6 ms·

UBI is extremely dangerous as long as governments exist. Take what China is doing with their citizen score and it's not hard to imagine what could go wrong. ".

UBI is extremely dangerous as long as governments exist. Take what China is doing with their citizen score and it's not hard to imagine what could go wrong. "...imagine how easy it would be for such a government that was also providing a basic income to its citizens to manipulate their citizens based on that basic income that they depended on. If they can deny citizens access to things like public transportation based on their ‘citizen score’, they can also deny those citizens (part of) their basic income depending on how ‘good’ their behavior is. So if you were too critical and thinking too independently, you could very easily be denied your basic income, and this could be a serious problem especially if you were brought up to be dependent on the government and to (heavily) rely on the income they provided." More: https://blog.kareldonk.com/an-example-of-the-dangers-of-a-government-provided-basic-income/ https://blog.kareldonk.com/an-example-of-the-dangers-of-a-go...

frgtpsswrdlame 6y ago
Do you feel the same way about foodstamps? This isn't an argument against UBI, it's an argument against any kind of government provided assistance at all.
- alehul 6y ago
  The proper analogy would be universal food stamps, rather than need-based, where everyone would begin to rely on the government for food. If that's the case, then I would personally feel the same way!
  - stormbrew 6y ago
    So, to be clear, non-universal foodstamps (what exists now) are ok, but if there were universal foodstamps that then became non-universal, then those non-universal foodstamps would not be ok and also proof that universal foodstamps are bad and scary?
    - alehul 6y ago
      'Ok' is tricky — we're weighing an unhealthy reliance on the government that gives it a dangerous amount of power against the well-being and guaranteed sustenance of our fellow citizens. If people truly need to rely on the government for food, it would be absurdly inhumane of a society to let them starve. Simultaneously, promoting reliance on the government and attempting to make that reliance universal has the potential to take away our freedoms. Food stamps is an acceptable principle to Americans because it's meant to be temporary and need-based, and if you remove those two characteristics, it isn't just a reductio ad absurdum argument of taking the same concept further; it's entirely different.
  - shredprez 6y ago
    I don't know, I kind of love the idea of basic sustenance being a hassle-free given and "money for food" being limited the realm of pleasure or entertainment. Not to make any argument for the feasibility of the idea, of course.
  - sbelskie 6y ago
    Good point. Because as we all know need based food stamps are never subject to political meddling!
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Not only that, it's an argument against all forms of taxation. What if the government starts setting your tax rate based on your "social credit score"? It's purely speculative FUD. It would be terrible if they did that, so make sure they don't. But it's a completely independent problem.
  - baddox 6y ago
    Or, even more obviously, prison.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Feels a lot like no fly lists, or holywood blocklist during rhe red scare
metabagel 6y ago
Alaska UBI is a cautionary tale: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-permanent-fund-universal-basic-income https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-...
baddox 6y ago
That’s literally the “universal” part of it. If you don’t have that, you don’t have UBI. The fact that the government has the physical power to withhold a hypothetical UBI might be an issue, of course, but every government has the physical power to do pretty much anything to any citizen, so there’s nothing unique there.
- daenz 6y ago
  Until we are in a time where I can't find a disturbing number of people who are willing to deny someone UBI for saying the wrong things--and willing to vote for someone who will do that--then UBI should never be seriously considered.
  - baddox 6y ago
    But if you don’t support it being universal then you don’t support UBI. Those people you’re talking about just don’t support UBI.
    - daenz 6y ago
      How does that change anything besides making a "ha, gotcha!" point? That's your definition of universal, which is (I assume) limited to citizens of the USA who are adults. EDIT>> Also there is plenty of precedent for limiting things which are worded in such a way as to suggest they cannot be limited, eg: "shall not be infringed"
      - baddox 6y ago
        It’s just weird to say that you don’t support a policy if there a lot of people that don’t support it. Surely that’s true of every taxation and welfare system in every government, for instance.
        themacguffinman 6y ago
        The tautology you see is in your own phrasing. The problem being raised here is that UBI is easy to abuse. Voters and politicians and bureaucrats can more easily hijack a deceptively simple UBI system after it's enacted, and no amount of "but that's not what Universal means" hairsplitting will help you then. Welfare, on the other hand, is better understood and more narrowly focused. And even there you still have a ton of bullshit. I think UBI's deceptively simple yet vaguely broad scope will be tussled & twisted even more.
bijection 6y ago
Is there a meaningful difference between a government withholding basic income in a UBI world and a government fining away some traditional income in normal capitalism?
TimTheTinker 6y ago
You’re right that a UBI effectively vastly increases the power a government could wield over its citizens. One of the most important sets of principles the US founders relied on were the facts that power corrupts, that it (unfortunately) has to be wielded by someone in a governing sense, and that the best ways to keep government from becoming corrupt and abusive are to (a) limit its power to that which is essential for rule-of-law, representative government; and (b) divide that power among different people who have checks and balances on each others’ power. Therefore it seems to me that a UBI is likely not a good idea because it vastly increases government’s power. Note that the US government already wields a ton of power not explicitly granted by the constitution in the form of federal grants...
kentosi 6y ago
This is an interesting angle I never considered. I think that a lot of us are seeing UBI as a flat rate everyone gets. I never thought of it evolving into different levels for different categories of people.
ddbb33 6y ago
That’s equating all governments and forms of governance with China’s government. To be able to say that, you have to also say why you think this has a non-negligible chance of happening in a democratic society for example.
DonaldFisk 6y ago
I find it rather hard to take seriously the writings of someone (Karel Donk) who believes that Hitler was good and that the holocaust never happened. But I'll answer this anyway. UBI is unconditional. If a cash payment depends on the recipient's behaviour, it wouldn't be UBI. The same amount would be paid to everyone of working age. Why mention China here? Something very similar happens in the UK with benefit sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobseeker%27s_Allowance#Sanctioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobseeker%27s_Allowance#Sancti...
Bootwizard 6y ago
What do you not understand about UNIVERSAL? This is not a need based income, everyone gets it, rich or poor, needy or wealthy.

