6 ms·

Oh. That's a dumb reason. Until this it was sounding like you had an argument against UBI from society's point of view, not just based on your own financial int

by rspeer 9y ago

Oh. That's a dumb reason. Until this it was sounding like you had an argument against UBI from society's point of view, not just based on your own financial interest.

the-dude 9y ago
So it a-ok for me to work more so we can get UBI for them to work less ( pardon me, slave away! ) and will get magically creative? Dude.
- rspeer 9y ago
  I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to convince people who support UBI. The context is that people want to redistribute wealth. "But it redistributes my wealth!" is the least compelling possible argument against that.
  - the-dude 9y ago
    My wealth is already redistributed by our tax system. It is absurd to claim it is 'the least compelling' if I want to keep my taxes in check.
  - stillhere 9y ago
    In your opinion it is the least compelling argument.
ameister14 9y ago
That is an argument from society's point of view. When people don't work or contribute to the general welfare of society in any way (and they are able to, not talking about people unable to do things,) and they take from the general pool provided by the rest of the social group, they are taking away resources that could be used for other things, things that may further benefit the individuals providing resources for society. There are arguments to be made about decreasing crime, but most of the most convincing moral imperative arguments are related to religion. The more convincing Keynesian argument is about money going into the economy and driving growth because none of the people dependent on UBI will save anything at all. So from a purely utilitarian point of view, individual financial interest does come into play.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  I want people to have an option not to work, because I want an option not to work. Maybe I'd like to use that time to drink myself into a stupor and write a terrible novella and pretend I'm Ernest Hemingway in a house full of alley cats. Maybe I'd like to use that time to consider a startup idea that wouldn't be big enough to pay for everything I need like healthcare and retirement, but would be otherwise an interesting project if it didn't have to meet those financial goals out of the gate in its business plan. Maybe I would like to use that time to teach young kids how to program, not as a trade, but as a means to entertainment. You want to ascribe morality to those options, but I find the freedom to choose more interesting. It's not my job to judge which is more "productive". Maybe that novella in the end turns out to comment deeply on the human spirit, maybe those kids never use those skills "productively", maybe that startup goes bust and I return to the next plan. The moral imperative is that I should have the freedom to choose outside of the strictures of what the current job market finds productive or what government can legislate to be considered productive. If that means there are a lot more people following the first idea and drinking themselves to a stupor, then that is a market failure. Surely the labor market can stretch to entice people to such "productive" labor if it actually has to compete for their time and energy? We use a "productive morality" to prop up a market that has never had to truly compete in the entirety of its existence. (Which is to say that labor has never been a free market.) I find it funny, too, that you bring up religion as providing the most convincing moral imperative arguments for UBI, when in my mind it also religion, the Puritanical Zeal, that so colors the debate against UBI. The Puritans believed that men must work to appease God, that Productivity was an end to itself, a way to measure yourself before God. Why does everyone need to work so? You claim it is "society" that demands productivity and wishes to keep score, but many societies have never kept score, and have no need to keep score. It seems to me that the scars of Puritanical Zeal have simply replaced "God" with an uncaring "society" in a lot of the arguments. (From a purely utilitarian point of view, the more people with an option not to labor under someone else's mandate, and truly choose their own path in life, presumably the greater the well being of those individuals and the overall more well being across the spectrum of that society. Individual financial self-interest is never utilitarian, you can't maximize others' happiness thinking only of your own.)
  - 9y ago
PeterisP 9y ago
If you're talking about an opt-in system (like the one described in this article) then the opinion of those who'll be net contributors matters a lot - if they choose not to join, the whole system has no value; for someone to get UBI, someone else has to create and provide this value.

by rspeer 9y ago

Oh. That's a dumb reason. Until this it was sounding like you had an argument against UBI from society's point of view, not just based on your own financial interest.

the-dude 9y ago

So it a-ok for me to work more so we can get UBI for them to work less ( pardon me, slave away! ) and will get magically creative? Dude.

rspeer 9y ago
I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to convince people who support UBI. The context is that people want to redistribute wealth. "But it redistributes my wealth!" is the least compelling possible argument against that.
- the-dude 9y ago
  My wealth is already redistributed by our tax system. It is absurd to claim it is 'the least compelling' if I want to keep my taxes in check.
- stillhere 9y ago
  In your opinion it is the least compelling argument.

ameister14 9y ago

That is an argument from society's point of view. When people don't work or contribute to the general welfare of society in any way (and they are able to, not talking about people unable to do things,) and they take from the general pool provided by the rest of the social group, they are taking away resources that could be used for other things, things that may further benefit the individuals providing resources for society. There are arguments to be made about decreasing crime, but most of the most convincing moral imperative arguments are related to religion. The more convincing Keynesian argument is about money going into the economy and driving growth because none of the people dependent on UBI will save anything at all. So from a purely utilitarian point of view, individual financial interest does come into play.

WorldMaker 9y ago
I want people to have an option not to work, because I want an option not to work. Maybe I'd like to use that time to drink myself into a stupor and write a terrible novella and pretend I'm Ernest Hemingway in a house full of alley cats. Maybe I'd like to use that time to consider a startup idea that wouldn't be big enough to pay for everything I need like healthcare and retirement, but would be otherwise an interesting project if it didn't have to meet those financial goals out of the gate in its business plan. Maybe I would like to use that time to teach young kids how to program, not as a trade, but as a means to entertainment. You want to ascribe morality to those options, but I find the freedom to choose more interesting. It's not my job to judge which is more "productive". Maybe that novella in the end turns out to comment deeply on the human spirit, maybe those kids never use those skills "productively", maybe that startup goes bust and I return to the next plan. The moral imperative is that I should have the freedom to choose outside of the strictures of what the current job market finds productive or what government can legislate to be considered productive. If that means there are a lot more people following the first idea and drinking themselves to a stupor, then that is a market failure. Surely the labor market can stretch to entice people to such "productive" labor if it actually has to compete for their time and energy? We use a "productive morality" to prop up a market that has never had to truly compete in the entirety of its existence. (Which is to say that labor has never been a free market.) I find it funny, too, that you bring up religion as providing the most convincing moral imperative arguments for UBI, when in my mind it also religion, the Puritanical Zeal, that so colors the debate against UBI. The Puritans believed that men must work to appease God, that Productivity was an end to itself, a way to measure yourself before God. Why does everyone need to work so? You claim it is "society" that demands productivity and wishes to keep score, but many societies have never kept score, and have no need to keep score. It seems to me that the scars of Puritanical Zeal have simply replaced "God" with an uncaring "society" in a lot of the arguments. (From a purely utilitarian point of view, the more people with an option not to labor under someone else's mandate, and truly choose their own path in life, presumably the greater the well being of those individuals and the overall more well being across the spectrum of that society. Individual financial self-interest is never utilitarian, you can't maximize others' happiness thinking only of your own.)
- 9y ago

PeterisP 9y ago

If you're talking about an opt-in system (like the one described in this article) then the opinion of those who'll be net contributors matters a lot - if they choose not to join, the whole system has no value; for someone to get UBI, someone else has to create and provide this value.