3 ms·

Even pretty staunch libertarians are willing to entertain the value of the state when it comes to the transition into post-scarcity markets, and even this trans

Even pretty staunch libertarians are willing to entertain the value of the state when it comes to the transition into post-scarcity markets, and even this transition into markets that net diminishing value from many human endeavors (as we are already seeing). I just think that most libertarian types, myself included, don't want that to mean an overbearing bureaucratic system that necessarily creates perverse incentives and rations resources along politically contentious dimensions. Let us keep our markets, just help balance them. Universal basic income to keep the bottom in check, anti-monopoly, anti-collusion to keep the top in check, and then please fuck off. No affordable housing, no welfare, no social security, no food stamps, no shelters. Just give everyone cash and fuck off. If they want to create an authoritarian sub-state, or sibling-state, for the people that just cannot take care of themselves, despite all the necessary resources literally being deposited in their bank accounts, so be it, but don't rope the rest of functional society into the moral authoritarian nightmare we're currently already sinking into.

Hear_hear 8y ago
Hear, hear.
harimau777 8y ago
What checks would be in place to insure that the UBI was sufficient to substitute for eliminating affordable housing, social security, and food stamps?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  UBI shouldn't replace Social Security, since SS is not a means-tested benefit program.
aNoob7000 8y ago
The problem I see with everything you said is that people are going to vote in their best interest. No one is going to vote for a system that if you can't cut it because of a disability, health problem, or just plain life circumstance then you are basically screwed.
- ralusek 8y ago
  I mean UBI should ensure that nobody is screwed, but notice that I didn't mention disability or healthcare in the systems to cut. I think that health is one of the things that is such an unfair distribution of misery that a universal system isn't enough to mitigate it equitably. So I think there should/could be a system dedicated specifically to managing that problem that exists independently of the UBI.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Even pretty staunch libertarians are willing to entertain the value of the state when it comes to the transition into post-scarcity markets A post-scarcity situation means there is no value and there are no markets. Scarcity creates value and cost, and value and cost are necessary for markets. (Markets, to frame it slightly differently, are a tool for managing the limitations imposed by scarcity.) Of course, the clear importance of relative prosperity and deprivation in human utility and disutility combined with the fact that, however productive we become, resources are finite, means you aren't going to have a post-scarcity situation with anything like the humans we know, it's a fantasy that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
- ralusek 8y ago
  I agree with you, but I mean post-scarcity in the sense that humans aren't really providing much value to the market in an objective sense, and all of their needs can mostly be met with very little cost to society at large. I also mean this as a gradient process. In regards to the scarcity of labor, we're clearly pretty well on our way to transitioning past human utility for many physical tasks, right? The value contributed by being physically capable of carrying a given capacity is something that previously gave one the capability to add value to countless endeavors, and now that is effectively adding no value at all. This will continue along this trajectory. And what we're seeing now is the same thing happening for tasks requiring mental proficiency. Most rote tasks regarding formatting data, inputting data, basic analysis, etc, are all thoroughly being replaced by software and ML. What is effectively happening now is that the bar for the minimum necessary cognitive capabilities is slowly being raised, and more and more of the population will become fully incapable of providing any objective value to the majority of the market. People act like this is a process that necessarily results in a 1:1 replacement of jobs, like "oh but who will build those machines? who will replace them?" As though there's some magical symmetry that keeps the process balanced, but no such force exists. In regards to the other side of the scarcity problem, the scarcity of resources, we're well on our way to being past that problem. Markets continue to drive the cost of goods down, and the actual cost of sustaining a basic human existence with food and shelter is well short of the theoretical point of absolute removal of scarcity in this regard. So it's not impossible to imagine that we're well on our way to a point where most humans are capable of adding very little objective value that cannot be solved better by available technology, and available technology is capable of providing humans with what is necessary to live a comfortable life with very little net cost to society at large. What will happen at this point, I would imagine, is that new markets will simply emerge with a much heavier emphasis on subjective preferences and desires. Scarcity of physical space will be magnified, arbitrary scarcity like explicitly limiting attendance to events, things like this. I think that the "artisanal" side of the market that you're already seeing emerge will probably continue to grow, where the product itself is not valued necessarily because of its objective utility, but rather because it was made by a person. So that's what I mean by post-scarcity. I don't mean it in the Marxist sense where we've eradicated the possibility for markets to exist. And I think that in the future I've described, something that looks like UBI will probably be a necessary instrument to ensure that we can maintain the existence of markets while recognizing that we have the capability to provide humans a comfortable existence at very little cost to society, in a time where they are very unlikely to be able to add any real value back.