frgtpsswrdlame 6y ago

Do you feel the same way about foodstamps? This isn't an argument against UBI, it's an argument against any kind of government provided assistance at all.

alehul 6y ago
The proper analogy would be universal food stamps, rather than need-based, where everyone would begin to rely on the government for food. If that's the case, then I would personally feel the same way!
- stormbrew 6y ago
  So, to be clear, non-universal foodstamps (what exists now) are ok, but if there were universal foodstamps that then became non-universal, then those non-universal foodstamps would not be ok and also proof that universal foodstamps are bad and scary?
  - alehul 6y ago
    'Ok' is tricky — we're weighing an unhealthy reliance on the government that gives it a dangerous amount of power against the well-being and guaranteed sustenance of our fellow citizens. If people truly need to rely on the government for food, it would be absurdly inhumane of a society to let them starve. Simultaneously, promoting reliance on the government and attempting to make that reliance universal has the potential to take away our freedoms. Food stamps is an acceptable principle to Americans because it's meant to be temporary and need-based, and if you remove those two characteristics, it isn't just a reductio ad absurdum argument of taking the same concept further; it's entirely different.
- shredprez 6y ago
  I don't know, I kind of love the idea of basic sustenance being a hassle-free given and "money for food" being limited the realm of pleasure or entertainment. Not to make any argument for the feasibility of the idea, of course.
- sbelskie 6y ago
  Good point. Because as we all know need based food stamps are never subject to political meddling!
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Not only that, it's an argument against all forms of taxation. What if the government starts setting your tax rate based on your "social credit score"? It's purely speculative FUD. It would be terrible if they did that, so make sure they don't. But it's a completely independent problem.
- baddox 6y ago
  Or, even more obviously, prison.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Feels a lot like no fly lists, or holywood blocklist during rhe red scare

metabagel 6y ago

Alaska UBI is a cautionary tale: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-permanent-fund-universal-basic-income https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-...

baddox 6y ago

That’s literally the “universal” part of it. If you don’t have that, you don’t have UBI. The fact that the government has the physical power to withhold a hypothetical UBI might be an issue, of course, but every government has the physical power to do pretty much anything to any citizen, so there’s nothing unique there.

daenz 6y ago
Until we are in a time where I can't find a disturbing number of people who are willing to deny someone UBI for saying the wrong things--and willing to vote for someone who will do that--then UBI should never be seriously considered.
- baddox 6y ago
  But if you don’t support it being universal then you don’t support UBI. Those people you’re talking about just don’t support UBI.
  - daenz 6y ago
    How does that change anything besides making a "ha, gotcha!" point? That's your definition of universal, which is (I assume) limited to citizens of the USA who are adults. EDIT>> Also there is plenty of precedent for limiting things which are worded in such a way as to suggest they cannot be limited, eg: "shall not be infringed"
    - baddox 6y ago
      It’s just weird to say that you don’t support a policy if there a lot of people that don’t support it. Surely that’s true of every taxation and welfare system in every government, for instance.
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        The tautology you see is in your own phrasing. The problem being raised here is that UBI is easy to abuse. Voters and politicians and bureaucrats can more easily hijack a deceptively simple UBI system after it's enacted, and no amount of "but that's not what Universal means" hairsplitting will help you then. Welfare, on the other hand, is better understood and more narrowly focused. And even there you still have a ton of bullshit. I think UBI's deceptively simple yet vaguely broad scope will be tussled & twisted even more.

bijection 6y ago

Is there a meaningful difference between a government withholding basic income in a UBI world and a government fining away some traditional income in normal capitalism?

TimTheTinker 6y ago

You’re right that a UBI effectively vastly increases the power a government could wield over its citizens. One of the most important sets of principles the US founders relied on were the facts that power corrupts, that it (unfortunately) has to be wielded by someone in a governing sense, and that the best ways to keep government from becoming corrupt and abusive are to (a) limit its power to that which is essential for rule-of-law, representative government; and (b) divide that power among different people who have checks and balances on each others’ power. Therefore it seems to me that a UBI is likely not a good idea because it vastly increases government’s power. Note that the US government already wields a ton of power not explicitly granted by the constitution in the form of federal grants...

kentosi 6y ago

This is an interesting angle I never considered. I think that a lot of us are seeing UBI as a flat rate everyone gets. I never thought of it evolving into different levels for different categories of people.

ddbb33 6y ago

That’s equating all governments and forms of governance with China’s government. To be able to say that, you have to also say why you think this has a non-negligible chance of happening in a democratic society for example.

DonaldFisk 6y ago

I find it rather hard to take seriously the writings of someone (Karel Donk) who believes that Hitler was good and that the holocaust never happened. But I'll answer this anyway. UBI is unconditional. If a cash payment depends on the recipient's behaviour, it wouldn't be UBI. The same amount would be paid to everyone of working age. Why mention China here? Something very similar happens in the UK with benefit sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobseeker%27s_Allowance#Sanctioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobseeker%27s_Allowance#Sancti...

Bootwizard 6y ago

What do you not understand about UNIVERSAL? This is not a need based income, everyone gets it, rich or poor, needy or wealthy.