5 ms·

I'd like to point out that Libertarians do not support basic income. In this instance, the argument is simply that basic income is a better system then the curr

I'd like to point out that Libertarians do not support basic income. In this instance, the argument is simply that basic income is a better system then the current welfare system.

mason240 10y ago
That's not true at all. Lots of libertarians support UBI (which this specific case is not). It's a very capitalist solution to a post-labor world.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  I am libertarian, and support UBI, though not necessarily via state taxation and administration. Pragmatically, though, that is how it would need to be instituted in the real world, even if it could possibly work differently in my personal libertarian fantasyland. I'd say that a significant fraction of all libertarians don't want to admit that their fantasyland and the real world are so far apart that they will never meet in any living human's natural lifespan, and therefore resist any idea which would tend to empower government to a greater extent in the long run. By my personal estimation, UBI is necessary to avoid the accelerating concentration of more economic power into fewer hands, until the common man again becomes a "useless eater" that must be disposed of for the sake of efficiency. I fear that without it, or something like it, class-based warfare is inevitable, and war is more damaging to liberty than the welfare state. Given the choice between backing a step away from the way I wish the world could work, and running ten steps in any direction in a blind panic, I choose the one controlled step.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    I think UBI is a band-aid on a bullet wound which is the notion of capitalism (note that I see markets as independent from the concept of private ownership of capital/land). All it does is delay the inevitable collapse of capitalism under its own weight. The better solution is to try to decouple capital ownership from individuals, corporations, or states. I'm not sure how that can be best achieved but honestly I think automating the economy itself may be the best approach. It can be done in a piecemeal fashion, but it's a question of whether the capital owners will give up the reigns of power to machines to decide how best to fulfill demands of people. I'm not so much arguing for the nonsensical approach of Jacque Fresco because his notion requires engineering wants of people and the abolition of money. For me, money and prices are good aggregators for demand, they just need to be adjusted in their use cases (probably away from capital speculation), but even an automated economy would need something akin to a price and a unit for which the price is measured in. Otherwise, how are goods created? I don't see happy thoughts and wishing being viable means to ration in any economy.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      > I think automating the economy itself may be the best approach That is subjecting ourselves from total control of the machines from the bare start. Not saying this automation is inherently bad - it may be much better than any alternative - but simply automating away throws away all the diversity that can help us get into a good system.
      - norea-armozel 10y ago
        Well I agree but if you want the world to be like the Mall of America where you can buy just about anything then you have to turn it all over to machines. Basically, we have to become like the people in Wall-E. Always consuming, never really thinking, and the majority of decisions being made by machines. I'm not saying I want that future, but you can't continue down the path of the excesses of consumerism without paying the price in some way (loss of personal autonomy to machines is one price of many to pay).
        mason240 10y ago
        With a UBI/capitalist economy, you would still have monetary constraints on the individual consumers (just like today) and there would still be monetary constraints on raw materials/commodities (just like today).
    - mason240 10y ago
      Just the opposite actually. UBI will entrench capitalism as the basis for the economy, and rightly so, into the post-labor future. It will put the final nail in the coffin of already the already obsolete ideologies of socialism/communism/anarchism.
      - logfromblammo 10y ago
        Capitalism: Hey, Socialism. Remember how you worked your ass off trying to make Communism happen? From each according to ability, to each according to need? Socialism: Ahhhh. Don't remind me. Cap: Check out what I did, as a hobby, after going home from work. Soc: You... bastard. Cap: To each according to need, from each according to how awesome I am. Soc: I hate you. You are literally the worst. Most of those people aren't even *working*. Cap: I'd love to talk more, but I need to be on Mars soon, on a rocket built without taxes. Soc: Yeah, you'd better run! Jerk.
- filoeleven 10y ago
  "The idea isn’t new. As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.”" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-aren... (meant to post this on parent comment, but it works just as well here as an illustration.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

I'd like to point out that Libertarians do not support basic income. In this instance, the argument is simply that basic income is a better system then the current welfare system.

mason240 10y ago

That's not true at all. Lots of libertarians support UBI (which this specific case is not). It's a very capitalist solution to a post-labor world.

logfromblammo 10y ago
I am libertarian, and support UBI, though not necessarily via state taxation and administration. Pragmatically, though, that is how it would need to be instituted in the real world, even if it could possibly work differently in my personal libertarian fantasyland. I'd say that a significant fraction of all libertarians don't want to admit that their fantasyland and the real world are so far apart that they will never meet in any living human's natural lifespan, and therefore resist any idea which would tend to empower government to a greater extent in the long run. By my personal estimation, UBI is necessary to avoid the accelerating concentration of more economic power into fewer hands, until the common man again becomes a "useless eater" that must be disposed of for the sake of efficiency. I fear that without it, or something like it, class-based warfare is inevitable, and war is more damaging to liberty than the welfare state. Given the choice between backing a step away from the way I wish the world could work, and running ten steps in any direction in a blind panic, I choose the one controlled step.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  I think UBI is a band-aid on a bullet wound which is the notion of capitalism (note that I see markets as independent from the concept of private ownership of capital/land). All it does is delay the inevitable collapse of capitalism under its own weight. The better solution is to try to decouple capital ownership from individuals, corporations, or states. I'm not sure how that can be best achieved but honestly I think automating the economy itself may be the best approach. It can be done in a piecemeal fashion, but it's a question of whether the capital owners will give up the reigns of power to machines to decide how best to fulfill demands of people. I'm not so much arguing for the nonsensical approach of Jacque Fresco because his notion requires engineering wants of people and the abolition of money. For me, money and prices are good aggregators for demand, they just need to be adjusted in their use cases (probably away from capital speculation), but even an automated economy would need something akin to a price and a unit for which the price is measured in. Otherwise, how are goods created? I don't see happy thoughts and wishing being viable means to ration in any economy.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    > I think automating the economy itself may be the best approach That is subjecting ourselves from total control of the machines from the bare start. Not saying this automation is inherently bad - it may be much better than any alternative - but simply automating away throws away all the diversity that can help us get into a good system.
    - norea-armozel 10y ago
      Well I agree but if you want the world to be like the Mall of America where you can buy just about anything then you have to turn it all over to machines. Basically, we have to become like the people in Wall-E. Always consuming, never really thinking, and the majority of decisions being made by machines. I'm not saying I want that future, but you can't continue down the path of the excesses of consumerism without paying the price in some way (loss of personal autonomy to machines is one price of many to pay).
      - mason240 10y ago
        With a UBI/capitalist economy, you would still have monetary constraints on the individual consumers (just like today) and there would still be monetary constraints on raw materials/commodities (just like today).
  - mason240 10y ago
    Just the opposite actually. UBI will entrench capitalism as the basis for the economy, and rightly so, into the post-labor future. It will put the final nail in the coffin of already the already obsolete ideologies of socialism/communism/anarchism.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      Capitalism: Hey, Socialism. Remember how you worked your ass off trying to make Communism happen? From each according to ability, to each according to need? Socialism: Ahhhh. Don't remind me. Cap: Check out what I did, as a hobby, after going home from work. Soc: You... bastard. Cap: To each according to need, from each according to how awesome I am. Soc: I hate you. You are literally the worst. Most of those people aren't even *working*. Cap: I'd love to talk more, but I need to be on Mars soon, on a rocket built without taxes. Soc: Yeah, you'd better run! Jerk.
filoeleven 10y ago
"The idea isn’t new. As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.”" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-aren... (meant to post this on parent comment, but it works just as well here as an illustration.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]