5 ms·

This analysis made me think about a comment someone made about basic income (paraphrasing): "If we renamed it to 'guillotine insurance', maybe the rich and pow

This analysis made me think about a comment someone made about basic income (paraphrasing): "If we renamed it to 'guillotine insurance', maybe the rich and powerful would get the point of it"

cuspycode 9y ago
That's a strange comment considering that most people who get hurt in a blood-thirsty revolution are generally not the rich and powerful.
- cmurf 9y ago
  Depends on your perspective. There are worse things than death. And equalizing misery is almost romantic. And compared to other revolutions, the French Revolution was not that bloody. It was just the localized executions that made for all the blood running in the streets for weeks. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...
  - vondur 9y ago
    Well, the revolts in the Vendée killed up to 130,000 people. But I doubt most of them were the rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      But this was a counter-revolution, not a revolution.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        No, while it was a revolts against the revolutionaey regime, it was not one to restore the pre-revolutionary regime or the classes who lost power in the revolution, it was a popular peasant uprising sgainst conscription by the revolutionary regime. OTOH, even if it were a counter-revolution, why would it be excluded: would you really make the argument that a revolution isn't particularly bloody, if you have ignore the cost in lives of putting down attempts to restore the old order? That's part of the cost of achieved a revolution.
        Nomentatus 9y ago
        The counter-revolution was more to restore church power than the monarchy (that's how the peasants were enlisted, anyway), but that's not a relevant detail. Re why exclude: You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Might be true but can't be shown by citing counter-revolutions. Sure, similarly, White Russian soldiers killed a lot of poor peasants - but then, why wouldn't they?
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Well, it wasn't me, and the claim didn't mention “initial”, it was: “most people who get hurt in a blood-thirsty revolution are generally not the rich and powerful.” I think it's fair to characterize people killed in resistance by the old order before the institutionalization of the revolution to be hurt in the revolution.
        Nomentatus 9y ago
        You are agreeing strenuously, I think.
  - baud147258 9y ago
    It's not just the executions for the French Revolution. You have to add all the wars that followed during 20 years, including the wars fought by Napoleon. So we're talking a few hundred thousand deaths still.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  "Most." Which implies a spectacular increase in the risk to the rich, who were previously exceptionally secure.
- Terr_ 9y ago
  In absolute terms, sure, but that doesn't mean much since the rich and powerful are already a tiny (but powerful) minority. Are you saying that in proportional terms the non-wealthy were hurt more as well?
CryptoPunk 9y ago
If there are people that would behead other people out of resentment for their success, the last thing I want to do is appease them with basic income paid out of my taxes. The kind of attitude that rationalizes violence with generalizations based on a single variable like wealth should be penalized, not rewarded with money. Besides the principle of the matter, which is very important to me, I think acquiescing to predatory and bigoted attitudes, like those held by advocates of class warfare, will result in a more dangerous society in the future. It is actually less risky in the long run to confront and push back against those types of attitudes wherever they arise, than to give into its demands, in my opinion.
- fnordsensei 9y ago
  Well, I disagree, and I don't think it is about demands, but basic needs. In particular, I find the notion that the core problem is "resentment of success" to be very naive, especially when projected at such a large segment of society. It's perfectly predictable what courses of action a desperate person will start to contemplate. It's equally predictable what is bound to happen when desperation becomes systemic. I find the philosophical discussion about what is owed, deserved, right, wrong, moral and immoral disinteresting in this context. "What works", is more interesting. History suggests that violence and suppression ("pushing back"), works temporarily, with the predictable result that the targets now have even less to lose, and become even more desperate. Which of course, if you're naive, suggests that even more suppression is needed. And so on. At some point, it explodes in the end, one way or another. Personally, I suspect that guillotine insurance is cheaper for everyone. When given resources, people who have nothing go and spend those on necessities–basic consumption, precisely the stuff that stimulates the economy. They're not going to send the resources to an off-shore account. This benefits society at large. Markets live and die by their ability to sustain healthy, large scale exchange of goods and services. I.e., don't you worry that you might be doing someone a service, that money will make it back to your pocket, and—most likely—then some. So maybe there's a way to make more money for everyone, alleviate suffering, and decrease the need for suppressive force all at once. The downside being, maybe, that we have to give up some ideology to pursue what's effective. Which is not to say that basic income is guaranteed to work. We don't know yet, because it hasn't been tried at scale.

