3 ms·

> Overall basic income is theft from workers Disagree, basic income is equitable distribution of a collective legacy of increasingly advanced tools and a neces

> Overall basic income is theft from workers Disagree, basic income is equitable distribution of a collective legacy of increasingly advanced tools and a necessary recognition of limited natural resources and duty to share a small portion to every human being on the basis of birth into our society, aka social contract.

ctdonath 9y ago
Your abstract 3rd-party justification from a distance fails to note the rest of that sentence: "Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those workers." When enough of those producing wealth decide that UBI = theft, they aren't going to just continue producing without pushing back. Personally, if UBI is implemented, I will "go Galt" and move to a self-sufficient homesteading-style life, leaving any cash-requiring activities (like paying taxes) to my $UBI/mo check. That I am a productive person does not mean my productivity will necessarily be taxable; I grew up in a live-off-the-land family, and would be happy to return to that lifestyle if you're going to just take a big chunk of my income just to give to others. There are enough jobs (yes, there are). Wealth is not durable (you eat a hamburger, $1 of economic wealth turns to *). Encouraging idleness by funding it is an unsustainable economic strategy, because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle.
- mbrameld 9y ago
  >because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle. You're close, and it's an easy mistake to make since it seems intuitive. However, the reality is that people find THE IDEA of paid idleness desirable. Small N, but everyone I know who has found themselves in that position has only remained idle for a very short time. Productivity quickly returns, although not in the form of trading time for money.
  - Tactic 9y ago
    I believe you but that is anecdotal. I know people that not only want to remain idle if their basic needs are taken care of but currently do, and have been doing it for decades. Like most human traits, there is a wide degree of variance. As such there is no doubt in my mind UBI would allow a greater number of idlers because it would be more easily available. Just as it would allow more people to trade a job they don't like for a constructive activity they do.
  - ctdonath 9y ago
    While I actively help the poor, it frequently appalls me how many of them choose to live that way. Basic needs met, a significant percentage find no reason to do more than watch TV, eat, and reproduce. Hence my comment elsewhere on this thread lamenting that Y Combinator, having focused on financially assisting the hyper-productive, have lost comprehension of how much of society is populated by those that only produce because they have to for survival; supply basic survival, and they do nothing. (I'm not saying that about all poor, but the fraction thereof who are is significant.)
sintaxi 9y ago
I'll grant you that you've found a clever justification for stealing from producers. The question is what do you do once the people who are generating the value no longer agree?
- chillwaves 9y ago
  The ever shrinking % of people who can viably trade labor for wages will have to count on a robot army to cleanse the world of undesirables. Either that or you pay people to dig holes and fill them back in for moral value?

ctdonath 9y ago

Your abstract 3rd-party justification from a distance fails to note the rest of that sentence: "Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those workers." When enough of those producing wealth decide that UBI = theft, they aren't going to just continue producing without pushing back. Personally, if UBI is implemented, I will "go Galt" and move to a self-sufficient homesteading-style life, leaving any cash-requiring activities (like paying taxes) to my $UBI/mo check. That I am a productive person does not mean my productivity will necessarily be taxable; I grew up in a live-off-the-land family, and would be happy to return to that lifestyle if you're going to just take a big chunk of my income just to give to others. There are enough jobs (yes, there are). Wealth is not durable (you eat a hamburger, $1 of economic wealth turns to *). Encouraging idleness by funding it is an unsustainable economic strategy, because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle.

mbrameld 9y ago
>because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle. You're close, and it's an easy mistake to make since it seems intuitive. However, the reality is that people find THE IDEA of paid idleness desirable. Small N, but everyone I know who has found themselves in that position has only remained idle for a very short time. Productivity quickly returns, although not in the form of trading time for money.
- Tactic 9y ago
  I believe you but that is anecdotal. I know people that not only want to remain idle if their basic needs are taken care of but currently do, and have been doing it for decades. Like most human traits, there is a wide degree of variance. As such there is no doubt in my mind UBI would allow a greater number of idlers because it would be more easily available. Just as it would allow more people to trade a job they don't like for a constructive activity they do.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  While I actively help the poor, it frequently appalls me how many of them choose to live that way. Basic needs met, a significant percentage find no reason to do more than watch TV, eat, and reproduce. Hence my comment elsewhere on this thread lamenting that Y Combinator, having focused on financially assisting the hyper-productive, have lost comprehension of how much of society is populated by those that only produce because they have to for survival; supply basic survival, and they do nothing. (I'm not saying that about all poor, but the fraction thereof who are is significant.)

sintaxi 9y ago

I'll grant you that you've found a clever justification for stealing from producers. The question is what do you do once the people who are generating the value no longer agree?

chillwaves 9y ago
The ever shrinking % of people who can viably trade labor for wages will have to count on a robot army to cleanse the world of undesirables. Either that or you pay people to dig holes and fill them back in for moral value?