Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult • Hacker News Board

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#571

Post by rquantz » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 2:59 PM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #557

rquantz wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (an American) was having a discussion with some European friends recently, and we had a bit of a disconnect. I was trying to convince them that, contrary to their perceptions (they are fooled by the architecture) the United States is very old, and their countries -- France, in particular, are very young. We in the US have the oldest constitutional democracy in the world, or possibly the second oldest if you misinte…

That's exactly what I meant. The thing about being the first constitutional democracy - well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. By modern definitions yes, but what exactly is a democracy and what is a constitution? The confederation that came before the Swiss republic had their charter since 1291, and its cantons, being about as sovereign as a state, had constitutions long before the republic was formed. It w…

Just to clarify, I'm not claiming the US is the first constitutional democracy, just the oldest still standing. And agree with you about all the oddities. As far as presidential veto power, the US Constitution predates the first French Republic, so it couldn't have been influence by it. It's my understanding that the presidential veto was a concession to the monarchists who were afraid of the popular will.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#572

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 3:49 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #569

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Swiss have slums, housing projects, and a perpetual lower class with little social mobility. The US system is surprisingly normal in its effectiveness vs a country like Swiss. There are plenty of places in the states where there is absolutely no opportunity. Take the Mississippi delta for example. Spend some time there and your view on poverty will probably change a bit, it is very much like a third world country…

Yeah, I wasn't arguing that people in places like the delta are incorrect in their perceptions -- it's pretty much correct for much of the country, or for groups in even more of the country. I didn't realize the Swiss have slums and projects. The only Swiss people I know are high-SES, and from my limited time (<3 days) in the country, I didn't see anything less than awesomeness.

I lived in Lausanne for two years, and I definitely knew where the house projects were; here were also many African and Arab refuges in the city. You could argue that Swiss could be universally rich if they just closed their doors, but it turns out having a lower class works for the economy.

One nice thing about Swiss: there are no homeless people, they'll put any they find up in a shelter or hostel until they can find permanent housing for them; though some younger tourists will squat in various abandoned buildings, it's their own choice.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#573

Post by nzp » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 4:43 PM UTC

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #440

nzp wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor. Of human labor, yes, but fortunately we have machines and computers... And that's exactly the point. Forcing people to do things machines can do is one of the most irrational and sadistic aspects of modern civilization. The principal reason we have such a situation is the absenc…

This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something? I love science and have never come to these kinds of views but its hard me to find that exact common reason where this view comes from. So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machin…

> This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something?This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something?

Probably because HN audience tends to be less bound by conventional wisdom and all kinds of irrationality. As far as politics go, I'm anarcho-communist (thus anti-capitalist), but on HN I often find comments (although this account is just a few days old, I've been reading HN for years) on economic and political issues from people who are very pro-capitalist with which I can agree (although we would probably disagree on motives and goals). For example in this discussion. It's very hard to find this in general population.

> So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not.

This is a strawman. First, I did not say it's the most sadistic thing imaginable. But yes, it is sadistic because that kind of work typically brings significant distress and because it's unnecessary. It doesn't matter how good or bad the wage is. This kind of dreadful work ties a person's mental and physical potential which could be otherwise used to add great value to society and the individual. Having a base income would efficiently untie a lot of reasons for this deadlock which is overwhelmingly of political nature. Do I think it's likely to happen, even though it's stupid and harmful not to? No, but why would that stop me from contemplating it and doing whatever I can to help bring about some change?

> On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another.

We don't have scarcity in a lot of areas. The problem lies in not having political will to rationally distribute unscarce resources.

> The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at

It is certainly at a sufficient level to eliminate a huge number of distressful jobs. That it can't, at this moment, eliminate all such jobs is no reason to dismiss possible solutions. From a slightly different technological domain: just because not all long haul travel is via space, doesn't mean we should dismiss all other forms of transport and just stay put until space planes become reality.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#574

Post by stretchwithme » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 7:27 AM UTC

Kliment wrote: post #229

stretchwithme wrote: post #38

Any petition getting enough signatures can place something on the ballot in Switzerland. They've even voted on whether to abolish the military.

