7 ms·

It makes sense if-and-only-if that basic income isn't being doled out by the same organization which also runs the military-industrial or prison-industrial worl

It makes sense if-and-only-if that basic income isn't being doled out by the same organization which also runs the military-industrial or prison-industrial worlds. As an American, I think it's safe to say our federal government can't be trusted to not turn into a tyranny if it's everyone's primary employer. We would get even more massive corruption almost instantly. For example, some people would lobby to get those tax-revenue intended for the basic income to be redirected to other projects. The people wouldn't fight the loss of a $1/year/person here or there. There would also be reams of special cases to give some people more and some people less. And like today, some people would continue to carve out exceptions so they didn't have to pay those taxes to feed the basic income. That money would be divvied up every way except as a basic income and people would spend all their time fighting over who got it instead of generating the value that backs it. I don't live in the countries trying this so I can't say if it's safe to give their government that much power, but I know the US government is no where near ready for any more power than they already have. EDIT: Fixed a typo

Mikeb85 11y ago
Unfortunately, in the US the alternative to government power is corporate power.
- jff 11y ago
  > Unfortunately, in the US the alternative to government power is corporate power. What's the alternative elsewhere? Warlord power?
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Well, there are plenty of countries ruled by competing warlords... Ideally in a functioning democracy you can replace the government for one which represents the people, but in the US the 'establishment' controls them anyway. Simply put, better to demand a guaranteed income from the government, then to put it off for fear of them abusing power, only to cede control to entities who are worse...
- cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  There's a difference?
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Without government power, corporations don't have any power. They only exert their power through the government. What, is Apple coming to my house to tell me what to do, how I can work, or to collect a tax? Just like Disney keeps you from file sharing by using the government, so does the your local health insurance company keep out the competition by excessive government regulations they helped write.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Without government intervention, corporations control the labour market. With no minimum wage, no basic income, and increasing automation, do you really think corporations wouldn't drive wages down to zero? There are countries with little to no government intervention, and countries with lots. The latter are objectively much better places.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      This is always the response to any libertarian argument of even mild government reform "If you don't like it, then go live in Somalia". As if rolling back government intervention in the economy to something like say the booming 1950's isn't a rational proposal.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        It's because history shows that more government intervention, especially in the domain of education, health and labour, creates better societies. Two words: New Deal. Most of the US' prosperity since has been as a result of this. Then in the 1980's it was rolled back and guess what? Things are going to shit again. Maybe not in NY and California, but large swaths of the US are mired in poverty, poor employment prospects, crumbling infrastructure and shitty education. How about Europe? Here's a bunch of tiny states with different languages, pretty much zero resources, very little land, who accept unprecedented amounts of immigration (partially to their detriment), who are still able to provide their citizens with the highest standards of living in the world. Show me a single large, prosperous, libertarian state. Not a city-state that cannibalises their neighbours' resources and acts like a tax haven (Monaco, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Singapore, etc...) - but a large, prosperous, diverse state that is libertarian. The problem is, there are none.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Jtsummers 11y ago
> The people wouldn't fight the loss of a $1/year/person here or there. I'm not sure. Around here, people fight [EDIT: against] the 1 cent local sales tax add-on that goes to schools (and can only go to schools).
- lujim 11y ago
  That's because the normal shell game with the "only for schools" taxes often involve adding 1 cent to school budgets with the new tax and subtracting 1 cent of school funding from some existing source.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    That's possible. But it's also a tax and people generally fight against them. Cut people's subsidies (in the form of a UBI) and it's a de facto tax. They'll fight it.
merpnderp 11y ago
The US is 16th in the world in perceived corruption. If the US is too corrupt for this, then it likely isn't workable on any real scale. And I agree, at least at the federal level and likely at most state levels, the US is far too corrupt to do this (and by corrupt I mean pork style politics where representatives horse trade favors and perks for votes, all at the behest of lobbyist who support their campaigns). https://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table https://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Just to clarify for anyone who is puzzled: a higher ranking in that survey means that a nation is perceived to be less corrupt. So the U.S.'s 16th-place ranking means that it is perceived to be the 16th least corrupt nation. Saying that "[t]he US is 16th in the world in perceived corruption" seems to imply the opposite, to my ears.
alistairSH 11y ago
In some respects, wouldn't a UBI also decrease corruption? There is no more pandering to special interests on either fringe of the social spectrum. There is a much smaller bureaucracy. And on the personal level, you don't have poor citizens trading food credits for drugs - they just buy whatever they want.
- DickingAround 11y ago
  In theory, yes. In practice, it will be corrupted beyond that basic idea because there's no system/incentives to protect it from being corrupted.