This analysis made me think about a comment someone made about basic income (paraphrasing): "If we renamed it to 'guillotine insurance', maybe the rich and powerful would get the point of it"

cuspycode 9y ago

That's a strange comment considering that most people who get hurt in a blood-thirsty revolution are generally not the rich and powerful.

cmurf 9y ago
Depends on your perspective. There are worse things than death. And equalizing misery is almost romantic. And compared to other revolutions, the French Revolution was not that bloody. It was just the localized executions that made for all the blood running in the streets for weeks. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...
- vondur 9y ago
  Well, the revolts in the Vendée killed up to 130,000 people. But I doubt most of them were the rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    But this was a counter-revolution, not a revolution.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      No, while it was a revolts against the revolutionaey regime, it was not one to restore the pre-revolutionary regime or the classes who lost power in the revolution, it was a popular peasant uprising sgainst conscription by the revolutionary regime. OTOH, even if it were a counter-revolution, why would it be excluded: would you really make the argument that a revolution isn't particularly bloody, if you have ignore the cost in lives of putting down attempts to restore the old order? That's part of the cost of achieved a revolution.
      - Nomentatus 9y ago
        The counter-revolution was more to restore church power than the monarchy (that's how the peasants were enlisted, anyway), but that's not a relevant detail. Re why exclude: You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Might be true but can't be shown by citing counter-revolutions. Sure, similarly, White Russian soldiers killed a lot of poor peasants - but then, why wouldn't they?
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Well, it wasn't me, and the claim didn't mention “initial”, it was: “most people who get hurt in a blood-thirsty revolution are generally not the rich and powerful.” I think it's fair to characterize people killed in resistance by the old order before the institutionalization of the revolution to be hurt in the revolution.
        Nomentatus 9y ago
        You are agreeing strenuously, I think.
- baud147258 9y ago
  It's not just the executions for the French Revolution. You have to add all the wars that followed during 20 years, including the wars fought by Napoleon. So we're talking a few hundred thousand deaths still.
Nomentatus 9y ago
"Most." Which implies a spectacular increase in the risk to the rich, who were previously exceptionally secure.
Terr_ 9y ago
In absolute terms, sure, but that doesn't mean much since the rich and powerful are already a tiny (but powerful) minority. Are you saying that in proportional terms the non-wealthy were hurt more as well?

CryptoPunk 9y ago

If there are people that would behead other people out of resentment for their success, the last thing I want to do is appease them with basic income paid out of my taxes. The kind of attitude that rationalizes violence with generalizations based on a single variable like wealth should be penalized, not rewarded with money. Besides the principle of the matter, which is very important to me, I think acquiescing to predatory and bigoted attitudes, like those held by advocates of class warfare, will result in a more dangerous society in the future. It is actually less risky in the long run to confront and push back against those types of attitudes wherever they arise, than to give into its demands, in my opinion.

fnordsensei 9y ago
Well, I disagree, and I don't think it is about demands, but basic needs. In particular, I find the notion that the core problem is "resentment of success" to be very naive, especially when projected at such a large segment of society. It's perfectly predictable what courses of action a desperate person will start to contemplate. It's equally predictable what is bound to happen when desperation becomes systemic. I find the philosophical discussion about what is owed, deserved, right, wrong, moral and immoral disinteresting in this context. "What works", is more interesting. History suggests that violence and suppression ("pushing back"), works temporarily, with the predictable result that the targets now have even less to lose, and become even more desperate. Which of course, if you're naive, suggests that even more suppression is needed. And so on. At some point, it explodes in the end, one way or another. Personally, I suspect that guillotine insurance is cheaper for everyone. When given resources, people who have nothing go and spend those on necessities–basic consumption, precisely the stuff that stimulates the economy. They're not going to send the resources to an off-shore account. This benefits society at large. Markets live and die by their ability to sustain healthy, large scale exchange of goods and services. I.e., don't you worry that you might be doing someone a service, that money will make it back to your pocket, and—most likely—then some. So maybe there's a way to make more money for everyone, alleviate suffering, and decrease the need for suppressive force all at once. The downside being, maybe, that we have to give up some ideology to pursue what's effective. Which is not to say that basic income is guaranteed to work. We don't know yet, because it hasn't been tried at scale.