7 ms·

I mean, replacing food stamps with thousands of dollars a month means the money could be spent buying food. I'm confused why you would think a UBI would not be

I mean, replacing food stamps with thousands of dollars a month means the money could be spent buying food. I'm confused why you would think a UBI would not be allowed to be used to purchase food? The libertarian perspective on this is that we shouldn't tell people how to spend their money. If they can't afford food because they have no money, then give them money. Those who buy food will not starve. Those who don't, will, but they can't say they weren't able to buy food.

extralego 8y ago
What is the difference between the libertarian perspective and anarchy?
- jnwatson 8y ago
  Property rights pretty much.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Libertarians believe that government is necessary as the only means of justifiable force, but that the government ought to be only as large as necessary to provide the force necessary to protect individual rights. Anarchists believe there ought to be no government at all. If you can't see the difference still, I would recommend picking up a book. Hacker news is not the place to learn about various political philosophies.
- krapp 8y ago
  Libertarians consider government to be a necessary evil, anarchists consider it an unnecessary evil.
foolfoolz 8y ago
financial responsibility cannot be bought with UBI. ignoring how incredibly unlikely it is we would ever cancel social programs on a mass scale, let’s say we did. your example of people starving is good. in that world you get to eat only if you are financially responsible. in the current world everyone gets to eat (or we try to feed the hungry) i think the current model is way more humane. and we will never cancel social programs to have a less humane society
- graylights 8y ago
  UBI is stuck in extremes. Libertarians want to cancel social programs and replace with UBI so individuals determine how to spend their benefits. Socialists want to guarantee everyone a living wage but also want the safety nets. Policy needs to be in middle. You need to enable people to self-manage. Must be ready to help them when there is a bad turn events. But you also need to have a humane way to deal with people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness. The way to handle that is guardianship, not other government programs that can also be individually mismanaged. Guardianship will surely be more expensive then UBI but it is the humane thing to do.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness On this point, I agree 100%, but UBI programs are not really focused on the mentally ill. As is, disability is a fraction of what we traditionally think of as welfare (and it's already neglected in our current society). Most welfare are food stamps, health services, etc, for people that would otherwise be perfectly capable on their own. A UBI does not mean getting rid of programs for people that cannot actually help themselves like the severely disabled or foster children. It means not treating grown adults like children or wards of the state
nickthemagicman 8y ago
I agree. Didn't follow that logic either.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jschmitz28 8y ago
I think your parent post's implication may be that those receiving UBI who are on specific government programs would not responsibly budget the right amount of money to the right need, and that there will still be cases where people have run out of money and need the same safety nets as before. If someone (or their children) is starving to death, or in need of urgent medical care, are you going to tell them that they should've budgeted better?
- starpilot 8y ago
  By that reasoning, direct cash disbursement charities like GiveDirectly would fail miserably. But they've been shown to work extremely well. People in general understand how to allocate their own money better than the government does.
  - RhysU 8y ago
    > People in general understand how to allocate their own money better than the government does. Mwuh ha ha! Then why levy taxes for anything?!
    - scotty79 8y ago
      > Then why levy taxes for anything?! Because people owning tanks and bombs want to be paid for not using them.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      The people receiving government assistance are not expected to be the same people paying net taxes to fund it. Although the existing system is so asinine that sometimes they are, which is just another reason to replace it.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Internalizing externalities.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Knowing how best to allocate money != having enough of it.
chrisseaton 8y ago
Some people would inevitably fuck up and spend all their money and have none left to buy food... so you’d still need food banks or stamps.
- matz1 8y ago
  Same thing with welfare, despite the availability of various government program, some people still end up fuck up. If someone fuck up and use up all their UBI then they must seek private entity such as church or charity.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > If someone fuck up and use up all their UBI then they must seek private entity such as church or charity. But if this is your attitude - people who mess up should be on their own - why are you in favour of UBI? Why don’t you also think that people who can’t get a job should be on their own?
    - matz1 8y ago
      How is this any difference than the current condition right now? We have many of government program but we still have many mess up, they are on their own too. I prefer UBI because I can't choose however I want to spend it.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      > Why don’t you also think that people who can’t get a job should be on their own? Personally, I recognize that you need some level of money in order to take part in civic society. For example, it's hard to find a job without a mailing address, nice clothes, cosmetic products, and make up. It's also hard to put your time towards finding a job if you can't eat. Thus, in the interest of maximizing economic output and social engagement, we ought to provide enough money for people to be able to afford these things. If you are able to afford these things, but still mess up... well, I mean, you have freely and without coercion chosen to disengage with society. To these people, I hope they are happy with their choice, but I struggle to see how they could be.
ghosterrific 8y ago
The libertarian perspective is to not force people to give up their property, money and other assets as taxes at gunpoint in the first place. So I totally agree that the Libertarian perspective is not to TELL (force) ME to spend my money on UBI

extralego 8y ago

What is the difference between the libertarian perspective and anarchy?

