3 ms·

> Welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely subsist, not strive for greatness. I mean the entire United States was founded on the belief that w

> Welfare does the opposite of this. It helps people merely subsist, not strive for greatness. I mean the entire United States was founded on the belief that welfare unlocks greatness, because the founding fathers all believed that citizens wouldn't contribute to having a republic unless they shared in the ownership of the means of production. It's not like this is some crazy new experiment, we've been doing this for hundreds of years with everything from cod fisheries in the 1700s, the homestead act in the 1800s, ESOPs in the 1900s, tech startups in the 2000s, etc. Source: https://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Share-Reducing-Inequality-Century/dp/0300209339/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513212932&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Citizens+Share https://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Share-Reducing-Inequality-Ce...

ameister14 9y ago
Representation based on land ownership is close to the opposite of UBI
- Alex3917 9y ago
  In the 1700s capital was considered to be land, because owning land was how you made money — either by working the land or by renting it to others to work. Whereas today capital is considered to be mainly money, because owning money is how you make more money. E.g. by investing in Google in the 90s, Bitcoin in the 2000s, etc. So giving people money today is basically the equivalent of giving people land in the 1700 and 1800s.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Sure, if the us govt said "only land owners should vote, so were giving everyone land" you might have a point.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Whereas today capital is considered to be mainly money No. While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      According to that definition, money is capital as long as it's being used as an input to create new wealth rather than to purchase goods and services for consumption. We can see this is empirically true since 95+% of the income gains from the economic recovery have gone to the wealthiest 1%.
tomohawk 9y ago
This is not even wrong. EDIT: James Madison, the principle author of the US Constitution, in reference to a bill proposing to give aid to French refugees, had this to say: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that Article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=00...
- Alex3917 9y ago
  Just grab any U.S. history book. The original drafts of the Declaration of Independence talked about the importance of property, because the founding fathers spent an enormous amount of time thinking through the implications of what would happen if citizens just voted to take all the property away from the wealthy. (Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s.) And they came to the conclusion that the only way to prevent that from happening was through ensuring that every citizen owned a stake in the means of production, and believed that only with welfare would it be possible to unlock the potential of both the individual and the government. Also, in reference to your Madison quote, in The Federal Papers he expressed the fear that if the majority of Americans didn't own land then they would vote to take away the property rights of those who did. His solution was "extending the sphere", aka making the country large enough so that everyone could own land. That way the government could give away "free land", but that once individuals already owned personal land the government wouldn't have to take it away in redistribution programs or whatever. He was never able to come up with a longterm solution, but he recognized that it was a fundamental problem that could eventually destroy that republic.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s History books don't say stuff like this. You are making ahistorical arguments about men who owned slaves.
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      With Bitcoin, those who don't own coins can at any point vote to take away all the coins from those who do. That's exactly the same problem that the founders were worried about. There isn't any sort of fancy historical imagination that's needed.

ameister14 9y ago

Representation based on land ownership is close to the opposite of UBI

Alex3917 9y ago
In the 1700s capital was considered to be land, because owning land was how you made money — either by working the land or by renting it to others to work. Whereas today capital is considered to be mainly money, because owning money is how you make more money. E.g. by investing in Google in the 90s, Bitcoin in the 2000s, etc. So giving people money today is basically the equivalent of giving people land in the 1700 and 1800s.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Sure, if the us govt said "only land owners should vote, so were giving everyone land" you might have a point.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Whereas today capital is considered to be mainly money No. While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    According to that definition, money is capital as long as it's being used as an input to create new wealth rather than to purchase goods and services for consumption. We can see this is empirically true since 95+% of the income gains from the economic recovery have gone to the wealthiest 1%.

tomohawk 9y ago

This is not even wrong. EDIT: James Madison, the principle author of the US Constitution, in reference to a bill proposing to give aid to French refugees, had this to say: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that Article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=00...

Alex3917 9y ago
Just grab any U.S. history book. The original drafts of the Declaration of Independence talked about the importance of property, because the founding fathers spent an enormous amount of time thinking through the implications of what would happen if citizens just voted to take all the property away from the wealthy. (Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s.) And they came to the conclusion that the only way to prevent that from happening was through ensuring that every citizen owned a stake in the means of production, and believed that only with welfare would it be possible to unlock the potential of both the individual and the government. Also, in reference to your Madison quote, in The Federal Papers he expressed the fear that if the majority of Americans didn't own land then they would vote to take away the property rights of those who did. His solution was "extending the sphere", aka making the country large enough so that everyone could own land. That way the government could give away "free land", but that once individuals already owned personal land the government wouldn't have to take it away in redistribution programs or whatever. He was never able to come up with a longterm solution, but he recognized that it was a fundamental problem that could eventually destroy that republic.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s History books don't say stuff like this. You are making ahistorical arguments about men who owned slaves.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    With Bitcoin, those who don't own coins can at any point vote to take away all the coins from those who do. That's exactly the same problem that the founders were worried about. There isn't any sort of fancy historical imagination that's needed.