4 ms·

I don't see how natural resources alone would make a passive income. Energy has to be exerted to extract the resource. By human labor or by machine. Then the ex

I don't see how natural resources alone would make a passive income. Energy has to be exerted to extract the resource. By human labor or by machine. Then the extraction operation needs protection. If they left an oil well unprotected in Alaska forest somewhere then soon bandits would take over it and collect the profits. Nowadays this is resolved by private ownership of land which is maintained and provided by the government. Then of course the payment for this protection for exclusive rights of use needs to be paid to said government. Simply by collecting a land tax priced at a percentage of market value of that land. Workers and business collect profits due to their labor and government collects the natural resource rents. Any excess the government collects in the tax can be then reinvested into public works or paid as a dividend to citizens. Like in Alaska and Norway.

skybrian 8y ago
There is certainly work involved, but it's passive income to the citizens, who didn't work for it and aren't the ones guarding it. I agree that it's fine. (I am in favor of basic income.) But I'm wondering, how do you think we distinguish between good and bad income streams? You seemed to be making a moral distinction.
- snidane 8y ago
  Well people actually guard it indirectly. They could at any time randomly decide to go on a rampage and start taking over other people's property. Which actually happens when things boil over, eg. during revolutions. So they should be paid for remaining calm and keeping order. I don't think we need to make the distinction between good and bad incomes. However we as a society should be concerned about giving somebody certain privileges without getting any compensation for it. That makes the society inherently unequal, because one group of people is forced to provide the privileges or services for another group of people. Eg. people born in generation 2 are forced to accept and maintain private property privileges on land for those born in generation 1 even though they were never invited to discussions of land distribution in gen 1. Simply stated, the infinite-length land rights are unethical to people in later generations. Continuous payment system would be ethical. This alone could then help resolve other issues in other monopoly related problems as people would have more options to decide how to allocate their life, as you well know it is the case of basic income and when people are not stifled by excess taxes and excess rent payments.

skybrian 8y ago

There is certainly work involved, but it's passive income to the citizens, who didn't work for it and aren't the ones guarding it. I agree that it's fine. (I am in favor of basic income.) But I'm wondering, how do you think we distinguish between good and bad income streams? You seemed to be making a moral distinction.

snidane 8y ago
Well people actually guard it indirectly. They could at any time randomly decide to go on a rampage and start taking over other people's property. Which actually happens when things boil over, eg. during revolutions. So they should be paid for remaining calm and keeping order. I don't think we need to make the distinction between good and bad incomes. However we as a society should be concerned about giving somebody certain privileges without getting any compensation for it. That makes the society inherently unequal, because one group of people is forced to provide the privileges or services for another group of people. Eg. people born in generation 2 are forced to accept and maintain private property privileges on land for those born in generation 1 even though they were never invited to discussions of land distribution in gen 1. Simply stated, the infinite-length land rights are unethical to people in later generations. Continuous payment system would be ethical. This alone could then help resolve other issues in other monopoly related problems as people would have more options to decide how to allocate their life, as you well know it is the case of basic income and when people are not stifled by excess taxes and excess rent payments.