4 ms·

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 b

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.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>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. Absolute poverty levels are at their lowest level in history. Any revolution based on class will be fuelled by resentment, not real need. Mass guillotining would also not be a phenomenon ever borne out of necessity, given it would only be possible after the revolutionaries have obtained power and total control over the population targeted for mass executions. It is borne out of spite, and if it's targeted at the rich categorically, from envy. >>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. It's not about suppressing some irrepressible force. It's about shaping human behaviour away from the arrogance of assuming one has a right to take by force another party's assets. I believe people can react differently to relative poverty depending on which behavior is tolerated in society. If you continually tell them they're victims of those who are succeeding, and validate the message by instating forcible income programs that institutionalize receipt of unearned income, they will see demands for politically coordinated violence and forcible wealth transferral as both a viable and a morally justified position. >>When given resources, people who have nothing go and spend those on necessities–basic consumption, precisely the stuff that stimulates the economy Spending at Walmart is not good for the economy in any general sense. Between investing $1 billion in R&D for a tech company, and being forced to hand over a billion to give to people who could be earning that money doing one of the many jobs for which companies are unable to find willing workers, it's clear which one would actually enhance future productivity more. >>They're not going to send the resources to an off-shore account. Money held in an offshore account isn't locked up in a vault. It is invested in real economies, to enhance productivity and abundance. Investment by people who are proven to be good investors, is excellent for the economy. >>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. We have tried forcible income redistribution, at ever greater intensities, over the last half century, and there is every indication that it's not working. Economic growth has slowed, wage growth has slowed, the labor participation rate has decreased, and the rate of incarceration, drug abuse, and single parenthood has increased.

CryptoPunk 9y ago

>>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. Absolute poverty levels are at their lowest level in history. Any revolution based on class will be fuelled by resentment, not real need. Mass guillotining would also not be a phenomenon ever borne out of necessity, given it would only be possible after the revolutionaries have obtained power and total control over the population targeted for mass executions. It is borne out of spite, and if it's targeted at the rich categorically, from envy. >>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. It's not about suppressing some irrepressible force. It's about shaping human behaviour away from the arrogance of assuming one has a right to take by force another party's assets. I believe people can react differently to relative poverty depending on which behavior is tolerated in society. If you continually tell them they're victims of those who are succeeding, and validate the message by instating forcible income programs that institutionalize receipt of unearned income, they will see demands for politically coordinated violence and forcible wealth transferral as both a viable and a morally justified position. >>When given resources, people who have nothing go and spend those on necessities–basic consumption, precisely the stuff that stimulates the economy Spending at Walmart is not good for the economy in any general sense. Between investing $1 billion in R&D for a tech company, and being forced to hand over a billion to give to people who could be earning that money doing one of the many jobs for which companies are unable to find willing workers, it's clear which one would actually enhance future productivity more. >>They're not going to send the resources to an off-shore account. Money held in an offshore account isn't locked up in a vault. It is invested in real economies, to enhance productivity and abundance. Investment by people who are proven to be good investors, is excellent for the economy. >>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. We have tried forcible income redistribution, at ever greater intensities, over the last half century, and there is every indication that it's not working. Economic growth has slowed, wage growth has slowed, the labor participation rate has decreased, and the rate of incarceration, drug abuse, and single parenthood has increased.