5 ms·
Except "collectively" is very misleading when you're taking the capital gains from say, 20k employees of a tech company and re-distributing it to 300M / 6 Billi
by alttab 10y ago
Except "collectively" is very misleading when you're taking the capital gains from say, 20k employees of a tech company and re-distributing it to 300M / 6 Billion people.
Generally I agree that being fed and housed will remove constraints on labor allocation - but its a slippery hill that ultimately leads to globalist communism. I'm not being hyperbolic - this is the system essentially described in the quotes above.
- pj_mukh 10y agoNo, actually that's straight up hyperbolic. There is no upper bound on the 20k employees' income i.e. not communism (or socialism even).
- alttab 10y agoUnless of course the governing body deems the massive revenue the 20k employees generate as "excess" and is confiscated for Basic Income in Africa - the company employing these people will have practical upper limits on what they can pay their employees as exists today - but with the additional caveat that governments can just take the money for "the common good." It's globalism. It's socialism/communism.
- tobylane 10y agoSo what happens in the (potentially short) period before the government deems that as excessive? Assume for a moment that they costed it out and it's sustainable.
- unprepare 10y agoWhat you've described is taxes. so under your definition, all nations are today already globalist/communist/socialist.
- CPLX 10y ago> its a slippery hill that ultimately leads to globalist communism. I'm not being hyperbolic - this is the system essentially described in the quotes above. That's not correct. Communism is ownership of the means of production. Nobody has proposed that the technology company be owned or operated by the government. What's being proposed is a reallocation of streams of income. While I understand there is some vague similarity, these are not at all the same things. The crucial difference being that market forces are still quite free to allocate capital.
- alttab 10y agoIn practice this doesn't actually work because the organization doesn't have freedom to re-invest. Once the government can come in and say "we deem all this money in excess, so we will confiscate it". What if that happened to Apple after the successful iMac in the early 2000's? We may have never seen the iPod or iPhone - as an example. All the system needs to control resources is to define it as "excess capital or resources." You end up with a globally centralized economy, where the independent business owners are robbed when successful to feed the system.
- lambertsimnel 10y agoIs anybody advocating arbitrary confiscation of private wealth? It seems more likely to me that BI would involve lawful taxation.
- lugg 10y agoAs someone on the for side for BI, I still see "lawful taxation" as an equivalent of armed robbery. Try to dodge the tax man for enough money there will be gunmen at your door to take you to prison.
- dllthomas 10y ago> Try to dodge the tax man for enough money there will be gunmen at your door to take you to prison. Eventually, yes. That's also true if you try to dodge your local restaurant, after availing yourself of their services. Of course the practical inability to refrain from "using" government is a big difference! But it needs to be included in the analysis - it is not as simple as "if you don't pay, there will eventually be force; ergo it is robbery".