3 ms·

> "The spontaneous order of the free market is always going to be more effective than the top down order of some government mandate" This is why the basic inco

by natrius 10y ago

> "The spontaneous order of the free market is always going to be more effective than the top down order of some government mandate" This is why the basic income approach is so popular. It guarantees a minimum standard of living for all without mandating anything but redistribution. If redistribution is reckless interference, you're about to find yourself awfully lonely in your politics. You sound like you want to maximize economic efficiency. I want to maximize human welfare, and I believe significant redistribution will be required to do so. Monopolies are inefficient, so I'd prefer a decentralized redistribution mechanism, but today's governments will suffice in a pinch.

aminok 10y ago
>If redistribution is reckless interference, you're about to find yourself awfully lonely in your politics. Compulsory redistribution IS reckless, and yes I'm awfully lonely in my politics. Compulsory redistributive programs pervert incentives leading to less individual responsibility over time. These programs are clumsy cookie cutter solutions, which with a stroke a pen, impose the same formula to tens/hundreds of millions of people. On one end, the people lose out, and on the other, they win out in the short term. The only determinant of which side a person is on is the amount of currency that they report to the government that they received for that year. This is an overly simplistic formula that not only adversely affects incentives, but also becomes increasingly better gamed over time, leading to competitive energies being diverted to economically wasteful activities like tax avoidance (which is an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year now). These programs recklessly create compulsory economic relationships between millions of people, without taking into account the unique circumstances found in this vast population. They ignore localized knowledge that is diffused throughout the millions of those affected by the program, which would otherwise be the basis of spontaneous order created by the mutually voluntary economic relationships formed in the free market, in favor of a blanket judgment made by some legislature made up of a couple hundred people. They are pure economic destruction. >You sound like you want to maximize economic efficiency. I want to maximize human welfare, By far the best way to maximize human welfare is to grow the economy. Because its benefits are compounding, economic growth exceeds all other methods of raising the standard of living over the long run. I think you're also neglecting that one aspect of human welfare is to be free and not subject to authoritarianism. By your logic if an alien species offered us confinement in a wonderful utopian prison we should take that bargain because freedom doesn't matter.
- natrius 10y ago
  I get it, governments that forcibly redistribute are infringing on freedoms. I agree. Luckily, we now have the technology to compel redistribution without force. Blockchains allow the people to define value, and if most of the world is completely fine with redistribution, they will define value in a way that excludes people who don't redistribute from their economy. You'll be free to transact in the rump economy of dissenters. Welfare states don't require states anymore.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >Welfare states don't require states anymore. Tell that to the Varoufakises and their multitudes of supporters who want state-backed coercive programs like compulsory Basic Income.

by natrius 10y ago

aminok 10y ago

>If redistribution is reckless interference, you're about to find yourself awfully lonely in your politics. Compulsory redistribution IS reckless, and yes I'm awfully lonely in my politics. Compulsory redistributive programs pervert incentives leading to less individual responsibility over time. These programs are clumsy cookie cutter solutions, which with a stroke a pen, impose the same formula to tens/hundreds of millions of people. On one end, the people lose out, and on the other, they win out in the short term. The only determinant of which side a person is on is the amount of currency that they report to the government that they received for that year. This is an overly simplistic formula that not only adversely affects incentives, but also becomes increasingly better gamed over time, leading to competitive energies being diverted to economically wasteful activities like tax avoidance (which is an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year now). These programs recklessly create compulsory economic relationships between millions of people, without taking into account the unique circumstances found in this vast population. They ignore localized knowledge that is diffused throughout the millions of those affected by the program, which would otherwise be the basis of spontaneous order created by the mutually voluntary economic relationships formed in the free market, in favor of a blanket judgment made by some legislature made up of a couple hundred people. They are pure economic destruction. >You sound like you want to maximize economic efficiency. I want to maximize human welfare, By far the best way to maximize human welfare is to grow the economy. Because its benefits are compounding, economic growth exceeds all other methods of raising the standard of living over the long run. I think you're also neglecting that one aspect of human welfare is to be free and not subject to authoritarianism. By your logic if an alien species offered us confinement in a wonderful utopian prison we should take that bargain because freedom doesn't matter.

natrius 10y ago
I get it, governments that forcibly redistribute are infringing on freedoms. I agree. Luckily, we now have the technology to compel redistribution without force. Blockchains allow the people to define value, and if most of the world is completely fine with redistribution, they will define value in a way that excludes people who don't redistribute from their economy. You'll be free to transact in the rump economy of dissenters. Welfare states don't require states anymore.
- aminok 10y ago
  >Welfare states don't require states anymore. Tell that to the Varoufakises and their multitudes of supporters who want state-backed coercive programs like compulsory Basic Income.