4 ms·

If UBI advocates believe their country should give, e.g. hundreds of dollars a month to the over 1 billion people in Africa in the name of being truly universal

If UBI advocates believe their country should give, e.g. hundreds of dollars a month to the over 1 billion people in Africa in the name of being truly universal, please do explicitly state that every time the proposal is made. It'll save a lot of time for us all because such a delusional idea will kill the idea dead even quicker. Obviously it has to be limited to citizens because those are the people paying for it via taxes.

jlokier 6y ago
> If UBI advocates believe their country should give, e.g. hundreds of dollars a month to the over 1 billion people in Africa Hello straw man argument. UBI advocates do not advocate that. However I apologies for not being clear enough. What I have in mind is that your own country (wherever it is) contains "non-citizens" and "citizens", and for some of them it's a bureaucratic lottery which category they are in. It is not a fair or humane system within the country itself. And therefore UBI for citizens means UBI for some people living (some their entire lives) in the country get support and others do not. It would execerbate the non-level playing field economically by raising prices for those lucky to be in the "citizen" group and increasing hardship for those not lucky to be in it, who have no realistic choice but to continue living as they do. Which is obviously against the stated purpose of UBI, to dissolve bureaucratic drivers of poverty within a country or administrative region and ensure everyone gets a basic level of safety. After all, everyone there is subject to the laws, economy, and at the moment pandemic, and they are in principle supposedly protected by the police and law and civil systems. It's hypocritical that they are governed by almost every facet of the system, but we would then design an "ultimate" survival safety net and say "you are governed and affected by everything in the system, except not the safety net". If you are in the USA, consider "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is widely agreed that the USA's Declaration of Independence is there to be a guiding, strong principle to govern the lives of the people of the USA, overriding ordinary law and ordinary politically-motivated systems in the country, and that it was not intended to govern everywhere else on the planet. It does not, however, say "all men [actually we mean some according to a bureaucratic tick-box] are created equal..." If you don't think people who failed the citizen-lottery living in a country should be subject to its most basic economic survival safety net, yet they are required to be subject to all the other systems... Then that safety net is what it is, but it defeats the entire point of universality if it is not held up there along with other universal driving forces of the country such as human rights, declaration of independence, rule of law, etc.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Fine, by "citizens" read "citizens and permanent residents". If you know of a better term that encapsulates who would be eligible to receive UBI, please provide it.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Fine, by "citizens" read "citizens and permanent residents". If you know of a better term that encapsulates who would be eligible to receive UBI, please provide it. Different UBI advocates prefer different target populations. I have heard all combinations of: Age: All adults; All adults and emancipated minors, All (regardless of age); All, but with a reduced benefit for (all or only dependent) children. Citizenship/immigration status: All domestically resident citizens and nationals; All citizens and nationals; all citizens, nationals, and LPRs; All citizens, nationals, LPRs, and other resident aliens, where the last may be defined either as the IRS does for tax purposes or somewhat more expansively.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Exactly. And what happens when UBI gets combined with the "borders are human rights abuses" idea? It turns into giving the whole world resources for free. As UBI would be stratospherically expensive, the people who can receive it must be tightly limited, which means very strong border controls and under no circumstances could the economically unproductive be allowed to immigrate. Yet the sort of people who believe in UBI are the sort of people who claim it's universal because of "dignity", so, fat chance of that. I think its advocates should just man up and admit it: UBI is communism rebranded.
      - jlokier 6y ago
        I'm not sure which country you are thinking from here. But if you're thinking that open borders means people would all flood into the USA for personal wealth, you have it wrong. If many countries offered UBI, while keeping everything else the same, many people would flood out of the USA in search of better healthcare and education, for example. It is issue dependent.
jlokier 6y ago
> Obviously it has to be limited to citizens because those are the people paying for it via taxes. This is so delusionally, obviously false it fatally undermines your argument. A huge number of non-citizens pay taxes!!! Where do you get the idea that non-citizens don't pay taxes! Shakes head despairingly at the ignorance Your argument would work if you said UBI must be limited to people on $X or higher salary, or who have been on such a salary. Because people who have only ever earned <$X do not pay taxes. But as you know, that is not the UBI idea. It is advocated on the basis of a principle, of basic safety, simplicity and dignity, combined with a working theory that it is more affordable than people tend to assume because of the net system-wide benefits. Rather like the USA's constitution itself.