Hear_hear 8y ago

Hear, hear.

harimau777 8y ago

What checks would be in place to insure that the UBI was sufficient to substitute for eliminating affordable housing, social security, and food stamps?

dragonwriter 8y ago
UBI shouldn't replace Social Security, since SS is not a means-tested benefit program.

aNoob7000 8y ago

The problem I see with everything you said is that people are going to vote in their best interest. No one is going to vote for a system that if you can't cut it because of a disability, health problem, or just plain life circumstance then you are basically screwed.

ralusek 8y ago
I mean UBI should ensure that nobody is screwed, but notice that I didn't mention disability or healthcare in the systems to cut. I think that health is one of the things that is such an unfair distribution of misery that a universal system isn't enough to mitigate it equitably. So I think there should/could be a system dedicated specifically to managing that problem that exists independently of the UBI.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Even pretty staunch libertarians are willing to entertain the value of the state when it comes to the transition into post-scarcity markets A post-scarcity situation means there is no value and there are no markets. Scarcity creates value and cost, and value and cost are necessary for markets. (Markets, to frame it slightly differently, are a tool for managing the limitations imposed by scarcity.) Of course, the clear importance of relative prosperity and deprivation in human utility and disutility combined with the fact that, however productive we become, resources are finite, means you aren't going to have a post-scarcity situation with anything like the humans we know, it's a fantasy that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

ralusek 8y ago
I agree with you, but I mean post-scarcity in the sense that humans aren't really providing much value to the market in an objective sense, and all of their needs can mostly be met with very little cost to society at large. I also mean this as a gradient process. In regards to the scarcity of labor, we're clearly pretty well on our way to transitioning past human utility for many physical tasks, right? The value contributed by being physically capable of carrying a given capacity is something that previously gave one the capability to add value to countless endeavors, and now that is effectively adding no value at all. This will continue along this trajectory. And what we're seeing now is the same thing happening for tasks requiring mental proficiency. Most rote tasks regarding formatting data, inputting data, basic analysis, etc, are all thoroughly being replaced by software and ML. What is effectively happening now is that the bar for the minimum necessary cognitive capabilities is slowly being raised, and more and more of the population will become fully incapable of providing any objective value to the majority of the market. People act like this is a process that necessarily results in a 1:1 replacement of jobs, like "oh but who will build those machines? who will replace them?" As though there's some magical symmetry that keeps the process balanced, but no such force exists. In regards to the other side of the scarcity problem, the scarcity of resources, we're well on our way to being past that problem. Markets continue to drive the cost of goods down, and the actual cost of sustaining a basic human existence with food and shelter is well short of the theoretical point of absolute removal of scarcity in this regard. So it's not impossible to imagine that we're well on our way to a point where most humans are capable of adding very little objective value that cannot be solved better by available technology, and available technology is capable of providing humans with what is necessary to live a comfortable life with very little net cost to society at large. What will happen at this point, I would imagine, is that new markets will simply emerge with a much heavier emphasis on subjective preferences and desires. Scarcity of physical space will be magnified, arbitrary scarcity like explicitly limiting attendance to events, things like this. I think that the "artisanal" side of the market that you're already seeing emerge will probably continue to grow, where the product itself is not valued necessarily because of its objective utility, but rather because it was made by a person. So that's what I mean by post-scarcity. I don't mean it in the Marxist sense where we've eradicated the possibility for markets to exist. And I think that in the future I've described, something that looks like UBI will probably be a necessary instrument to ensure that we can maintain the existence of markets while recognizing that we have the capability to provide humans a comfortable existence at very little cost to society, in a time where they are very unlikely to be able to add any real value back.