4 ms·

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?

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.
- Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
  Well, yes, that's my position: - there have been a lot of large-scale BI policy experiments in the past in many countries, and none turned out so well on the long term. Yes it's true that technology changes many things, but I think it should be exploited primarily to improve existing benefits (considering the criticality of healthcare and housing, two major factors of both economic insecurity and inequalities); - I think a healthcare single-payer or public option experiment would be more impactful, because this is what is currently at stake in Congress, the Supreme Court and the coming presidential election + it's important to win many small victories in the present rather than a hypothetical large one in a distant future (any union leader would agree). Finish the job on healthcare, and you'll discover that it becomes easier to advance the cause of UBI. I guess you're more of a communist and I'm more of a social-traitor ;-)
  - Double_Cast 10y ago
    > Finish the job on healthcare, and you'll discover that it becomes easier to advance the cause of UBI. This suggests you believe UHC is a useful stepping stone to UBI. Is this actually your opinion? Because it doesn't reflect the vibe I got in your article. If I understand your article correctly, you believe A) UBI is inherently fragile. B) Conservative lobbyists will cause UBI to decay into something ugly. C) UHC is more resilient. D) Therefore UHC is better. E) And France proves it. But your comments upthread suggest you believe UHC is superior because it's easier to implement given its comfortable position within the Overton-Window. The Overton-Window Argument says it may become feasible in the future, while the Fragility Argument says it will never become feasible. Frankly, I suspect the article is a Motte & Bailey. Maybe your real issue with UBI is that it will take too long to campaign for. I.e. you want your marshmallow sooner rather than later. Which is reasonable. But understand that it's another discussion entirely and was not clear to me from the article. The more charitable interpretation is that you believe UBI's fragility is due to its immaturity. And that UHC will grant us experience. Okay. But if so, this was not clear to me from your article. And it would contradict your position that UBI experiments are a waste.
    - Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
      I meant it as a conciliatory opening... What I meant is that if you care for economic security and lesser inequalities, then you have to fight for the whole liberal agenda (improving the coverage of all risks), not just one issue, otherwise the bad guys win this time, and the next, and the next. I you think UBI's worth fighting (I don't), your only chance to succeed is in the context of advancing that liberal agenda in its entirety over the long term. And right now, with Obama's legacy and Trump on the verge of winning, the main social front is social health insurance. Sadly I don't hear many tech people on that issue (for hypothetical reasons laid out in the article) and I reckon the whole UBI discussion has a responsibility in that deafening silence.
      - Double_Cast 10y ago
        > you're only chance is to advance the liberal agenda. How convenient for you. The reason why you believe UHC is a useful stepping stone is probably because making UHC a reality will pull UBI within the Overton Window. But perhaps there are other ways to improve UBI's legitimacy. Like... discussing ramifications. Or performing an experiment. Allow me to reiterate: "Voters' power over a coalition varies directly with the voters' volatility." Once a vote is pledged, the voter's negotiating leverage is lost. It's like haggling. If a potential buyer says "Oh what a nice sweater", the sweater's price is mysteriously doubles. People learn not to say things like that, because they don't want to waste their money. Agglomeration is one tactic at one's disposal. Walking away is another. Maybe that sounds weird. Because as far as you know, the only force at work in politics is economies of scale. "Join us! Resistance is futile!" True, the power of a coalition (over other coalitions) is proportional to its size. But it comes at the cost of the voters' power over its residing coalition. By analogy. A heavier motorcycle is more powerful. But a lighter motorcycle has better handling. Meditation: why do states/provinces/municipalities exist if the federal government has stronger economies of scale? UBI proponents should pledge their allegiance to liberals? Wouldn't that be convenient for you. Oops, the price just doubled. Question: how does a store convince a potential customer to part with their money? The store courts them with something of value. And how does a liberal convince a UBI proponent to part with their vote? "Your idea is dumb but mine is better. So buy into mine instead. Whoah, no need to compare -- trust me I'm a professional. Now shut up and give me your vote. By the way, your vote is worthless so you should totally give it to me." The pitch didn't start out bad, but things get sketchy fast. You're essentially trying to conscript (rather than entice) mercenaries into your coalition when you're not in a position to do so.

