7 ms·

This is ultimately self-defeating. Following the principle breached by this and countless other abrogations of individual rights, what right does anyone have to

This is ultimately self-defeating. Following the principle breached by this and countless other abrogations of individual rights, what right does anyone have to keep or reinvest the profits from a startup when that money could be taken and spent on exactly this sort of minimum income program?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 16y ago
I disagree. This system might in fact increase individual rights by letting people manage their money instead of letting the government do it for them. It could enable more privatization as no one could pretend they can't afford a given service. A lot of public services are in fact financed by tax payers so that the poor can have access to them. IMO, this could give us the best of both world: privatization and universal access. (ideally)
steveklabnik 16y ago
It's quite possible that this could end up _cheaper_ than the current welfare system, due to cutting through the bureaucracy and red tape needed to manage such a system. It sounds to me like you're posing a philosophical question about the nature of the problem, and I'm talking about a specific scenario if this was actually implemented.
- maxharris 16y ago
  Philosophy (the one I go by, at least) isn't some floating castle in the sky that has nothing to do with practical problems on earth. Put another way: the true in theory is the successful in practice.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Of course. But that doesn't mean that we're not talking about two different things, even if they're related. If you're talking about addition, and I'm talking about 2+2...
    - maxharris 16y ago
      Ok, here it is in concrete terms: To have a successful startup, you need to make things that your customers want; of course, this presupposes that you have customers. That presupposes that they are free to choose to buy from you, from someone else, or not at all. By forcibly taking money from some and giving it to others, one of the things that your startup depends on in principle is eroded just a little more. Some of the money that your customers had is now collected as a tax, and spent ostensibly in an effort to make it easier for some group of people that cannot or does not want to make their own living. It is true that your startup will "benefit" (and only in a very temporary, limited financial sense) by this measue if you make some product or service wanted by at least some of the poor people receiving the subsidy. But what of new things? What of trying to build the best that you can? How would early personal computers have been affected by this? They were expensive! If you're making anything like this, such as fine goods, medical devices, engineering software, etc., these kinds of measures hurt you. Sure, it's a small hit. But it is a hit. But these are just details - the important thing is to identify correct principles inductively - by observation and reason, and then to be absolutely certain of them, unless and until you have evidence to otherwise. (This is what is meant by "contextually absolute.")
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        Oh! I see where we're different. What I mean isn't "everyone will have money to spend, more customers, whoopee!" What I'm talking about is "Now, founders can easily quit their job to start their ventures."
        hpvic03 16y ago
        The long term economic benefit from having more startup founders may even make up for any extra cost of the program.
        whatusername 16y ago
        Which assuming we could honestly cut the beurocracy -- might not be all that much.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Don't bother arguing with this guy. Just take everything you say and put it through the "what would Ayn Rand say?" filter and you can pretty much generate most of his ideas by yourself.
  - foobarbazoo 16y ago
    Interesting. Are you saying that Ayn Rand's ideas are so obvious that anyone could come up with them?
    - philwelch 16y ago
      I'm saying that if you've read Ayn Rand at all, or for that matter run into Randroids on the internet at any other point in your life, you can pretty much predict what they're going to say within a given context. As a result, Randroids don't really add much to a conversation once they join in; rather than presenting original ideas, they just harp on the same Randian talking points everyone who's argued with a Randroid or read an Ayn Rand book is already well familiar with.
      - maxharris 16y ago
        Wrong. There are a whole lot of people who have never heard of Ayn Rand, and don't know anything about her ideas. You are not everyone, and (fortunately) not everyone has or will come to the same conclusions you have. On top of that, I don't think you have a deep understanding of her ideas (specifically her epistemology and metaphysics.) -- Folks, would you judge Newton by his critics, or by reading the Principia and working through it yourself? Don't trust anyone to tell you what you shouldn't read!
        philwelch 16y ago
        By "his" I was referring to you, under the assumption that "max harris" is a male name. The fact that the ideas aren't yours is something I'm glad to see you admit to, but you are the one signing your name to them all over this thread and behaving like they're original, thoughtful comments on the subject rather than a pseudo-religious recitation of someone else's dogma. Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own? P.S.: I'm very supportive of people reading Ayn Rand, if they're so inclined. In fact, if anyone wants to reimburse me for shipping, I'm willing to send them a free copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. That's an inclusive or; I'm trying to get rid of a lot of stuff before I move, so if you want both, let me know. I only have one copy of each, though. My email is in my profile.
semanticist 16y ago
This is - essentially - a proposal to increase individual freedom by repurposing the existing welfare system. The taxes that you pay already are higher than they need to be to deliver the aid they're intended to deliver, because they have to pay for a bureaucracy to assess 'need', check for fraud (more restrictions = more room for fraud = more time/money spent fighting fraud), and even to educate people on the often complex array of benefits available. This system would be much simpler to administrate, there'd be no need to educate people on their available options, and without having to deal with enforced conditions and other eligibility restrictions dealing with fraud would be simpler and cheaper. The only argument I can see for opposing this is a moral one, that you want to force people to behave in certain ways before you'll assist them. I always find those kind of arguments really skeevy.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 16y ago