Mikeb85 11y ago

Unfortunately, in the US the alternative to government power is corporate power.

jff 11y ago
> Unfortunately, in the US the alternative to government power is corporate power. What's the alternative elsewhere? Warlord power?
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Well, there are plenty of countries ruled by competing warlords... Ideally in a functioning democracy you can replace the government for one which represents the people, but in the US the 'establishment' controls them anyway. Simply put, better to demand a guaranteed income from the government, then to put it off for fear of them abusing power, only to cede control to entities who are worse...
cmrdporcupine 11y ago
There's a difference?
merpnderp 11y ago
Without government power, corporations don't have any power. They only exert their power through the government. What, is Apple coming to my house to tell me what to do, how I can work, or to collect a tax? Just like Disney keeps you from file sharing by using the government, so does the your local health insurance company keep out the competition by excessive government regulations they helped write.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Without government intervention, corporations control the labour market. With no minimum wage, no basic income, and increasing automation, do you really think corporations wouldn't drive wages down to zero? There are countries with little to no government intervention, and countries with lots. The latter are objectively much better places.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    This is always the response to any libertarian argument of even mild government reform "If you don't like it, then go live in Somalia". As if rolling back government intervention in the economy to something like say the booming 1950's isn't a rational proposal.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      It's because history shows that more government intervention, especially in the domain of education, health and labour, creates better societies. Two words: New Deal. Most of the US' prosperity since has been as a result of this. Then in the 1980's it was rolled back and guess what? Things are going to shit again. Maybe not in NY and California, but large swaths of the US are mired in poverty, poor employment prospects, crumbling infrastructure and shitty education. How about Europe? Here's a bunch of tiny states with different languages, pretty much zero resources, very little land, who accept unprecedented amounts of immigration (partially to their detriment), who are still able to provide their citizens with the highest standards of living in the world. Show me a single large, prosperous, libertarian state. Not a city-state that cannibalises their neighbours' resources and acts like a tax haven (Monaco, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Singapore, etc...) - but a large, prosperous, diverse state that is libertarian. The problem is, there are none.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Jtsummers 11y ago

> The people wouldn't fight the loss of a $1/year/person here or there. I'm not sure. Around here, people fight [EDIT: against] the 1 cent local sales tax add-on that goes to schools (and can only go to schools).

lujim 11y ago
That's because the normal shell game with the "only for schools" taxes often involve adding 1 cent to school budgets with the new tax and subtracting 1 cent of school funding from some existing source.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  That's possible. But it's also a tax and people generally fight against them. Cut people's subsidies (in the form of a UBI) and it's a de facto tax. They'll fight it.

merpnderp 11y ago

The US is 16th in the world in perceived corruption. If the US is too corrupt for this, then it likely isn't workable on any real scale. And I agree, at least at the federal level and likely at most state levels, the US is far too corrupt to do this (and by corrupt I mean pork style politics where representatives horse trade favors and perks for votes, all at the behest of lobbyist who support their campaigns). https://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table https://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Just to clarify for anyone who is puzzled: a higher ranking in that survey means that a nation is perceived to be less corrupt. So the U.S.'s 16th-place ranking means that it is perceived to be the 16th least corrupt nation. Saying that "[t]he US is 16th in the world in perceived corruption" seems to imply the opposite, to my ears.

alistairSH 11y ago

In some respects, wouldn't a UBI also decrease corruption? There is no more pandering to special interests on either fringe of the social spectrum. There is a much smaller bureaucracy. And on the personal level, you don't have poor citizens trading food credits for drugs - they just buy whatever they want.

DickingAround 11y ago
In theory, yes. In practice, it will be corrupted beyond that basic idea because there's no system/incentives to protect it from being corrupted.