7 ms·

The UBI and this article are terrible. First of all, it's expensive. Guaranteeing every American a certain sum of money will cost a ridiculous amount. Second

The UBI and this article are terrible. First of all, it's expensive. Guaranteeing every American a certain sum of money will cost a ridiculous amount. Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Third, it's funny that he points to Social Security when it is approaching disaster. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ssa/social-security-retirement http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ssa/social-security-reti... Fourth, the fear mongering about automation needs to stop. Automation will not put everyone out of work and it will not spell the end of capitalism. At every stage of technological advancement, you get people, like the UBIers, who run around like chicken with their heads cut off, Luddite Fallacy. The fact is that automation makes some jobs obsolete but compensates by creating entire industries profitable. Did Software Engineering exist in 1920? No, so don't be surprised if in 20 years a new field has arisen. I really want to stress the point about automation because I think it is the largest source of misinformation out there. In 1870, 50% of the US labor force worked in agriculture. Today guess how many? 1.2%. Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish!

elicash 10y ago
Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.
- tvanantwerp 10y ago
  Not saying I agree with the "taxation is immoral" argument, but have you ever changed a law before? Not exactly a walk in the park. The effort it takes to change even small government policies should clearly show that, for the most part, nobody really has a say in what the law is.
  - elicash 10y ago
    It's not something that's done by one person, alone. But certainly I vote, I protest, I write letters, I convince others to. I work for an advocacy organization. I knock on doors and make calls. I believe it's not nearly enough to "just vote." And if that's all someone is doing, that person has little room to complain. The taxation is immoral argument is an argument against democracy.
- Kpourdeilami 10y ago
  Reminds of the quote: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Taxation when taken too far is immoral, regardless of the popular vote
  - elicash 10y ago
    I think you're absolutely right that the "taxation is immoral" argument is one against democracy. But I still go with democracy, but with protection we ALREADY have in place to protect human rights.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - lastyearman 10y ago
    That's why we have super majority and other means to combat tyranny by majority. So how does one define the point at which taxation becomes immoral?
    - Kpourdeilami 10y ago
      I'm no expert. However, I think taxation becomes immoral when the amount you pay in taxes, is more than the amount that you keep... so anything above 50%?
      - lastyearman 10y ago
        Have you ever done the math of much taxes you actually pay (hint: products you buy include a ton of taxes)? Anyway, taxes don't matter. All taxes return to circulation (unless government is radically changing economic policy). What people are really saying is that they want to be better off than some other group of people.
      - Apocryphon 10y ago
        The wealthy in the U.S. are nowhere paying that high. I don't think the upper class in Europe even has to suffer that.
- BigDaddyD 10y ago
  > the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc. Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it. I know it's easy to make emotional arguments and I know it's easy to feel charitable with other people's money, I'm in no way rich btw, but you have to see the problem with that? > We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Tyranny of the masses is a thing and something our founders tried to prevent.
  - lastyearman 10y ago
    Everyone benefits from a strong middle class and not-too-poor class. Including you. Also I believe there is an argument to be made that more equal society is better for everyone involved.
    - BigDaddyD 10y ago
      I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.
      - lastyearman 10y ago
        What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? I think this can be argued since all markets are already regulated (thus not entirely free) nor is capitalism taken to its logical extreme anywhere in the world.
        BigDaddyD 10y ago
        > What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? If that were true then we would switch to a better system. I don't think it is and I don't think there is one. I don't know what capitalism's logical extreme is but if you are talking about anarchy then I am not for that. I believe government serves a very important role in capitalism. It enforces contracts (legal system), protects third parties (environmental hazards), and defends against foreign or domestic aggression (police, military). This isn't to say capitalism is perfect! Of course not but it is better than every other conceived system and has proven so by bringing millions out of poverty.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish! The unemployment rate is still high (~9%), and thats just people still looking who haven't given up yet. Labor force participation rate: https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png U-6: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad. The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference. Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.
    - evanpw 10y ago
      It seems to be mostly back to normal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
      - Bartweiss 10y ago
        Interesting - I wonder why that's basically recovered, but labor force participation is still at a 30 year low?
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
fromthemorning 10y ago
>Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong Oh man. Please explain this one.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN. > Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Also known as taxation, or living in a society. If you don't like money being taken from you by force then fine, just please opt out of all the services and benefits the society provides for you. This is in fact entirely doable, and it's called "renunciation of citizenship". RE the automation angle, you're ignoring the automation quality aspect. Humans can basically provide three types of labour - physical labour, cognitive labour and social labour. The first type is already almost completely eliminated by the first wave of automation, starting with industrial revolution. Current wave of automation is making inroads in the second one. Just how many people you think we can fit in jobs which value is mostly created by the fact they're done by a human (e.g. psychologist, waitress, nanny)?
- nickff 10y ago
  Renunciation of citizenship is not an effective way to opt out of the state for a few reasons,[1] such as: 1) There is nowhere on Earth that someone can go to escape the reach of government. 2) There is no reason why the anarchist should bear the burden of leaving. If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. In case you rely on social contract theory (or implied/tacit social contract theory), here is a brief explanation of why it is wrong.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho... [2] http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/02/why-social-contrac...
  - jbooth 10y ago
    >> If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. Ok, so you're just declaring yourself king of the US? You're allowed to travel wherever you want without playing by any of the rules the rest of us have agreed to? There are plenty of places in the world with no or non-functioning government, mostly Antarctica and subsaharan Africa, but there are also plenty of barely-inhabited islands where you could probably live off the grid. Just have to figure out food, medicine, etc.
samlevine 10y ago
> Automation will not put everyone out of work and it will not spell the end of capitalism. The problem isn't going to be putting everyone out of work, it's going to be putting a quarter of the country out of work or loosely attached to the labor market. The social costs for this are going to be absolute huge. Our norms are not ready for that many people to not work, and you only need a handful of people with little to lose to have massive social disorder.
- BigDaddyD 10y ago
  Let me rephrase that... Automation WILL put people out of work. Just looking at my agricultural example that is true. My point is that those people found other jobs in other industries which is why the unemployment rate isn't currently 52%. There is a reason why economists use the term "technological unemployment."

