3 ms·

> I'm not aware of any basic income proposal that includes such measures YET. You've actually summarized the actual text, not the important subtext. The subtex

by jack9 10y ago

> I'm not aware of any basic income proposal that includes such measures YET. You've actually summarized the actual text, not the important subtext. The subtext is that under a UIB, the government can effectively tell you how to behave and almost directly, control your choices from a new orthogonal legal standpoint. Hey, the US isn't barring Pepsi from a free and open marketplace, but if you buy a Pepsi produce we'll revoke your UIB. Who? That birthed organization that's a cross between the TSA and the IRS to administrate the UIB which is necessary "to prevent abuse". Fraud will run rampant in the first attempts. I find these behaviors, embarassingly commonplace, in US programs.

wmf 10y ago
It still seems to me that the government could already do this and thus it is an argument against any and all new government regulations, but whatever.
- MR4D 10y ago
  Simple example today in the US is welfare. The government prevents people from buying alcohol or cigarettes with their welfare money. Of course there are numerous work-arounds, but the point is that it happens today. Now extend that to the whole population, and the issue is considerable.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    A very big point of UBI is to eliminate exactly the type of regulation because both of personal liberty reasons and, perhaps more importantly, it is a source of administrative inefficiency in the programs. The development of the political consensus necessary to pass a UBI would be, exactly, a political rejection of the idea that such restrictions are desirable. Trying to scaremonger against UBI with this as the supposed threat is nonsense, because it is, in effect, defending the status quo in which these kinds of restrictions are already imposed on people against a change which would remove them on the idea that somehow, in the distant future, those type of restrictions might be reimposed.

by jack9 10y ago

wmf 10y ago

It still seems to me that the government could already do this and thus it is an argument against any and all new government regulations, but whatever.

MR4D 10y ago
Simple example today in the US is welfare. The government prevents people from buying alcohol or cigarettes with their welfare money. Of course there are numerous work-arounds, but the point is that it happens today. Now extend that to the whole population, and the issue is considerable.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  A very big point of UBI is to eliminate exactly the type of regulation because both of personal liberty reasons and, perhaps more importantly, it is a source of administrative inefficiency in the programs. The development of the political consensus necessary to pass a UBI would be, exactly, a political rejection of the idea that such restrictions are desirable. Trying to scaremonger against UBI with this as the supposed threat is nonsense, because it is, in effect, defending the status quo in which these kinds of restrictions are already imposed on people against a change which would remove them on the idea that somehow, in the distant future, those type of restrictions might be reimposed.