3 ms·

I’d argue that giving out this free technology still creates the dependency you’re trying to avoid. Realistically, a lot of people aren’t going to know how to

I’d argue that giving out this free technology still creates the dependency you’re trying to avoid. Realistically, a lot of people aren’t going to know how to use this technology up front, so what are they gonna do? What if the technology breaks and needs to be fixed? Do people rely on the state for maintenance? You’re still paying for it either way. In your first example, it sounds like the ultimate goal is grow enough food to sustain the family. But which is easier to actually accomplish that goal: an existing market that accepts cash, or some fantastical technology which would inevitably come with its own complexities, given the nature of the problem it tries to solve?

keiferski 7y ago
I don’t think fixing broken technology requires the ongoing involvement of the state. If (gasoline) car manufacturers all disappeared tomorrow, mechanics would still be able to maintain them. The goal is to reduce dependency and increase independence. The way to do that is by creating a distributed, public knowledge and skills base.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  > I don’t think fixing broken technology requires the ongoing involvement of the state If said technology served to meet universal basic needs, the state would have to be involved somehow. Otherwise, how would someone destitute be able to pay a mechanic to fix the machine that makes the food? That money would have to come from somewhere, and if we're guaranteeing that everyone has a right to a working food-making machine, then it's hard to see how private interests keep those machines running. The idea that we could just give everyone a food-making machine and solve state dependency issues just seems so shortsighted in how technology and government really works. I struggle to think of a single consumer appliance that doesn't require some kind of maintenance, which would have to be paid for somehow.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    I think you’re focusing in on the specific example too much. The general point is to create a system that has the benefits of basic income without creating a dependent underclass. I don’t think it’s inconceivable to posit that a government could kickstart a program like the one I described, help it grow into a self-sustaining market, and then no longer provide monetary support. Of course this will never happen as the state has zero incentive to deliberately make people independent.
    - save_ferris 7y ago
      I do think it’s inconceivable for two reasons. 1) Such a system would require some kind of maintenance and administration, which costs money. If you have a concrete example of a self-sustaining universal system that accomplishes this object, feel free to bring it forward. I can’t think of a single example of a social program or system that operates without administration at any kind of large scale. You can only argue it’s possible by being specific about how exactly it’s possible. Name one government program that still functions today and doesn’t receive any monetary support. 2) With AI and automation, we’re on track to eliminate the need for much of our human output. The ability to earn a steady income is already being challenged today (just look at how poorly gig workers are paid and treated), and will continue to get harder for those who lack the skills. A system which exists to provide universal services will create a dependent class, regardless of how they receive their benefit. Getting food or something else as opposed to cash doesn’t make them any less dependent. You’ve just changed the output of the service. Not to mention what a target such a system would be for privatization. It’s not like private interests are always looking out for the best outcome for the public either, just look at TurboTax capturing the tax return market.

keiferski 7y ago

I don’t think fixing broken technology requires the ongoing involvement of the state. If (gasoline) car manufacturers all disappeared tomorrow, mechanics would still be able to maintain them. The goal is to reduce dependency and increase independence. The way to do that is by creating a distributed, public knowledge and skills base.

save_ferris 7y ago
> I don’t think fixing broken technology requires the ongoing involvement of the state If said technology served to meet universal basic needs, the state would have to be involved somehow. Otherwise, how would someone destitute be able to pay a mechanic to fix the machine that makes the food? That money would have to come from somewhere, and if we're guaranteeing that everyone has a right to a working food-making machine, then it's hard to see how private interests keep those machines running. The idea that we could just give everyone a food-making machine and solve state dependency issues just seems so shortsighted in how technology and government really works. I struggle to think of a single consumer appliance that doesn't require some kind of maintenance, which would have to be paid for somehow.
- keiferski 7y ago
  I think you’re focusing in on the specific example too much. The general point is to create a system that has the benefits of basic income without creating a dependent underclass. I don’t think it’s inconceivable to posit that a government could kickstart a program like the one I described, help it grow into a self-sustaining market, and then no longer provide monetary support. Of course this will never happen as the state has zero incentive to deliberately make people independent.
  - save_ferris 7y ago
    I do think it’s inconceivable for two reasons. 1) Such a system would require some kind of maintenance and administration, which costs money. If you have a concrete example of a self-sustaining universal system that accomplishes this object, feel free to bring it forward. I can’t think of a single example of a social program or system that operates without administration at any kind of large scale. You can only argue it’s possible by being specific about how exactly it’s possible. Name one government program that still functions today and doesn’t receive any monetary support. 2) With AI and automation, we’re on track to eliminate the need for much of our human output. The ability to earn a steady income is already being challenged today (just look at how poorly gig workers are paid and treated), and will continue to get harder for those who lack the skills. A system which exists to provide universal services will create a dependent class, regardless of how they receive their benefit. Getting food or something else as opposed to cash doesn’t make them any less dependent. You’ve just changed the output of the service. Not to mention what a target such a system would be for privatization. It’s not like private interests are always looking out for the best outcome for the public either, just look at TurboTax capturing the tax return market.