Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

newamerica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#21

Post by Kpourdeilami »

lastyearman wrote: post #17
Kpourdeilami wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm no expert. However, I think taxation becomes immoral when the amount you pay in taxes, is more than the amount that you keep... so anything above 50%?

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#22

Post by nickff »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #9
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…

Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN. > 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. Also known as taxation, or living in a society. If you don't like money being taken from you by force then fine, just please opt out of all the services and benefits the societ…

Renunciation of citizenship is not an effective way to opt out of the state for a few reasons,[1] such as:

1) There is nowhere on Earth that someone can go to escape the reach of government.

2) There is no reason why the anarchist should bear the burden of leaving. If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave.

In case you rely on social contract theory (or implied/tacit social contract theory), here is a brief explanation of why it is wrong.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...

[2] http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/02/why-social-contrac...

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#23

Post by Bartweiss »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
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…

> Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish! The unemployment rate is still high (~9%), and thats just people still looking who haven't given up yet. Labor force participation rate: https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png U-6:…

Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad.

The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#24

Post by samlevine »

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…

> Automation will not put everyone out of work and it will not spell the end of capitalism.

The problem isn't going to be putting everyone out of work, it's going to be putting a quarter of the country out of work or loosely attached to the labor market.

The social costs for this are going to be absolute huge. Our norms are not ready for that many people to not work, and you only need a handful of people with little to lose to have massive social disorder.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#25

Post by jbooth »

nickff wrote: post #22
TeMPOraL wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN. > 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. Also known as taxation, or living in a society. If you don't like money being taken from you by force then fine, just please opt out of all the services and benefits the societ…

Renunciation of citizenship is not an effective way to opt out of the state for a few reasons,[1] such as: 1) There is nowhere on Earth that someone can go to escape the reach of government. 2) There is no reason why the anarchist should bear the burden of leaving. If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. In cas…

>> If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave.

Ok, so you're just declaring yourself king of the US? You're allowed to travel wherever you want without playing by any of the rules the rest of us have agreed to?

There are plenty of places in the world with no or non-functioning government, mostly Antarctica and subsaharan Africa, but there are also plenty of barely-inhabited islands where you could probably live off the grid. Just have to figure out food, medicine, etc.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#26

Post by empath75 »

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…

In reality, subsistence farming is a terrible way to live-- have you ever been to a country like nicaragua or el salvador?

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#27

Post by empath75 »

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,…

Wealth redistribution programs do benefit everyone in that it prevents masses of people from getting desperate enough to murder you and take your stuff.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#28

Post by toomuchtodo »

Bartweiss wrote: post #23
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish! The unemployment rate is still high (~9%), and thats just people still looking who haven't given up yet. Labor force participation rate: https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png U-6:…

Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad. The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

> It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.

Re: Universal Basic Income and the New Corporatist Democrats

#29

Post by nickff »

jbooth wrote: post #25
nickff wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renunciation of citizenship is not an effective way to opt out of the state for a few reasons,[1] such as: 1) There is nowhere on Earth that someone can go to escape the reach of government. 2) There is no reason why the anarchist should bear the burden of leaving. If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. In cas…

>> If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. Ok, so you're just declaring yourself king of the US? You're allowed to travel wherever you want without playing by any of the rules the rest of us have agreed to? There are plenty of places in the world with no or non-functioning government, mostly Antarctica and subs…

I have not declared myself king, and I don't have any more authority to tell you how to live than you (or the state) have over me.

Did you agree to the rules? I didn't agree to any, and I don't know anyone who did; most people just follow them. There are some interesting theories on political authority derived from democracy, but all that I've seen are fatally flawed.

Antarctica has many (overlapping) claims by non-Antarctican countries, so it is not a good place to go and avoid states. If you go to Subsaharan Africa, you are still subject to the government of whatever state you are in, whether it is 'failed' for now, or not. More importantly, you haven't explained why the victim is the one who has to accommodate their oppressor.

Post reply on HN