elicash 10y ago

Can't believe you're making the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Disagree with the laws? Change them. Or in this case, argue against them ever being implemented. But you won't get far arguing taxation is immoral.

tvanantwerp 10y ago
Not saying I agree with the "taxation is immoral" argument, but have you ever changed a law before? Not exactly a walk in the park. The effort it takes to change even small government policies should clearly show that, for the most part, nobody really has a say in what the law is.
- elicash 10y ago
  It's not something that's done by one person, alone. But certainly I vote, I protest, I write letters, I convince others to. I work for an advocacy organization. I knock on doors and make calls. I believe it's not nearly enough to "just vote." And if that's all someone is doing, that person has little room to complain. The taxation is immoral argument is an argument against democracy.
Kpourdeilami 10y ago
Reminds of the quote: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Taxation when taken too far is immoral, regardless of the popular vote
- elicash 10y ago
  I think you're absolutely right that the "taxation is immoral" argument is one against democracy. But I still go with democracy, but with protection we ALREADY have in place to protect human rights.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- lastyearman 10y ago
  That's why we have super majority and other means to combat tyranny by majority. So how does one define the point at which taxation becomes immoral?
  - Kpourdeilami 10y ago
    I'm no expert. However, I think taxation becomes immoral when the amount you pay in taxes, is more than the amount that you keep... so anything above 50%?
    - lastyearman 10y ago
      Have you ever done the math of much taxes you actually pay (hint: products you buy include a ton of taxes)? Anyway, taxes don't matter. All taxes return to circulation (unless government is radically changing economic policy). What people are really saying is that they want to be better off than some other group of people.
    - Apocryphon 10y ago
      The wealthy in the U.S. are nowhere paying that high. I don't think the upper class in Europe even has to suffer that.
BigDaddyD 10y ago
> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc. Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it. I know it's easy to make emotional arguments and I know it's easy to feel charitable with other people's money, I'm in no way rich btw, but you have to see the problem with that? > We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Tyranny of the masses is a thing and something our founders tried to prevent.
- lastyearman 10y ago
  Everyone benefits from a strong middle class and not-too-poor class. Including you. Also I believe there is an argument to be made that more equal society is better for everyone involved.
  - BigDaddyD 10y ago
    I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.
    - lastyearman 10y ago
      What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? I think this can be argued since all markets are already regulated (thus not entirely free) nor is capitalism taken to its logical extreme anywhere in the world.
      - BigDaddyD 10y ago
        > What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? If that were true then we would switch to a better system. I don't think it is and I don't think there is one. I don't know what capitalism's logical extreme is but if you are talking about anarchy then I am not for that. I believe government serves a very important role in capitalism. It enforces contracts (legal system), protects third parties (environmental hazards), and defends against foreign or domestic aggression (police, military). This isn't to say capitalism is perfect! Of course not but it is better than every other conceived system and has proven so by bringing millions out of poverty.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish! The unemployment rate is still high (~9%), and thats just people still looking who haven't given up yet. Labor force participation rate: https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png U-6: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Bartweiss 10y ago
Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad. The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference. Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.
  - evanpw 10y ago
    It seems to be mostly back to normal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      Interesting - I wonder why that's basically recovered, but labor force participation is still at a 30 year low?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago

fromthemorning 10y ago

>Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong Oh man. Please explain this one.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN. > Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money. Also known as taxation, or living in a society. If you don't like money being taken from you by force then fine, just please opt out of all the services and benefits the society provides for you. This is in fact entirely doable, and it's called "renunciation of citizenship". RE the automation angle, you're ignoring the automation quality aspect. Humans can basically provide three types of labour - physical labour, cognitive labour and social labour. The first type is already almost completely eliminated by the first wave of automation, starting with industrial revolution. Current wave of automation is making inroads in the second one. Just how many people you think we can fit in jobs which value is mostly created by the fact they're done by a human (e.g. psychologist, waitress, nanny)?

nickff 10y ago
Renunciation of citizenship is not an effective way to opt out of the state for a few reasons,[1] such as: 1) There is nowhere on Earth that someone can go to escape the reach of government. 2) There is no reason why the anarchist should bear the burden of leaving. If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. In case you rely on social contract theory (or implied/tacit social contract theory), here is a brief explanation of why it is wrong.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho... [2] http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/02/why-social-contrac...
- jbooth 10y ago
  >> If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave. Ok, so you're just declaring yourself king of the US? You're allowed to travel wherever you want without playing by any of the rules the rest of us have agreed to? There are plenty of places in the world with no or non-functioning government, mostly Antarctica and subsaharan Africa, but there are also plenty of barely-inhabited islands where you could probably live off the grid. Just have to figure out food, medicine, etc.

samlevine 10y ago

> Automation will not put everyone out of work and it will not spell the end of capitalism. The problem isn't going to be putting everyone out of work, it's going to be putting a quarter of the country out of work or loosely attached to the labor market. The social costs for this are going to be absolute huge. Our norms are not ready for that many people to not work, and you only need a handful of people with little to lose to have massive social disorder.

BigDaddyD 10y ago
Let me rephrase that... Automation WILL put people out of work. Just looking at my agricultural example that is true. My point is that those people found other jobs in other industries which is why the unemployment rate isn't currently 52%. There is a reason why economists use the term "technological unemployment."