4 ms·

One issue: if we're talking about the USA, the ideal place to test new policies is probably state-level, or even MSA-level. But many policies, arguably includin

by scarmig 11y ago

One issue: if we're talking about the USA, the ideal place to test new policies is probably state-level, or even MSA-level. But many policies, arguably including the basic income, might have integral components that require powers that are federal level. E.g., immigration controls for basic income. Even something that states could conceivably implement using their powers might be made ineffectual by federal policies. For instance, a lot of what states can do are constrained by federal policy. In the case of a basic income, a lot of its value is undermined by how federal redistribution programs currently work, to the extent that even though it might be valuable as a greenfield project, doing it while federal programs exist as they do will end up being a costly boondoggle. (I'm not saying that's a point in favor of a basic income--having to throw out decrepit-but-functional legacy policies for it to work would be a big point against it--but it's a reason why people might try to push it on the federal level instead of the state level.)

zanny 11y ago
This is why states cannot practice universal healthcare even when their citizens overwhelmingly recognize its value. It is also the same problem as to why corporations incorporate in Delaware. When you have money your locational mobility in the USA is astronomical between the states. This means that the most business friendly states will in aggregate attract the most business, attract the growth, and attract the money no matter how unethical or immoral the laws of the state they congregate in are. It is reductionist capitalism because everything trends towards having the least, or in the case of many enterprises having a broken market where they get no regulation but new competition can be destroyed with regulatory barriers. When you want to move business internationally, the barriers are much higher than moving within the US, especially between neighboring states. That strongly impedes individual states abilities to actually experiment with policy, because unless they conform to the established trend of business interest pandering they are liable to lose those companies that have adopted their population centers as major sources of employment. Though that problem really never stops. The problem of inter-state policy in the US is a global problem. International companies could care less about borders, and we are seeing in realtime the gradual reduction of global policy towards appeasing corporate overlords demands (see the TPP) so they do not discard their home country like a worn pair of trousers. I mean, consider the feasibility of going to the extreme and trying to startup actual communism in any of the largely socialist European nations. It would be immediate and catastrophic wealth flight to other nations because economics will transcend borders while politics will not. Even if the majority of people want something, the ruling class will be intimately aware that they actually hold no real power in society, because they are beholden to the drivers of economics rather than their own people to keep their economies growing.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  This is why states cannot practice universal healthcare even when their citizens overwhelmingly recognize its value. What of the large percentage of citizens who, as a block, overwhelmingly reject it as "value" and seek to rid themselves of it? Many of our foreign friends here may not understand how absolutely essential individual liberty is to the classic American character & philosophy, the fierce opposition to being compelled (under threat of fines, incarceration, or worse) to act as strangers (being no more than equals) may decide they should beyond basic morality. That opposition to compulsion does not automatically equate to social evil, as many are charitable philanthropists - they just choose to give to others as they see fit, without the knowledge or approval of third parties whom they neither know nor approve of; those who do indeed see to it their poor neighbors have basic needs met. I don't want your "universal healthcare", and think it a waste of resources (and don't you go imputing evil just because I don't agree with you; I'd see to it others are cared for, if only the gov't would stop confiscating the value I've created).
bcheung 11y ago
Actually Alaska already has implemented this system (oil drilling rights and basic income for permanent residents). Land, natural resources, airwaves, mineral rights, drilling rights, etc are considered common property under the proposed system. People bid for rights to them. The proceeds are then used for basic income. There is no redistribution of wealth with what Paine is recommending. You keep 100% of the fruits of your labor.

by scarmig 11y ago

zanny 11y ago

This is why states cannot practice universal healthcare even when their citizens overwhelmingly recognize its value. It is also the same problem as to why corporations incorporate in Delaware. When you have money your locational mobility in the USA is astronomical between the states. This means that the most business friendly states will in aggregate attract the most business, attract the growth, and attract the money no matter how unethical or immoral the laws of the state they congregate in are. It is reductionist capitalism because everything trends towards having the least, or in the case of many enterprises having a broken market where they get no regulation but new competition can be destroyed with regulatory barriers. When you want to move business internationally, the barriers are much higher than moving within the US, especially between neighboring states. That strongly impedes individual states abilities to actually experiment with policy, because unless they conform to the established trend of business interest pandering they are liable to lose those companies that have adopted their population centers as major sources of employment. Though that problem really never stops. The problem of inter-state policy in the US is a global problem. International companies could care less about borders, and we are seeing in realtime the gradual reduction of global policy towards appeasing corporate overlords demands (see the TPP) so they do not discard their home country like a worn pair of trousers. I mean, consider the feasibility of going to the extreme and trying to startup actual communism in any of the largely socialist European nations. It would be immediate and catastrophic wealth flight to other nations because economics will transcend borders while politics will not. Even if the majority of people want something, the ruling class will be intimately aware that they actually hold no real power in society, because they are beholden to the drivers of economics rather than their own people to keep their economies growing.

ctdonath 11y ago
This is why states cannot practice universal healthcare even when their citizens overwhelmingly recognize its value. What of the large percentage of citizens who, as a block, overwhelmingly reject it as "value" and seek to rid themselves of it? Many of our foreign friends here may not understand how absolutely essential individual liberty is to the classic American character & philosophy, the fierce opposition to being compelled (under threat of fines, incarceration, or worse) to act as strangers (being no more than equals) may decide they should beyond basic morality. That opposition to compulsion does not automatically equate to social evil, as many are charitable philanthropists - they just choose to give to others as they see fit, without the knowledge or approval of third parties whom they neither know nor approve of; those who do indeed see to it their poor neighbors have basic needs met. I don't want your "universal healthcare", and think it a waste of resources (and don't you go imputing evil just because I don't agree with you; I'd see to it others are cared for, if only the gov't would stop confiscating the value I've created).

bcheung 11y ago

Actually Alaska already has implemented this system (oil drilling rights and basic income for permanent residents). Land, natural resources, airwaves, mineral rights, drilling rights, etc are considered common property under the proposed system. People bid for rights to them. The proceeds are then used for basic income. There is no redistribution of wealth with what Paine is recommending. You keep 100% of the fruits of your labor.