jlokier 6y ago

> If UBI advocates believe their country should give, e.g. hundreds of dollars a month to the over 1 billion people in Africa Hello straw man argument. UBI advocates do not advocate that. However I apologies for not being clear enough. What I have in mind is that your own country (wherever it is) contains "non-citizens" and "citizens", and for some of them it's a bureaucratic lottery which category they are in. It is not a fair or humane system within the country itself. And therefore UBI for citizens means UBI for some people living (some their entire lives) in the country get support and others do not. It would execerbate the non-level playing field economically by raising prices for those lucky to be in the "citizen" group and increasing hardship for those not lucky to be in it, who have no realistic choice but to continue living as they do. Which is obviously against the stated purpose of UBI, to dissolve bureaucratic drivers of poverty within a country or administrative region and ensure everyone gets a basic level of safety. After all, everyone there is subject to the laws, economy, and at the moment pandemic, and they are in principle supposedly protected by the police and law and civil systems. It's hypocritical that they are governed by almost every facet of the system, but we would then design an "ultimate" survival safety net and say "you are governed and affected by everything in the system, except not the safety net". If you are in the USA, consider "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is widely agreed that the USA's Declaration of Independence is there to be a guiding, strong principle to govern the lives of the people of the USA, overriding ordinary law and ordinary politically-motivated systems in the country, and that it was not intended to govern everywhere else on the planet. It does not, however, say "all men [actually we mean some according to a bureaucratic tick-box] are created equal..." If you don't think people who failed the citizen-lottery living in a country should be subject to its most basic economic survival safety net, yet they are required to be subject to all the other systems... Then that safety net is what it is, but it defeats the entire point of universality if it is not held up there along with other universal driving forces of the country such as human rights, declaration of independence, rule of law, etc.

thu2111 6y ago
Fine, by "citizens" read "citizens and permanent residents". If you know of a better term that encapsulates who would be eligible to receive UBI, please provide it.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Fine, by "citizens" read "citizens and permanent residents". If you know of a better term that encapsulates who would be eligible to receive UBI, please provide it. Different UBI advocates prefer different target populations. I have heard all combinations of: Age: All adults; All adults and emancipated minors, All (regardless of age); All, but with a reduced benefit for (all or only dependent) children. Citizenship/immigration status: All domestically resident citizens and nationals; All citizens and nationals; all citizens, nationals, and LPRs; All citizens, nationals, LPRs, and other resident aliens, where the last may be defined either as the IRS does for tax purposes or somewhat more expansively.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Exactly. And what happens when UBI gets combined with the "borders are human rights abuses" idea? It turns into giving the whole world resources for free. As UBI would be stratospherically expensive, the people who can receive it must be tightly limited, which means very strong border controls and under no circumstances could the economically unproductive be allowed to immigrate. Yet the sort of people who believe in UBI are the sort of people who claim it's universal because of "dignity", so, fat chance of that. I think its advocates should just man up and admit it: UBI is communism rebranded.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      I'm not sure which country you are thinking from here. But if you're thinking that open borders means people would all flood into the USA for personal wealth, you have it wrong. If many countries offered UBI, while keeping everything else the same, many people would flood out of the USA in search of better healthcare and education, for example. It is issue dependent.

jlokier 6y ago

> Obviously it has to be limited to citizens because those are the people paying for it via taxes. This is so delusionally, obviously false it fatally undermines your argument. A huge number of non-citizens pay taxes!!! Where do you get the idea that non-citizens don't pay taxes! Shakes head despairingly at the ignorance Your argument would work if you said UBI must be limited to people on $X or higher salary, or who have been on such a salary. Because people who have only ever earned <$X do not pay taxes. But as you know, that is not the UBI idea. It is advocated on the basis of a principle, of basic safety, simplicity and dignity, combined with a working theory that it is more affordable than people tend to assume because of the net system-wide benefits. Rather like the USA's constitution itself.