3 ms·

I sincerely regret that the US is currently missing critical opportunities such as that to deploy a state-of-the-art universal health insurance, while most of t

I sincerely regret that the US is currently missing critical opportunities such as that to deploy a state-of-the-art universal health insurance, while most of the energy of those who could support that effort is dedicated to discussing basic income. Also I point out that real-life enactments such as the French RMI, even though they succeeded at providing critical resources to those in need, are under extraordinary financial and political pressure. That pressure explains why it's become so complex, ridden with adverse effects and hated by much of the political spectrum. I'm fairly certain that basic income would suffer the same fate. Therefore I see it as a political dead end and a distraction from much-needed debates on critical social risks in the digital age.

grecy 10y ago
I understand and respect your opinion. Your opinion does not give you the right to stop others from voicing theirs, and working hard to achieve what they think is a worthwhile goal. The fact you ignored that's what my comment is saying, and merely paraphrased your article makes me think you don't care about other people's opinions and ideas, which is a really, really great way to make people not care about yours.
arielb1 10y ago
Universal healthcare is probably a good idea. And while it is a form of basic income, it feels fairly orthogonal to it politically. I'm not really sure why an "old age and unemployment" security net is intrinsically more politically stable than a "basic income" social security net. You need some deal of political cleverness to implement both.
- Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
  They're more stable because the rich, while paying more, also receive more. The pension amount is proportional to past professional income, as is that of unemployment benefits. Therefore old age and unemployment social insurances are not that redistributive, so the rich like and support them because they don't see it as "the rich pay for the poor".
Double_Cast 10y ago
Do you not see how this argument is symmetric though? It's like when Alice says to Bob "Your vote for the green party was wasted, it could have gone towards the democratic party". Sure it could have. But was Alice's vote not also wasted, when her vote could have gone towards the green party? What prevents all the dems from voting green? "Momentum; i.e. the green party's candidacy is far less realistic" says Alice. "Therefore, the democratic party deserves your green vote." I don't like winner-takes-all elections since it incentives a two-party system. But despite this current state, I'd still vote for the green candidate if I preferred it over the dem candidate. Because in the long term, it gives the dems an incentive to more closely align with the greens if they want improve their chance of success. In this sense, the green vote wasn't a distraction, it was a message. The sentiment that incumbents feel entitled to third party votes and feel that third party votes are "wasted", I find baffling. I could argue that all votes are wasted, because nobody but me voted for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only interpretation under which others' votes could be said to be "a distraction" rather than "political input" is if one believed in the objective superiority of their own beliefs. I wonder if you would change your tune if (hypothetically) UBI one day gained more momentum than Universal Health Care. But in your ideal world, this could never happen. Because all reasonable people would expend effort only into the coalition with the most momentum, which A) happens to be Universal Health Care ATM and B) will only ever be Universal Health Care in the future since the positive feedback loop never breaks.
- Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
  Maybe in the future you can vote for a party with which you are not perfectly aligned, then weigh on it while it exerts power to bring it closer to your views? I happen to think it's the greatest challenge to be tackled by civic tech startups... See this older story https://salon.thefamily.co/software-eating-politics-the-case-for-picking-elizabeth-warren-3c22477c5d9a https://salon.thefamily.co/software-eating-politics-the-case...
  - Double_Cast 10y ago
    Voters' power over a coalition varies directly with the voters' volatility. If I pledge my vote to the democrats, that gives them confidence to do what they want. Which means they'll be less likely to incorporate ideas from the greens. But I digress. My point is that I have a knee jerk reaction to arguments of the type "dems deserve your green votes". So you believe UHC is better than UBI. All good. But to end the debate on UBI because it subtracts from a related discussion is ridiculous. I read the link, and I recognize that political campaigns require large expenditures. I also believe the market place of ideas can accomidate both discussions. By calling UBI a "distraction", you are implying it'd be more convenient if the UBI discussion didn't exist because it's more convenient than letting the UBI and UHC compete on a their merits. It signals that it is inconceivable to you that UBI might in fact be the better idea, and that you'd bet the farm on UHC's superiority. Sam Altman: "Let's perform a UBI experiment and see how it goes." Nicolas Colins: "I'm a historian. I already know the outcome. The experiment is a waste of time and money." Okay bud.

