Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#11

Post by elicash » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

tvanantwerp wrote: post #6

elicash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

Not saying I agree with the "taxation is immoral" argument, but have you ever changed a law before? Not exactly a walk in the park. The effort it takes to change even small government policies should clearly show that, for the most part, nobody really has a say in what the law is.

It's not something that's done by one person, alone.

But certainly I vote, I protest, I write letters, I convince others to. I work for an advocacy organization. I knock on doors and make calls. I believe it's not nearly enough to "just vote." And if that's all someone is doing, that person has little room to complain.

The taxation is immoral argument is an argument against democracy.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#12

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

davesque wrote: post #3

visarga wrote: post #2

Every political faction has an "idea" about UBI. That's the core of what's wrong with UBI. People don't want their income to be subject to political whims, and change every election cycle. The problem is that, before automation, people had something to trade for their daily necessities - their work. Work was tied to each individual and that empowered people. Now, with automation, people will have nothing else to offe…

I would add that, with more widespread education and college attendance, people also expect more freedom to decide what they do with their time. From a psychological standpoint, they feel they've given themselves some authority by becoming educated and expect to be able to exercise this authority. It's hard to do this if you're forced to spend most of your time realizing someone else's dream (by working for a living)…

I never thought about the education angle, but in a way yeah - what's the point of being well-read, curious, interested in many things, if you never get time to use any of that because you're tied to spending most of your life working as a cog in an industry, often on things of dubious ethical value?

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#13

Post by elicash » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

Kpourdeilami wrote: post #10

elicash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

Reminds of the quote: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Taxation when taken too far is immoral, regardless of the popular vote

I think you're absolutely right that the "taxation is immoral" argument is one against democracy. But I still go with democracy, but with protection we ALREADY have in place to protect human rights.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#14

Post by BigDaddyD » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #5

BigDaddyD wrote: post #4

The UBI and this article are terrible. First of all, it's expensive. Guaranteeing every American a certain sum of money will cost a ridiculous amount. Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Third, it's funny that he points to Social Security when it is approaching disaster. http://www…

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument.

I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral".

I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give.

Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc.

Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it.

I know it's easy to make emotional arguments and I know it's easy to feel charitable with other people's money, I'm in no way rich btw, but you have to see the problem with that?

> We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them.

Tyranny of the masses is a thing and something our founders tried to prevent.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#15

Post by elicash » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

BigDaddyD wrote: post #14

elicash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office,…

You wrote, "Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong." You had an "especially" in there, so you think it particularly applies here, but you still said that statement is true generally.

And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone. In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs! Because it goes to everyone! I get the policy disagreement on this, but that's still different than the "taxes are immoral" argument. And that's the one that bothers me when I hear it because it's an attack on democracy.

As to our founders - yes, they built protections in our Constitution. Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional? Because that's a legal argument I'd be interested in reading!

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#16

Post by Joof » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #12

davesque wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would add that, with more widespread education and college attendance, people also expect more freedom to decide what they do with their time. From a psychological standpoint, they feel they've given themselves some authority by becoming educated and expect to be able to exercise this authority. It's hard to do this if you're forced to spend most of your time realizing someone else's dream (by working for a living)…

I never thought about the education angle, but in a way yeah - what's the point of being well-read, curious, interested in many things, if you never get time to use any of that because you're tied to spending most of your life working as a cog in an industry, often on things of dubious ethical value?

More time for science, art and entrepreneurship.

Probably resulting in a lot more indie game devs (artists), but it could be worse.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#17

Post by lastyearman » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

Kpourdeilami wrote: post #10

elicash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

Reminds of the quote: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Taxation when taken too far is immoral, regardless of the popular vote

That's why we have super majority and other means to combat tyranny by majority.

So how does one define the point at which taxation becomes immoral?

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#18

Post by lastyearman » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

BigDaddyD wrote: post #14

elicash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office,…

Everyone benefits from a strong middle class and not-too-poor class. Including you. Also I believe there is an argument to be made that more equal society is better for everyone involved.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#19

Post by Kevin_S » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

BigDaddyD wrote: post #14

elicash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office,…

> Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc. > Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it.

Dude... you're just framing it differently. You can easily look at UBI and taxes as they currently are as moneys from individuals that go into a large pot which is then spent to help the greater good. Roads do that, police do that, and so does public assistance programs like social security and welfare. But somehow UBI is different because it is cash? It's all the same. It does the same basic thing: lower income inequality.

It isn't "feeling" they have too much money and "deserving" it. It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy. You're the one making the emotional argument here.

Not sure why anyone these days would oppose a system that would lower income inequality from the absurd point it has reached.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#20

Post by llamataboot » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #2

Every political faction has an "idea" about UBI. That's the core of what's wrong with UBI. People don't want their income to be subject to political whims, and change every election cycle. The problem is that, before automation, people had something to trade for their daily necessities - their work. Work was tied to each individual and that empowered people. Now, with automation, people will have nothing else to offe…

Some problems with this idea though -- even with a lot of intense agricultural improvements (sky gardening, hydroponics, automation, etc etc) it's pretty hard for a family of 4 to grow all their own food. And it's nigh-impossible for the carrying capacity of the earth to support everyone subsistence farming.

As far as I can tell, the main problem is not even our socioeconomic structures (those currently suck for distributing the efficiency gains of innovation, it's true) but the extent that we feel stuck in them.

That is there's a dual problem where it is very difficult to change policies and because it's very difficult we begin to think that it is impossible to shape the structures we are living in and try new things. (There are also immense political incentives to stay with the status quo in the current system -- see the DEA refusing to reschedule marijuana today) - so we don't have a lot of experimentation.

I don't know how UBI will work long-term or how it can be configured the best. I don't know how any policy proposal will work really, societies are dynamic and complex enough that hypotheses are difficult to come up and difficult to test -- but experimentation is important! So I'm mostly excited to see some people somewhere beginning to experiment and at least start floating the idea that laws/policy is mutable and shapable depending on the outcomes we want.