4 ms·

The only place I can think of that has done something similar is the oil and land rights of the native people of Alaska, who get checks somewhere in that range.

The only place I can think of that has done something similar is the oil and land rights of the native people of Alaska, who get checks somewhere in that range. How has this turned out for them?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sergiosgc 9y ago
There's also native American communities receiving casino licensing rights. There are quite a few news articles about those cases, in the perspective of extrapolating UBI effects. Here's one such article: https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effect...
abfan1127 9y ago
the difference is the Alaska pulled natural resources out of the ground. Basic Income is just wealth transfer.
- genzoman 9y ago
  Hipster way to say "stealing" ;)
  - llamataboot 9y ago
    Absolutely not. There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors. It s not stealing if it wasn't yours in the first place. It's ours.
    - armenarmen 9y ago
      Gun pointed at face, "no sir, this is not a robbery! Clearly you must realize that it was not you who made that iPhone! What a laughable concept! Truly sir you must realize that it was never yours to begin with, and as such it belongs to me and these cheery fellows with whom I am redistributing your wealth. Robbery, pish posh!"
      - ncallaway 9y ago
        Your problem is with a concept called "taxes". You can be dismissive about it all you want, but you're the one who has a fundamental disagreement with how civilized society has been run for the last hundred years (or longer if you look outside the United States). Your satire fails to hit the mark of making someone look ridiculous, because they are describing a long-established status quo. Society isn't going to think someone describing the status quo is ridiculous or crazy for defending the status quo.
    - draugadrotten 9y ago
      > There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors. You're confused. Depending on a factor does not mean that this factor owns what you produced. Example: To make ice-cream, you depend on cows. Cows do not own your profits.
      - Fraterkes 9y ago
        Bad example, because we don't acknowledge the concept of animals owning things in the first place. The above argument is a moral one; arguing that closing the wealth gap is stealing (often) ignores that most "self-made" people depend on the labor of others and the recources we all use in society.
      - ncallaway 9y ago
        It sort of does, though. That's where the concept of taxes comes from. You use the services that the government provides in order to create value. As such, the government claims part of the value that you created. Ideally, then, the government reinvests into other services that future generations will also be able to use to create value. We can have a disagreement over how much the government should be able to claim from individuals, but I have seen very few people advocate for no taxation.
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    No, it's a way of saying "taxes". If you think taxes are stealing, you don't have a problem with hipsters. You have a problem with governance of civilized society over the last hundred years (much longer for most of the world, since the signing of the 16th amendment in 1913 in the US).
- cmiles74 9y ago
  If we can't expect people to be employed such that they can support themselves, then we'll need to look into alternatives like this. When you say "wealth transfer", from whom to whom? In this case you could argue the transfer is from the federal government to individual constituents, I don't think you can follow the dollars further then that. IMHO, it'd be refreshing to see a "wealth transfer" the benefited that bulk of the population, rather than an elite few (i.e. banking bailout during the housing crisis).
- Frondo 9y ago
  Good. Does it make a better work for a lot of people? Does it give a lot of people freedom? Does it give a lot of people more access to their basic human rights? Then bring on wealth transfer. Watching out for the rich and their tax rates is possibly the very last item on my list of priorities for "how to structure the world".
adamsea 9y ago
That's not a fair comparison. Irrespective of whatever negative social effects a Basic Income may or may not have, Alaska Natives are dealing with the consequences of their ancestors being enslaved, losing 80% of their population to disease, and their culture being attacked and almost destroyed by Imperialism. Seems like that would fuck someone up way more than any Basic Income. In this case, BI basically exists _because_ of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives
- bluetwo 9y ago
  OK, show me a community for which Basic Income has worked out well. Anywhere in the world.

The only place I can think of that has done something similar is the oil and land rights of the native people of Alaska, who get checks somewhere in that range. How has this turned out for them?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sergiosgc 9y ago

There's also native American communities receiving casino licensing rights. There are quite a few news articles about those cases, in the perspective of extrapolating UBI effects. Here's one such article: https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effect...

abfan1127 9y ago

the difference is the Alaska pulled natural resources out of the ground. Basic Income is just wealth transfer.

genzoman 9y ago
Hipster way to say "stealing" ;)
- llamataboot 9y ago
  Absolutely not. There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors. It s not stealing if it wasn't yours in the first place. It's ours.
  - armenarmen 9y ago
    Gun pointed at face, "no sir, this is not a robbery! Clearly you must realize that it was not you who made that iPhone! What a laughable concept! Truly sir you must realize that it was never yours to begin with, and as such it belongs to me and these cheery fellows with whom I am redistributing your wealth. Robbery, pish posh!"
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      Your problem is with a concept called "taxes". You can be dismissive about it all you want, but you're the one who has a fundamental disagreement with how civilized society has been run for the last hundred years (or longer if you look outside the United States). Your satire fails to hit the mark of making someone look ridiculous, because they are describing a long-established status quo. Society isn't going to think someone describing the status quo is ridiculous or crazy for defending the status quo.
  - draugadrotten 9y ago
    > There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors. You're confused. Depending on a factor does not mean that this factor owns what you produced. Example: To make ice-cream, you depend on cows. Cows do not own your profits.
    - Fraterkes 9y ago
      Bad example, because we don't acknowledge the concept of animals owning things in the first place. The above argument is a moral one; arguing that closing the wealth gap is stealing (often) ignores that most "self-made" people depend on the labor of others and the recources we all use in society.
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      It sort of does, though. That's where the concept of taxes comes from. You use the services that the government provides in order to create value. As such, the government claims part of the value that you created. Ideally, then, the government reinvests into other services that future generations will also be able to use to create value. We can have a disagreement over how much the government should be able to claim from individuals, but I have seen very few people advocate for no taxation.
- ncallaway 9y ago
  No, it's a way of saying "taxes". If you think taxes are stealing, you don't have a problem with hipsters. You have a problem with governance of civilized society over the last hundred years (much longer for most of the world, since the signing of the 16th amendment in 1913 in the US).
cmiles74 9y ago
If we can't expect people to be employed such that they can support themselves, then we'll need to look into alternatives like this. When you say "wealth transfer", from whom to whom? In this case you could argue the transfer is from the federal government to individual constituents, I don't think you can follow the dollars further then that. IMHO, it'd be refreshing to see a "wealth transfer" the benefited that bulk of the population, rather than an elite few (i.e. banking bailout during the housing crisis).
Frondo 9y ago
Good. Does it make a better work for a lot of people? Does it give a lot of people freedom? Does it give a lot of people more access to their basic human rights? Then bring on wealth transfer. Watching out for the rich and their tax rates is possibly the very last item on my list of priorities for "how to structure the world".

adamsea 9y ago

That's not a fair comparison. Irrespective of whatever negative social effects a Basic Income may or may not have, Alaska Natives are dealing with the consequences of their ancestors being enslaved, losing 80% of their population to disease, and their culture being attacked and almost destroyed by Imperialism. Seems like that would fuck someone up way more than any Basic Income. In this case, BI basically exists _because_ of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives

bluetwo 9y ago
OK, show me a community for which Basic Income has worked out well. Anywhere in the world.