grecy 10y ago

I understand and respect your opinion. Your opinion does not give you the right to stop others from voicing theirs, and working hard to achieve what they think is a worthwhile goal. The fact you ignored that's what my comment is saying, and merely paraphrased your article makes me think you don't care about other people's opinions and ideas, which is a really, really great way to make people not care about yours.

arielb1 10y ago

Universal healthcare is probably a good idea. And while it is a form of basic income, it feels fairly orthogonal to it politically. I'm not really sure why an "old age and unemployment" security net is intrinsically more politically stable than a "basic income" social security net. You need some deal of political cleverness to implement both.

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
They're more stable because the rich, while paying more, also receive more. The pension amount is proportional to past professional income, as is that of unemployment benefits. Therefore old age and unemployment social insurances are not that redistributive, so the rich like and support them because they don't see it as "the rich pay for the poor".

Double_Cast 10y ago

Do you not see how this argument is symmetric though? It's like when Alice says to Bob "Your vote for the green party was wasted, it could have gone towards the democratic party". Sure it could have. But was Alice's vote not also wasted, when her vote could have gone towards the green party? What prevents all the dems from voting green? "Momentum; i.e. the green party's candidacy is far less realistic" says Alice. "Therefore, the democratic party deserves your green vote." I don't like winner-takes-all elections since it incentives a two-party system. But despite this current state, I'd still vote for the green candidate if I preferred it over the dem candidate. Because in the long term, it gives the dems an incentive to more closely align with the greens if they want improve their chance of success. In this sense, the green vote wasn't a distraction, it was a message. The sentiment that incumbents feel entitled to third party votes and feel that third party votes are "wasted", I find baffling. I could argue that all votes are wasted, because nobody but me voted for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only interpretation under which others' votes could be said to be "a distraction" rather than "political input" is if one believed in the objective superiority of their own beliefs. I wonder if you would change your tune if (hypothetically) UBI one day gained more momentum than Universal Health Care. But in your ideal world, this could never happen. Because all reasonable people would expend effort only into the coalition with the most momentum, which A) happens to be Universal Health Care ATM and B) will only ever be Universal Health Care in the future since the positive feedback loop never breaks.

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
Maybe in the future you can vote for a party with which you are not perfectly aligned, then weigh on it while it exerts power to bring it closer to your views? I happen to think it's the greatest challenge to be tackled by civic tech startups... See this older story https://salon.thefamily.co/software-eating-politics-the-case-for-picking-elizabeth-warren-3c22477c5d9a https://salon.thefamily.co/software-eating-politics-the-case...
- Double_Cast 10y ago
  Voters' power over a coalition varies directly with the voters' volatility. If I pledge my vote to the democrats, that gives them confidence to do what they want. Which means they'll be less likely to incorporate ideas from the greens. But I digress. My point is that I have a knee jerk reaction to arguments of the type "dems deserve your green votes". So you believe UHC is better than UBI. All good. But to end the debate on UBI because it subtracts from a related discussion is ridiculous. I read the link, and I recognize that political campaigns require large expenditures. I also believe the market place of ideas can accomidate both discussions. By calling UBI a "distraction", you are implying it'd be more convenient if the UBI discussion didn't exist because it's more convenient than letting the UBI and UHC compete on a their merits. It signals that it is inconceivable to you that UBI might in fact be the better idea, and that you'd bet the farm on UHC's superiority. Sam Altman: "Let's perform a UBI experiment and see how it goes." Nicolas Colins: "I'm a historian. I already know the outcome. The experiment is a waste of time and money." Okay bud.