5 ms·

Bukowski the postal worker was offered a basic income and he took it, and in the process became Bukowski the writer. Currently in France there is a big debate

by bambax 10y ago

Bukowski the postal worker was offered a basic income and he took it, and in the process became Bukowski the writer. Currently in France there is a big debate about a universal, unconditional basic income, that one of the candidates to the left primaries defends, against the mockery and outrage of everyone else, right, left and center. (He arrived first at the first round with 35% of the vote, and looks like he will win next week, so all is not lost). Still, it's surprising that so many people are against this idea. They're not just saying it's impractical, impossible, too expensive, etc. (although they are saying that as well) -- they're opposed to it on principle. But what principle? For lack of a better explanation and at the risk of being polemical, I think the reason is, people hate other people's freedom. People want other people to be not free, even at the cost of their own freedom. Thinking that we could actually be able to choose a life without work or bosses or a schedule drives many people mad.

galfarragem 10y ago
> I think the reason is, people hate other people's freedom. Most people, even if they don't like the actual system, are 'invested' in it and don't want any change. Changing rules in the middle of the game would take any meaning (already residual) from their past life strategy. All would have been just a big waste of time.
woldendans 10y ago
I am living in France and here are the arguments I heard against the Universal income so far that has nothing to do with cost or impossibility to set up. Some say this is a patch to hide misery. The idea is that they think we should not give people charity, keeping them alive but still poor, and instead focus on the real problem: the lack of jobs and the disparity of incomes. I even heard from some that the Universal Income is a Silicon Valley idea to keep getting richer while giving the poor just enough to keep consuming, thus maintaining the capitalistic economy alive. An other argument I have heard beside cost is that it encourages/rewards laziness and inactivity.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Some say this is a patch to hide misery. The idea is that they think we should not give people charity, keeping them alive in misery, but instead focus on the real problem: the lack of jobs and the disparity of incomes. The "lack of jobs" would be the real problem is jobs were premised to be available. But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck.
  - rubber_duck 10y ago
    >But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck. I agree with this view but you also need to realize that if you follow that logic the only reason society exists is because cooperation worked better than alternatives, specialization and jobs came out of that. Now if that's no longer true the core premise of the society disappears, and all the arguments against that is essentially people feeling uncomfortable with this outcome - that a huge part of people will have no role in society and will be dead weight at the mercy of those in power - it's not hard to see why this view makes them uncomfortable.
- galfarragem 10y ago
  > An other argument I have heard beside cost is that it encourages/rewards laziness and inactivity. If you filter some people and reward others, you encourage laziness and inactivity on people near the threshold but if you don't filter anybody the problem disappears. Humans are naturally active.
coldtea 10y ago
>they're opposed to it on principle. But what principle? They apparently also believe that Earth came prepackaged into real estate belonging to specific people, as opposed to the resources available being there for all.
dilemma 10y ago
Bukowski was not only offered a salary for his work, but ownership in the enterprise itself, in the form of the copyright he had as an author. I am against UBI on the basis of practicality and the principles of equality, democracy, and human rights. For practicality, the impossibility of setting the level of this income. Should it cover job loss for you and a family of 4 living on Manhattan or the Bay Area, or should it cover the needs of a single 25 year old with no health complications living in Detroit? You cannot even answer this simple question and regardless of your answer, your camp will not agree with you because it is impossible to set. As for equality, a subsistence income which is the only type that is practically feasible, will create a captured class, living in slums and unable to manage their own lives, plan for the future, raise a family. They will forever be stuck in a location with awful schooling, health care, no jobs and no access to higher education. And they will only ever vote for modest increases in their income as it will be their only means of bettering their lot in life - hence being captured in a dreadful reality and a dreadful political ideology. It would be a society not seen since Rome, and it would cause enormous social unrest. Thankfully it will never happen because you cannot even decide on the level of this income.
mantas 10y ago
> I think the reason is, people hate other people's freedom What kind of freedom is it to live off unearned money, paid in by other people? It's as freedom as begging is. If everybody would live off UBI, what would happen? It'd collapse flat out. It's not freedom if everybody can't enjoy it together.
- Aaargh20318 10y ago
  > What kind of freedom is it to live off unearned money, paid in by other people? Ask the 1%.

by bambax 10y ago

galfarragem 10y ago

> I think the reason is, people hate other people's freedom. Most people, even if they don't like the actual system, are 'invested' in it and don't want any change. Changing rules in the middle of the game would take any meaning (already residual) from their past life strategy. All would have been just a big waste of time.

woldendans 10y ago

I am living in France and here are the arguments I heard against the Universal income so far that has nothing to do with cost or impossibility to set up. Some say this is a patch to hide misery. The idea is that they think we should not give people charity, keeping them alive but still poor, and instead focus on the real problem: the lack of jobs and the disparity of incomes. I even heard from some that the Universal Income is a Silicon Valley idea to keep getting richer while giving the poor just enough to keep consuming, thus maintaining the capitalistic economy alive. An other argument I have heard beside cost is that it encourages/rewards laziness and inactivity.

coldtea 10y ago
>Some say this is a patch to hide misery. The idea is that they think we should not give people charity, keeping them alive in misery, but instead focus on the real problem: the lack of jobs and the disparity of incomes. The "lack of jobs" would be the real problem is jobs were premised to be available. But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  >But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck. I agree with this view but you also need to realize that if you follow that logic the only reason society exists is because cooperation worked better than alternatives, specialization and jobs came out of that. Now if that's no longer true the core premise of the society disappears, and all the arguments against that is essentially people feeling uncomfortable with this outcome - that a huge part of people will have no role in society and will be dead weight at the mercy of those in power - it's not hard to see why this view makes them uncomfortable.
galfarragem 10y ago
> An other argument I have heard beside cost is that it encourages/rewards laziness and inactivity. If you filter some people and reward others, you encourage laziness and inactivity on people near the threshold but if you don't filter anybody the problem disappears. Humans are naturally active.

coldtea 10y ago

>they're opposed to it on principle. But what principle? They apparently also believe that Earth came prepackaged into real estate belonging to specific people, as opposed to the resources available being there for all.

dilemma 10y ago

Bukowski was not only offered a salary for his work, but ownership in the enterprise itself, in the form of the copyright he had as an author. I am against UBI on the basis of practicality and the principles of equality, democracy, and human rights. For practicality, the impossibility of setting the level of this income. Should it cover job loss for you and a family of 4 living on Manhattan or the Bay Area, or should it cover the needs of a single 25 year old with no health complications living in Detroit? You cannot even answer this simple question and regardless of your answer, your camp will not agree with you because it is impossible to set. As for equality, a subsistence income which is the only type that is practically feasible, will create a captured class, living in slums and unable to manage their own lives, plan for the future, raise a family. They will forever be stuck in a location with awful schooling, health care, no jobs and no access to higher education. And they will only ever vote for modest increases in their income as it will be their only means of bettering their lot in life - hence being captured in a dreadful reality and a dreadful political ideology. It would be a society not seen since Rome, and it would cause enormous social unrest. Thankfully it will never happen because you cannot even decide on the level of this income.

mantas 10y ago

> I think the reason is, people hate other people's freedom What kind of freedom is it to live off unearned money, paid in by other people? It's as freedom as begging is. If everybody would live off UBI, what would happen? It'd collapse flat out. It's not freedom if everybody can't enjoy it together.

Aaargh20318 10y ago
> What kind of freedom is it to live off unearned money, paid in by other people? Ask the 1%.