jnwatson 8y ago
Property rights pretty much.
tathougies 8y ago
Libertarians believe that government is necessary as the only means of justifiable force, but that the government ought to be only as large as necessary to provide the force necessary to protect individual rights. Anarchists believe there ought to be no government at all. If you can't see the difference still, I would recommend picking up a book. Hacker news is not the place to learn about various political philosophies.
krapp 8y ago
Libertarians consider government to be a necessary evil, anarchists consider it an unnecessary evil.

foolfoolz 8y ago

financial responsibility cannot be bought with UBI. ignoring how incredibly unlikely it is we would ever cancel social programs on a mass scale, let’s say we did. your example of people starving is good. in that world you get to eat only if you are financially responsible. in the current world everyone gets to eat (or we try to feed the hungry) i think the current model is way more humane. and we will never cancel social programs to have a less humane society

graylights 8y ago
UBI is stuck in extremes. Libertarians want to cancel social programs and replace with UBI so individuals determine how to spend their benefits. Socialists want to guarantee everyone a living wage but also want the safety nets. Policy needs to be in middle. You need to enable people to self-manage. Must be ready to help them when there is a bad turn events. But you also need to have a humane way to deal with people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness. The way to handle that is guardianship, not other government programs that can also be individually mismanaged. Guardianship will surely be more expensive then UBI but it is the humane thing to do.
- tathougies 8y ago
  > incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness On this point, I agree 100%, but UBI programs are not really focused on the mentally ill. As is, disability is a fraction of what we traditionally think of as welfare (and it's already neglected in our current society). Most welfare are food stamps, health services, etc, for people that would otherwise be perfectly capable on their own. A UBI does not mean getting rid of programs for people that cannot actually help themselves like the severely disabled or foster children. It means not treating grown adults like children or wards of the state

nickthemagicman 8y ago

I agree. Didn't follow that logic either.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jschmitz28 8y ago

I think your parent post's implication may be that those receiving UBI who are on specific government programs would not responsibly budget the right amount of money to the right need, and that there will still be cases where people have run out of money and need the same safety nets as before. If someone (or their children) is starving to death, or in need of urgent medical care, are you going to tell them that they should've budgeted better?

starpilot 8y ago
By that reasoning, direct cash disbursement charities like GiveDirectly would fail miserably. But they've been shown to work extremely well. People in general understand how to allocate their own money better than the government does.
- RhysU 8y ago
  > People in general understand how to allocate their own money better than the government does. Mwuh ha ha! Then why levy taxes for anything?!
  - scotty79 8y ago
    > Then why levy taxes for anything?! Because people owning tanks and bombs want to be paid for not using them.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    The people receiving government assistance are not expected to be the same people paying net taxes to fund it. Although the existing system is so asinine that sometimes they are, which is just another reason to replace it.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Internalizing externalities.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Knowing how best to allocate money != having enough of it.

chrisseaton 8y ago

Some people would inevitably fuck up and spend all their money and have none left to buy food... so you’d still need food banks or stamps.

matz1 8y ago
Same thing with welfare, despite the availability of various government program, some people still end up fuck up. If someone fuck up and use up all their UBI then they must seek private entity such as church or charity.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > If someone fuck up and use up all their UBI then they must seek private entity such as church or charity. But if this is your attitude - people who mess up should be on their own - why are you in favour of UBI? Why don’t you also think that people who can’t get a job should be on their own?
  - matz1 8y ago
    How is this any difference than the current condition right now? We have many of government program but we still have many mess up, they are on their own too. I prefer UBI because I can't choose however I want to spend it.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > Why don’t you also think that people who can’t get a job should be on their own? Personally, I recognize that you need some level of money in order to take part in civic society. For example, it's hard to find a job without a mailing address, nice clothes, cosmetic products, and make up. It's also hard to put your time towards finding a job if you can't eat. Thus, in the interest of maximizing economic output and social engagement, we ought to provide enough money for people to be able to afford these things. If you are able to afford these things, but still mess up... well, I mean, you have freely and without coercion chosen to disengage with society. To these people, I hope they are happy with their choice, but I struggle to see how they could be.

ghosterrific 8y ago

The libertarian perspective is to not force people to give up their property, money and other assets as taxes at gunpoint in the first place. So I totally agree that the Libertarian perspective is not to TELL (force) ME to spend my money on UBI