5 ms·

Follow this line of thought long enough, and you get to a hukou system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system

EGreg 9y ago
Is that good or bad? Listen, I support single payer systems, but how do they figure out how much to pay in each region? Same question for UBI. I have come to believe that UBI and all other safety nets have to come with immigration requirements. Not just everyone is going to be accepted to live among rich billionaires without concern for running out of money. And so on in every neighborhood. Thus, UBI needs for each area needs to be tied in with community membership, and be based on the Consumer Price Index in that area. Communities can open themselves up to more people from time to time.
- wbl 9y ago
  California makes adding new housing illegal.
- closeparen 9y ago
  I have enough faith in the American people that we would never permit the end of freedom of movement. For one thing, it would take a Constitutional amendment to legalize internal border controls. For another, geographical mobility has been core to American identity since the earliest days of the country. You're talking about locking the Okies in the Dust Bowl. Locking the autoworkers in Detroit even after the auto industry dried up. Preventing the Great Migration of Southern blacks to the more hospitable Northern states. Deepening inequality by locking in the regional disparities that perpetuate it. This is insane, dystopic (literally, geographically-based caste systems feature in dystopian fiction with some regularity, for example the Hunger Games and Elysium), un-Constitutional, and un-American. If internal border controls ever became law, I'd be the first to sign up for the resistance in the resultant civil war.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    Whoa whoa, who's talking about ending freedom of movement? To be clear we are talking about being eligible to receive free money from whichever local area agrees to issue it to you.
    - paganel 9y ago
      > we are talking about being eligible to receive free money from whichever local area agrees to issue it to you. This looks pretty similar to the English Poor Laws, which in the end proved to be quite despotic. It started like this, at the end of the 15h century: > In 1495, Parliament passed the Vagabonds and Beggars Act ordering that "vagabonds, idle and suspected persons shall be set in the stocks for three days and three nights and have none other sustenance but bread and water and then shall be put out of Town. Every beggar suitable to work shall resort to the Hundred where he last dwelled, is best known, or was born and there remain upon the pain aforesaid." (taken from the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws) but it turned out that that made people dependent on their "original" parishes and that the other parishes/towns would not want any of them on their streets, thus impeding the free movement of people across England. There were other major ills caused by this law (this subject also has its own wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_English_Poor_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_English_Poor...), I for myself first learned of its bad effects (and of the bad effects that similar laws can cause) by reading some Bentham.
      - EGreg 9y ago
        Once again, this is NOT about forcing anyone to do anything. This is about ELIGIBILITY FOR UNCONDITIONAL BASIC INCOME. You can move anywhere you want -- but you are not guaranteed benefits. Should be obvious! If you don't allow communities to limit who can join, what is to prevent 50,000 people from various parts of California moving to Beverly Hills the next day and demanding enough UBI to live in a mansion and having private doctors?
        deleted 9y ago
- thebooktocome 9y ago
  It doesn't work so well for the Chinese. You end up with second class citizens illegally immigrating within your own borders.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

EGreg 9y ago

Is that good or bad? Listen, I support single payer systems, but how do they figure out how much to pay in each region? Same question for UBI. I have come to believe that UBI and all other safety nets have to come with immigration requirements. Not just everyone is going to be accepted to live among rich billionaires without concern for running out of money. And so on in every neighborhood. Thus, UBI needs for each area needs to be tied in with community membership, and be based on the Consumer Price Index in that area. Communities can open themselves up to more people from time to time.

wbl 9y ago
California makes adding new housing illegal.
closeparen 9y ago
I have enough faith in the American people that we would never permit the end of freedom of movement. For one thing, it would take a Constitutional amendment to legalize internal border controls. For another, geographical mobility has been core to American identity since the earliest days of the country. You're talking about locking the Okies in the Dust Bowl. Locking the autoworkers in Detroit even after the auto industry dried up. Preventing the Great Migration of Southern blacks to the more hospitable Northern states. Deepening inequality by locking in the regional disparities that perpetuate it. This is insane, dystopic (literally, geographically-based caste systems feature in dystopian fiction with some regularity, for example the Hunger Games and Elysium), un-Constitutional, and un-American. If internal border controls ever became law, I'd be the first to sign up for the resistance in the resultant civil war.
- EGreg 9y ago
  Whoa whoa, who's talking about ending freedom of movement? To be clear we are talking about being eligible to receive free money from whichever local area agrees to issue it to you.
  - paganel 9y ago
    > we are talking about being eligible to receive free money from whichever local area agrees to issue it to you. This looks pretty similar to the English Poor Laws, which in the end proved to be quite despotic. It started like this, at the end of the 15h century: > In 1495, Parliament passed the Vagabonds and Beggars Act ordering that "vagabonds, idle and suspected persons shall be set in the stocks for three days and three nights and have none other sustenance but bread and water and then shall be put out of Town. Every beggar suitable to work shall resort to the Hundred where he last dwelled, is best known, or was born and there remain upon the pain aforesaid." (taken from the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws) but it turned out that that made people dependent on their "original" parishes and that the other parishes/towns would not want any of them on their streets, thus impeding the free movement of people across England. There were other major ills caused by this law (this subject also has its own wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_English_Poor_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_English_Poor...), I for myself first learned of its bad effects (and of the bad effects that similar laws can cause) by reading some Bentham.
    - EGreg 9y ago
      Once again, this is NOT about forcing anyone to do anything. This is about ELIGIBILITY FOR UNCONDITIONAL BASIC INCOME. You can move anywhere you want -- but you are not guaranteed benefits. Should be obvious! If you don't allow communities to limit who can join, what is to prevent 50,000 people from various parts of California moving to Beverly Hills the next day and demanding enough UBI to live in a mansion and having private doctors?
      - deleted 9y ago
thebooktocome 9y ago
It doesn't work so well for the Chinese. You end up with second class citizens illegally immigrating within your own borders.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]