarantee. The best would be when people can issue their money themselves (think Ripple etc). Some friends and me, we're working on the concept of some kind of network economy.

About automation and technological unemployment, most libertarians will argue that your point here is a Luddite fallacy, and I agree to a degree. New technology opens more possibilities, creates more desires and demand for those possibilities, and thus creates new jobs. For example, we software developers are in huge demand right now in order to achieve this automated society, and we will be the working class of the 21st century. They're already trying to streamline our productivity into industrialization-like schemes with all those agile/scrum/kanban (Toyota!) methodologies. The problem with technology is rather always structural. People lose old obsolete jobs and cannot learn new things fast enough, hence these phases of recession. In 200 years, everyone will want their own spaceship, then soon after everybody will actually *need* their own spaceship in order to be able to get a job at all somewhere in our solar system. And you'll be there then demanding an unconditional spaceship for everyone. In 500 years, maybe there'll be interstellar travel, and the new working class will be, I don't know, maybe space-time curvature architects.

The jobs created by new technology will never be enough to sustain the masses. Plus, only a handful or people will be skilled/intelligent enough to work on this new technology. A universal basic income is needed.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.

OMG I actually wrote this.  Sometimes some of my old posts pop up and I surprise myself.

That's less than three months ago. Have you really changed so much in so short a time?

You have no idea.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.

OMG I actually wrote this.  Sometimes some of my old posts pop up and I surprise myself.

That's less than three months ago. Have you really changed so much in so short a time?
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.

OMG I actually wrote this.  Sometimes some of my old posts pop up and I surprise myself.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.
This sounds like a regulatory mechanism. Who should enforce it? The government? In that sense I agree - someone needs to watch the market and (re-)establish balances. But to come back to the topic raised by the OP. What do you do if a majority of your labour force thinks that the wage is too low?

How, exactly, does removing the legislated restrictions on a profession, and thus having a completely free market in that profession sound like a regulatory mechanism?
...

In order to fix the problem, you're suggesting more of what caused the problem in the first place?

It's a free market. We should just let the alcoholic drink himself to death - problem solved!

How is what I suggest more of the same?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Any way the constitution is supposed to guarantee habeas corpus.  A piece of paper is doing a poor job at solving problems. 

Times like these, I like to drop this quotation into the discussion:

Quote from: Lysander Spooner
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
(It should be noted that this was said almost 150 years ago. How much more true is it now?)
sr. member
Activity: 374
Merit: 250
Tune in to Neocash Radio
If the majority of people decided that slavery was OK again, would that make it OK to enslave the minority they picked?

Why does a government founded on a logical fallacy seem like a good idea to you?

You have constitution, safeguarding basic rights. You could possibly try and change the constitution, but for that you need an overwhelming majority, which just doesn't happen in a democracy. Even landslide victories are like 60%.

Check the exceptions on the wikipedia page you linked to. Income redistribution falls withing the lines of social convention and safety, therefore the fallacy does not apply here.

The constitution was in effect when slavery was happening.  Myrkul you have failed to address the point that was made.

You sure that was me? It looks more like miln40 failed to address the point. Slavery was not only not abolished by the constitution, it was written into it. So much for "basic rights." Check the other names for the fallacy. "Democracy" is included in the list.

Yeah, I also think he meant me =D . Slavery was made illegal with the 13th amendment, I believe. So the constitution was modified after the majority of people decided to oppose slavery. Well, there was also this civil war, but it might have been pure coincidence.

Any way the constitution is supposed to guarantee habeas corpus.  A piece of paper is doing a poor job at solving problems. 

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.
This sounds like a regulatory mechanism. Who should enforce it? The government? In that sense I agree - someone needs to watch the market and (re-)establish balances. But to come back to the topic raised by the OP. What do you do if a majority of your labour force thinks that the wage is too low?

How, exactly, does removing the legislated restrictions on a profession, and thus having a completely free market in that profession sound like a regulatory mechanism?

If the majority of the labor force thinks the wage is too low, then they'll be asking for higher wages, won't they? And "a majority" is certainly enough to unionize. But the minority that is willing to work for less is important, too. If the union tries to push wages too high, they'll pull it back down by working when the union members strike. So the union members had best be willing to work for wages that the company owners will accept, or when they strike, they'll be replaced.

Labor is a market product, too. And that means it's governed by the laws of supply and demand, just like any market product.
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.
This sounds like a regulatory mechanism. Who should enforce it? The government? In that sense I agree - someone needs to watch the market and (re-)establish balances. But to come back to the topic raised by the OP. What do you do if a majority of your labour force thinks that the wage is too low?
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
Ok. How do you weasel your way out of income tax if you're employed by a public institute (university)?

Well, that would be a weird idea, since your wage comes precisely from taxation  (Huh)
A lot of research funds come from private entities. But are funneled through the institute.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.
So you are in favor of labour unions?

Why would I not be? Labor unions provide the individual worker with the bargaining power of the whole group. It's a great way to make sure the workers get fair treatment. As long as this doesn't get out of hand.
I see. So any practical suggestions for establishing a balance of power for bargaining positions?

The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.

The UAW's control over the entire US automotive industry nearly killed it. It wasn't until foreign companies started opening factories in non-union states that the industry started getting back on it's feet. And, I might add, revitalized the economies in those areas. Scabs (non-union workers), in other words, provide a much needed counter-pressure, to keep the unions from controlling the whole labor market.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
Ok. How do you weasel your way out of income tax if you're employed by a public institute (university)?

Well, that would be a weird idea, since your wage comes precisely from taxation  (Huh)
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
Unfortunately they don't make it optional. Voting yes , taxes no.

You have a lack of imagination.

Ok. How do you weasel your way out of income tax if you're employed by a public institute (university)?
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
Unfortunately they don't make it optional. Voting yes , taxes no.

You have a lack of imagination.
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

Unfortunately they don't make it optional. Voting yes , taxes no.
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.
So you are in favor of labour unions?

Why would I not be? Labor unions provide the individual worker with the bargaining power of the whole group. It's a great way to make sure the workers get fair treatment. As long as this doesn't get out of hand.
I see. So any practical suggestions for establishing a balance of power for bargaining positions?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.
So you are in favor of labour unions?

Why would I not be? Labor unions provide the individual worker with the bargaining power of the whole group. It's a great way to make sure the workers get fair treatment. As long as this doesn't get out of hand.

Trade unions are an example of it getting out of hand. When a union can restrict entry into a profession, or controls the entire market for that profession, then it has gained too much power, and the end result is the workers in that union start exploiting those who pay their salaries.

You can see this in action by looking at the medical profession and the automotive industry in the US. The UAW damn near strangled Detroit. The AMA is driving healthcare costs through the roof. (There are many other factors, but they're not helping .)
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.
donator
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
I find the tax system we have represents a compromise: You need free market mechanisms to implement price discovery for cooperation (products, jobs, etc...) but at the same time you want to prevent the formation of monopolies and extreme bargain powers.

Do you really think that the State prevents monopolies?

Also, if the only purpose of taxation is to prevent monopolies, why do I have to pay taxes??  I do not have any monopole on anything whatsoever.
No. And the reason for that is that all the ideals which come out of philosophical discussions eventually stand corrected by reality:
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?
Pages:
Jump to: