4 ms·

> But from an economics standpoint it’s not a complete plan ... I don't know much about the economics. Curious, how so? > UBI is largely about symbolic equali

> But from an economics standpoint it’s not a complete plan ... I don't know much about the economics. Curious, how so? > UBI is largely about symbolic equality, the kindergarten-level fairness of everyone getting the same amount. That’s important because symbols of equality are important. IMHO, what you described is justice. Equality. Not kindergarten-level, or, rather, I guess it is, in the sense of it being fundamental to our moral understanding : ).

skybrian 6y ago
“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” Most apparently-equal rules aren’t actually equal in their effects. Charging everyone the same amount usually hurts poor people more. UBI is one of the few apparently-equal policies that would likely help the poor more than the rich.
- mason55 6y ago
  > In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. Yes and on top of the obvious absurdity of this statement, there is a second level. As long as we punish things with fines they are effectively legal if you're rich enough.
  - mamon 6y ago
    Which kind of makes sense, because wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society. You contributed more, you can get away with more.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      > wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society That principle is only relevant in societies that don't have lotteries or inheritance, among other changes.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      > wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society Curious where that idea comes from - source? Haven't encountered it. I know that many people _think_ that, or _feel_ that way, but I haven't read anything (philosophy, political philosophy, etc), that actually theorizes it _should_ be that way, or that it really _is_ that way. Tim Berners-Lee -- how much money does he have, and what is his contribution to society? Or, the classic kindergarten teacher vs NBA player, etc.
tom-_- 6y ago
I believe what commenter is suggesting is that the notion of "fairness" provided by UBI is too simplistic and easily fails to uphold that principle under any amount of scrutiny. By simply asking the question "Who will pay for UBI and who will receive it", the degree to which it's "fair", "just", or "equal" becomes obviously nebulous
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  "Who will pay for corporate profits and who will receive it", the degree to which it's "fair", "just", or "equal" becomes obviously nebulous
- adamsea 6y ago
  I didn't know UBI had anything to do with fair ... I thought it was a hopefully-pragmatic approach for creating a just and healthy society in our current era. Whether it'll work or not, I know that's a larger question. Also, I think it'd be more helpful if you would lead with what notion of fairness (why put it in quotes?) you yourself believe UBI represents. Because it's possible that some people may agree with you, and others may not. And that would be a good starting point for discussion.

skybrian 6y ago

“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” Most apparently-equal rules aren’t actually equal in their effects. Charging everyone the same amount usually hurts poor people more. UBI is one of the few apparently-equal policies that would likely help the poor more than the rich.

mason55 6y ago
> In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. Yes and on top of the obvious absurdity of this statement, there is a second level. As long as we punish things with fines they are effectively legal if you're rich enough.
- mamon 6y ago
  Which kind of makes sense, because wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society. You contributed more, you can get away with more.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society That principle is only relevant in societies that don't have lotteries or inheritance, among other changes.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    > wealth is supposed to be a measure of one's contribution to society Curious where that idea comes from - source? Haven't encountered it. I know that many people _think_ that, or _feel_ that way, but I haven't read anything (philosophy, political philosophy, etc), that actually theorizes it _should_ be that way, or that it really _is_ that way. Tim Berners-Lee -- how much money does he have, and what is his contribution to society? Or, the classic kindergarten teacher vs NBA player, etc.

tom-_- 6y ago

I believe what commenter is suggesting is that the notion of "fairness" provided by UBI is too simplistic and easily fails to uphold that principle under any amount of scrutiny. By simply asking the question "Who will pay for UBI and who will receive it", the degree to which it's "fair", "just", or "equal" becomes obviously nebulous

rorykoehler 6y ago
"Who will pay for corporate profits and who will receive it", the degree to which it's "fair", "just", or "equal" becomes obviously nebulous
adamsea 6y ago
I didn't know UBI had anything to do with fair ... I thought it was a hopefully-pragmatic approach for creating a just and healthy society in our current era. Whether it'll work or not, I know that's a larger question. Also, I think it'd be more helpful if you would lead with what notion of fairness (why put it in quotes?) you yourself believe UBI represents. Because it's possible that some people may agree with you, and others may not. And that would be a good starting point for discussion.