5 ms·

I have nothing against basic income as long as there are incentives and opportunities to motivate people to do better for themselves either financially or creat

I have nothing against basic income as long as there are incentives and opportunities to motivate people to do better for themselves either financially or creatively. As an Ontario resident it'll be interesting to see if this goes into effect and what the long term results are. Can we get another province to try a libertarian approach and we can compare notes in about 25 to 50 years?

deelowe 11y ago
Basic income is supported by the libertarian party. http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic...
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  Ah OK gotcha.. I need to do some more reading on this it seems. Thank you.
  - deelowe 11y ago
    No problem.
- vlunkr 11y ago
  I don't think that officially says the libertarian party supports it. Just that it may be compatible with their principles. I'm quite certain many libertarians would not go along with that at all.
  - deelowe 11y ago
    Well, there's no true scottsman after all. Maybe I should have said "by many members of the libertarian party."
    - JWLong 11y ago
      Doesn't help that when it comes to Libertarians, some of them are Irish. ~"If two libertarians ever find themselves in agreement on a particular issue, they know that one of them has sold out."
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > Well, there's no true scottsman after all. This isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy, because parties do have official, stated platforms. And to my knowledge, this is not part of the Libertarian party platform. Being able to find some members of the party who support an idea is not the same as saying that "many members" support it. And frankly, I'd be very skeptical of the notion that this idea has widespread support within the Libertarian party, given the rest of their platform and values.
- winstonewert 11y ago
  That's a view put forward by some libertarians (as far as I know a minority), not a party policy.
- paulddraper 11y ago
  It's controversial: http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic-income-guarantee http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic-inco... The case for it is basically that we should choose something terrible over something awful.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    I think there are also quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality, and would prefer that it be done in a market compatible way, instead of via government services.
    - paulddraper 11y ago
      > quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality Forced wealth redistribution is antithesis of libertarianism. If it's not, I have been calling myself a libertarian incorrectly.
      - aninhumer 11y ago
        That depends whether you think the point of libertarianism is preferring market solutions to economic problems, or the protection of pure property rights. The latter is perhaps more ideologically pure, but I think the former tends to lead to much more sensible arguments.
        paulddraper 11y ago
        Property rights, social liberties, etc. I don't even know what to call the first thing you mentioned. "preferring market solutions to economic problems" Capitalism?
        over 11y ago
        I think the point of that one is small government.
vehementi 11y ago
Do you feel that jobs that provide lots of money are not incentives or opportunities to do better? If not, why doesn't everyone work at starbucks?
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  To some extent, but it seems to me that money is a short term incentive. It sounds great when you have have no money or other prospects but if you realize that the job providing greater financial reward is a soul crushing experience it might not be enough to keep you there. Your actions after that might depend on your circumstances and need for financial security.. but if there exists a guaranteed net of basic income, a lot of people, especially younger people with no kids or dependants might be more inclined to go back to the drawing board and re-invent their professional lives. Eventually there comes a need to encourage a culture of ambitiousness and desire for individual progress that is based on more than financial reward.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    But don't forget, with Basic Income an employer is able to offer a higher overall income without increasing their costs. Maybe your soul crushing job isn't worth it for $20k, but it might be for $30k. Or you might be willing to work half as long for $20k. Also, since the cost of quitting becomes much lower, there's a much stronger incentive for employers to provide a decent workplace. And that might not even mean any extra costs. They could just treat employees with more respect than they needed to when you were desperate. Basic Income means you end up with a real market for labour, instead of a bunch of desperate people taking whatever they can get.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      Or the opposite effect. It's at least plausible that with the sort of minimal basic income levels that are worth theorizing about as a practical matter (say, $8K/yr), you're going to have people willing to work that job for $10K or whatever to get them up to a level where they can afford some minimal level of "luxuries." It's been at leas theorized that a UBI scheme would end up being a subsidy for low-wage employers.

deelowe 11y ago

Basic income is supported by the libertarian party. http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic...

mladenkovacevic 11y ago
Ah OK gotcha.. I need to do some more reading on this it seems. Thank you.
- deelowe 11y ago
  No problem.
vlunkr 11y ago
I don't think that officially says the libertarian party supports it. Just that it may be compatible with their principles. I'm quite certain many libertarians would not go along with that at all.
- deelowe 11y ago
  Well, there's no true scottsman after all. Maybe I should have said "by many members of the libertarian party."
  - JWLong 11y ago
    Doesn't help that when it comes to Libertarians, some of them are Irish. ~"If two libertarians ever find themselves in agreement on a particular issue, they know that one of them has sold out."
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Well, there's no true scottsman after all. This isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy, because parties do have official, stated platforms. And to my knowledge, this is not part of the Libertarian party platform. Being able to find some members of the party who support an idea is not the same as saying that "many members" support it. And frankly, I'd be very skeptical of the notion that this idea has widespread support within the Libertarian party, given the rest of their platform and values.
winstonewert 11y ago
That's a view put forward by some libertarians (as far as I know a minority), not a party policy.
paulddraper 11y ago
It's controversial: http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic-income-guarantee http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic-inco... The case for it is basically that we should choose something terrible over something awful.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  I think there are also quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality, and would prefer that it be done in a market compatible way, instead of via government services.
  - paulddraper 11y ago
    > quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality Forced wealth redistribution is antithesis of libertarianism. If it's not, I have been calling myself a libertarian incorrectly.
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      That depends whether you think the point of libertarianism is preferring market solutions to economic problems, or the protection of pure property rights. The latter is perhaps more ideologically pure, but I think the former tends to lead to much more sensible arguments.
      - paulddraper 11y ago
        Property rights, social liberties, etc. I don't even know what to call the first thing you mentioned. "preferring market solutions to economic problems" Capitalism?
        over 11y ago
        I think the point of that one is small government.

vehementi 11y ago

Do you feel that jobs that provide lots of money are not incentives or opportunities to do better? If not, why doesn't everyone work at starbucks?

mladenkovacevic 11y ago
To some extent, but it seems to me that money is a short term incentive. It sounds great when you have have no money or other prospects but if you realize that the job providing greater financial reward is a soul crushing experience it might not be enough to keep you there. Your actions after that might depend on your circumstances and need for financial security.. but if there exists a guaranteed net of basic income, a lot of people, especially younger people with no kids or dependants might be more inclined to go back to the drawing board and re-invent their professional lives. Eventually there comes a need to encourage a culture of ambitiousness and desire for individual progress that is based on more than financial reward.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  But don't forget, with Basic Income an employer is able to offer a higher overall income without increasing their costs. Maybe your soul crushing job isn't worth it for $20k, but it might be for $30k. Or you might be willing to work half as long for $20k. Also, since the cost of quitting becomes much lower, there's a much stronger incentive for employers to provide a decent workplace. And that might not even mean any extra costs. They could just treat employees with more respect than they needed to when you were desperate. Basic Income means you end up with a real market for labour, instead of a bunch of desperate people taking whatever they can get.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Or the opposite effect. It's at least plausible that with the sort of minimal basic income levels that are worth theorizing about as a practical matter (say, $8K/yr), you're going to have people willing to work that job for $10K or whatever to get them up to a level where they can afford some minimal level of "luxuries." It's been at leas theorized that a UBI scheme would end up being a subsidy for low-wage employers.