I disagree. This system might in fact increase individual rights by letting people manage their money instead of letting the government do it for them. It could enable more privatization as no one could pretend they can't afford a given service. A lot of public services are in fact financed by tax payers so that the poor can have access to them. IMO, this could give us the best of both world: privatization and universal access. (ideally)

steveklabnik 16y ago

It's quite possible that this could end up _cheaper_ than the current welfare system, due to cutting through the bureaucracy and red tape needed to manage such a system. It sounds to me like you're posing a philosophical question about the nature of the problem, and I'm talking about a specific scenario if this was actually implemented.

maxharris 16y ago
Philosophy (the one I go by, at least) isn't some floating castle in the sky that has nothing to do with practical problems on earth. Put another way: the true in theory is the successful in practice.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  Of course. But that doesn't mean that we're not talking about two different things, even if they're related. If you're talking about addition, and I'm talking about 2+2...
  - maxharris 16y ago
    Ok, here it is in concrete terms: To have a successful startup, you need to make things that your customers want; of course, this presupposes that you have customers. That presupposes that they are free to choose to buy from you, from someone else, or not at all. By forcibly taking money from some and giving it to others, one of the things that your startup depends on in principle is eroded just a little more. Some of the money that your customers had is now collected as a tax, and spent ostensibly in an effort to make it easier for some group of people that cannot or does not want to make their own living. It is true that your startup will "benefit" (and only in a very temporary, limited financial sense) by this measue if you make some product or service wanted by at least some of the poor people receiving the subsidy. But what of new things? What of trying to build the best that you can? How would early personal computers have been affected by this? They were expensive! If you're making anything like this, such as fine goods, medical devices, engineering software, etc., these kinds of measures hurt you. Sure, it's a small hit. But it is a hit. But these are just details - the important thing is to identify correct principles inductively - by observation and reason, and then to be absolutely certain of them, unless and until you have evidence to otherwise. (This is what is meant by "contextually absolute.")
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Oh! I see where we're different. What I mean isn't "everyone will have money to spend, more customers, whoopee!" What I'm talking about is "Now, founders can easily quit their job to start their ventures."
      - hpvic03 16y ago
        The long term economic benefit from having more startup founders may even make up for any extra cost of the program.
        whatusername 16y ago
        Which assuming we could honestly cut the beurocracy -- might not be all that much.
philwelch 16y ago
Don't bother arguing with this guy. Just take everything you say and put it through the "what would Ayn Rand say?" filter and you can pretty much generate most of his ideas by yourself.
- foobarbazoo 16y ago
  Interesting. Are you saying that Ayn Rand's ideas are so obvious that anyone could come up with them?
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I'm saying that if you've read Ayn Rand at all, or for that matter run into Randroids on the internet at any other point in your life, you can pretty much predict what they're going to say within a given context. As a result, Randroids don't really add much to a conversation once they join in; rather than presenting original ideas, they just harp on the same Randian talking points everyone who's argued with a Randroid or read an Ayn Rand book is already well familiar with.
    - maxharris 16y ago
      Wrong. There are a whole lot of people who have never heard of Ayn Rand, and don't know anything about her ideas. You are not everyone, and (fortunately) not everyone has or will come to the same conclusions you have. On top of that, I don't think you have a deep understanding of her ideas (specifically her epistemology and metaphysics.) -- Folks, would you judge Newton by his critics, or by reading the Principia and working through it yourself? Don't trust anyone to tell you what you shouldn't read!
      - philwelch 16y ago
        By "his" I was referring to you, under the assumption that "max harris" is a male name. The fact that the ideas aren't yours is something I'm glad to see you admit to, but you are the one signing your name to them all over this thread and behaving like they're original, thoughtful comments on the subject rather than a pseudo-religious recitation of someone else's dogma. Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own? P.S.: I'm very supportive of people reading Ayn Rand, if they're so inclined. In fact, if anyone wants to reimburse me for shipping, I'm willing to send them a free copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. That's an inclusive or; I'm trying to get rid of a lot of stuff before I move, so if you want both, let me know. I only have one copy of each, though. My email is in my profile.

semanticist 16y ago

This is - essentially - a proposal to increase individual freedom by repurposing the existing welfare system. The taxes that you pay already are higher than they need to be to deliver the aid they're intended to deliver, because they have to pay for a bureaucracy to assess 'need', check for fraud (more restrictions = more room for fraud = more time/money spent fighting fraud), and even to educate people on the often complex array of benefits available. This system would be much simpler to administrate, there'd be no need to educate people on their available options, and without having to deal with enforced conditions and other eligibility restrictions dealing with fraud would be simpler and cheaper. The only argument I can see for opposing this is a moral one, that you want to force people to behave in certain ways before you'll assist them. I always find those kind of arguments really skeevy.