I don't see how that's unreasonable.

it was voted down, of course.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#575

Post by cac04 » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 2:23 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #472

fleitz wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What problems does a $1 trillion military solve that a $200 billion military doesn't. I'd hazard a guess that a $200 billion military generates significant funding cuts above and beyond because it's a bit difficult to get into unilateral quagmires at that funding level.

The US military budget is probably not too high for the existing requirements of the US. The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world. The US military has additional moral obligations to minimize civilian casualties, as well as political obligations to minimize both time expenditure and friendly casualties. These requirements are historically unprecedented and contributes…

I rather like the idea - but then I am a big fan of Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_ so I suppose I would like it.

I don't dispute your major points. However, I would say that your claim that "the US and NATO managed to put an end to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia" is a bit lacking in nuance.

Having spent a bit of time in Serbia after the Kosovan war, I saw little evidence that NATO reduced the amount of ethnic cleansing going on and a lot of evidence that NATO deliberately killed many civilians. The former Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Carrington, even claimed that the NATO bombing caused ethnic cleansing.

But this doesn't negate your main point and is a little off-topic - sorry about that - I just wanted to mention that not everyone thinks the NATO action in former Yugoslavia was a good thing.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#576

Post by paulhauggis » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 4:08 AM UTC

phaemon wrote: post #509

paulhauggis wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If your goal is to make everyone work, you have to fight wealth accumulation." Wealth accumulation is the reason businesses thrive in the first place. Without businesses, who is going to provide jobs for those lower-income workers? The government? "You sold a company for 5B$ ? doesnt matter, you should be taxed until you have almost no money" If I knew this would happen, I would most likely move my company overseas.…

And you sound foolish. He wasn't proposing any of these things. Read his post again, this time properly.

You are a perfect example of why I mostly stay out of HN discussions.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#577

Post by phaemon » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 1:36 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #576

phaemon wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you sound foolish. He wasn't proposing any of these things. Read his post again, this time properly.

You are a perfect example of why I mostly stay out of HN discussions.

Because when you call people "bitter and jealous", based on misreading their post, you get called "foolish" in return?

Stop whining.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#578

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 1:55 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #549

Someone wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world." The parties at the other end of those mutual obligations manage to do so at way lower (in absolute, but also in relative terms) budgets. The obligation is not "the USA will save you", but "we will help each other", and that, somehow, has become "the USA will produce an extraordinary amount of weaponry and keep an enormous mil…

The Monroe Doctrine requires the US to protect the Americas as a whole from foreign incursion. The US is obligated by treaty or law to defend Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, and practically all of Europe (NATO extends as far as parts of the former Soviet Union). Not all of these defensive arrangements are fully mutual, either in practice (the US has troops stationed to defend Germany but not vice-versa) or indeed…

"thanks to the one child policy--practically have a surplus of young men."

How does that follow?

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#579

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

hikarudo wrote: post #459

"It is an elementary requirement of economic incentive as well as justice that the man who works for a living should always be better off because of that, other things being equal, than the man who refuses to work for a living." [1] [1] Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of Poverty

That still happens, with a basic income.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#580

Post by philwelch » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 8:01 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #578

philwelch wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Monroe Doctrine requires the US to protect the Americas as a whole from foreign incursion. The US is obligated by treaty or law to defend Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, and practically all of Europe (NATO extends as far as parts of the former Soviet Union). Not all of these defensive arrangements are fully mutual, either in practice (the US has troops stationed to defend Germany but not vice-versa) or indeed…

"thanks to the one child policy--practically have a surplus of young men." How does that follow?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/china-challenges-one-c...

Since reproduction is limited by the female population in humans, any gender imbalance in favor of men is effectively surplus.