4 ms·
Do people really want to have all of their support depend on the government? As an American I know people that don't and even reject government paid food stamps
by njarboe 8y ago
Do people really want to have all of their support depend on the government? As an American I know people that don't and even reject government paid food stamps and healthcare, although they are poor enough to qualify for them. I don't think it is very psychologically healthy to be so dependent on things out of your control. A better system would be some system where people can earn a large chunk of capital that basically sets themselves up with enough to have their own basic income that they control.
In the old days in America one had the homestead act that would give you 160-640 acres of public land if you could improve it and live on it for 5 years. This program lasted from the 1862 till 1976 if you can believe it. That was a large chunk of capital one could get by working hard at creating wealth. Not sure if a new homestead act could work, but something similar where anyone can volunteer to do some hard and needed work for five years and at the end of it get a good payout that they can use at they see fit. Maybe $250,000. One could start a business, go to college, invest and live off the interest, etc. This I could get behind.
- lazyasciiart 8y agoI don't think it's psychologically healthy to deny that you are incredibly dependent on things outside your control already.
- njarboe 8y agoSure. Only a psychopath would think such a thing. Thinking UBI is not a good idea is not something only psychopaths might believe.
- lazyasciiart 8y agoNot psychopaths, more like people who just don't think things through. Arguing against UBI because you don't want to be dependant on things outside your control is definitely something you have to be in that group for.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Frondo 8y agoWe're all entirely dependent one things outside our control, and it's a worldview that's romanticized to the point of silliness to say anything else. As for the land grant you're talking about, that's a huge, huge give-away right there; and, I'd note, in your hypothetical, you already inverted the sequence of events (be given land => you keep it, work hard => you get $250k). All UBI does is recognize that, given how technological progress puts people out of jobs, we'd better find alternatives to distributing resources than what we do now, because we're going to end up with a lot of heads on spikes if we don't.
- njarboe 8y ago"All UBI does" UBI is a very specific solution to a very real and difficult problem. I think other solutions to the problem of quick technical advances would be better, that's all. The sequence is , you are given a resource for a period of time, see if you can use it well, if you do you get to keep it. Not sure what a good modern equivalent would be but such a scheme seems like a much better mode to the future than a UBI. Or maybe a combination of things.
- sharkmerry 8y agoWhat if you're given farmland and have a 5 year drought? What other solutions are you talking about? Except giving away land?
- 3131s 8y ago> A better system would be some system where people can earn a large chunk of capital that basically sets themselves up with enough to have their own basic income that they control. There is no reason that UBI isn't compatible with that, and a lot of its proponents would think that UBI will facilitate personal development and entrepreneurship.