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.

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
Well, yes, that's my position: - there have been a lot of large-scale BI policy experiments in the past in many countries, and none turned out so well on the long term. Yes it's true that technology changes many things, but I think it should be exploited primarily to improve existing benefits (considering the criticality of healthcare and housing, two major factors of both economic insecurity and inequalities); - I think a healthcare single-payer or public option experiment would be more impactful, because this is what is currently at stake in Congress, the Supreme Court and the coming presidential election + it's important to win many small victories in the present rather than a hypothetical large one in a distant future (any union leader would agree). Finish the job on healthcare, and you'll discover that it becomes easier to advance the cause of UBI. I guess you're more of a communist and I'm more of a social-traitor ;-)
- Double_Cast 10y ago
  > Finish the job on healthcare, and you'll discover that it becomes easier to advance the cause of UBI. This suggests you believe UHC is a useful stepping stone to UBI. Is this actually your opinion? Because it doesn't reflect the vibe I got in your article. If I understand your article correctly, you believe A) UBI is inherently fragile. B) Conservative lobbyists will cause UBI to decay into something ugly. C) UHC is more resilient. D) Therefore UHC is better. E) And France proves it. But your comments upthread suggest you believe UHC is superior because it's easier to implement given its comfortable position within the Overton-Window. The Overton-Window Argument says it may become feasible in the future, while the Fragility Argument says it will never become feasible. Frankly, I suspect the article is a Motte & Bailey. Maybe your real issue with UBI is that it will take too long to campaign for. I.e. you want your marshmallow sooner rather than later. Which is reasonable. But understand that it's another discussion entirely and was not clear to me from the article. The more charitable interpretation is that you believe UBI's fragility is due to its immaturity. And that UHC will grant us experience. Okay. But if so, this was not clear to me from your article. And it would contradict your position that UBI experiments are a waste.
  - Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
    I meant it as a conciliatory opening... What I meant is that if you care for economic security and lesser inequalities, then you have to fight for the whole liberal agenda (improving the coverage of all risks), not just one issue, otherwise the bad guys win this time, and the next, and the next. I you think UBI's worth fighting (I don't), your only chance to succeed is in the context of advancing that liberal agenda in its entirety over the long term. And right now, with Obama's legacy and Trump on the verge of winning, the main social front is social health insurance. Sadly I don't hear many tech people on that issue (for hypothetical reasons laid out in the article) and I reckon the whole UBI discussion has a responsibility in that deafening silence.
    - Double_Cast 10y ago
      > you're only chance is to advance the liberal agenda. How convenient for you. The reason why you believe UHC is a useful stepping stone is probably because making UHC a reality will pull UBI within the Overton Window. But perhaps there are other ways to improve UBI's legitimacy. Like... discussing ramifications. Or performing an experiment. Allow me to reiterate: "Voters' power over a coalition varies directly with the voters' volatility." Once a vote is pledged, the voter's negotiating leverage is lost. It's like haggling. If a potential buyer says "Oh what a nice sweater", the sweater's price is mysteriously doubles. People learn not to say things like that, because they don't want to waste their money. Agglomeration is one tactic at one's disposal. Walking away is another. Maybe that sounds weird. Because as far as you know, the only force at work in politics is economies of scale. "Join us! Resistance is futile!" True, the power of a coalition (over other coalitions) is proportional to its size. But it comes at the cost of the voters' power over its residing coalition. By analogy. A heavier motorcycle is more powerful. But a lighter motorcycle has better handling. Meditation: why do states/provinces/municipalities exist if the federal government has stronger economies of scale? UBI proponents should pledge their allegiance to liberals? Wouldn't that be convenient for you. Oops, the price just doubled. Question: how does a store convince a potential customer to part with their money? The store courts them with something of value. And how does a liberal convince a UBI proponent to part with their vote? "Your idea is dumb but mine is better. So buy into mine instead. Whoah, no need to compare -- trust me I'm a professional. Now shut up and give me your vote. By the way, your vote is worthless so you should totally give it to me." The pitch didn't start out bad, but things get sketchy fast. You're essentially trying to conscript (rather than entice) mercenaries into your coalition when you're not in a position to do so.