8 ms·

Federal lawmakers need to get over the history of water rights here. The system was built on assumptions that just don't hold (more water was apportioned than e

Federal lawmakers need to get over the history of water rights here. The system was built on assumptions that just don't hold (more water was apportioned than ever flows). You can give each state an amount and let them figure it out, or take all existing rights and re allocate them federally. But it needs to happen, and urgently. "But people will lose their income!" - Thats a symptom of requiring these people to work so wastefully to survive. UBI and other safety nets reduce the need to do this specific work for profit. "But my luxuries will be more expensive!" - No, your luxuries are just being priced at what they cost, and the burden of the environmental damage is no longer hidden from you "Big government bad!" - I get it, I'm an anarchist. But when you have to protect a massive river, it's clear we cannot rely on all the individuals to do the right thing.

andrei_says_ 4y ago
Also, UBI is often the cheapest and most efficient way to prop people out of poverty and (surprised?) to support their ambitions in education, starting business etc.
- slashdev 4y ago
  There isn’t enough data to make that claim with any confidence yet. It could just easily be the start of a spiral into an Argentina style socialist nightmare. The ability to vote for the party offering you a raise may be too dangerous. There’s no real way to know, because it’s never been tried at enough scale, or real enough, to have any data one way or the other.
- QuantumGood 4y ago
  UBI has long-term challenges in that organizations will try everything they can to siphon off the money ("rent seeking") until they succeed. UBI needs to deal with this reality to succeed even in the medium term.
  - eikenberry 4y ago
    I've also never seen anyone address the high chance that post UBI the #1 issue for every politician will become "I will raise the UBI" and if they don't their opposition will. How will we deal with an ever increasing UBI and where will that every increasing source of money come from?
    - mongol 4y ago
      Yes I don't think UBI is stable, politically. It will be a platform to make further promises from.
    - hakfoo 4y ago
      I think the solution is to both problems is that you "de-dollarize" major parts of the economy. Instead of UBI as a bag of dollars, which landlords and merchants will immediately seek to plunder, you deliver highly-subsidized food, shelter, and rich public services. This is much harder to capture, and also has less of a ratchet factor. Consider, for example, a universal health care component. The interest in more services and coverage wanes once it reaches a level of "good enough for most people." There may be some niche voters pulled in by "we'll also cover leeches", but most people will find those arguments uncompelling. In the worst case, benefits do escalate, and you end up with more and more economic activity under government control, either as a direct UBI delivery system, or through ever growing tax rates to finance the subsidized programs. Which in and of itself may not be so bad. I know the entrpeneurship/free markets/self-directed mindset is very big in this community, but if the goal is maximizing quality-of-life metrics, this might be a viable way to deliver it. Ideally, we're all healthy, securely housed, and well fed, and our cultural-economic question becomes "how much of a discretionary hobby budget is $job_title worth?"
      - leoqa 4y ago
        This is how it works in Cuba. You get a set of coupons each month for food etc
    - a9h74j 4y ago
      Dmitri Orlov has remarked: Universal Basic Income leads to Universal Basic Outcome, which is poverty.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  We have any proof it works?! Besides, I see two serious problems: 1) There's always the political incentive to raise it. More people benefit than are harmed, thus it will bring votes even as it crushes the economy. 2) It's a trap. You'll end up with the lower segment of the population not having useful job skills. If for whatever reason you have to scale back/eliminate UBI you have a bunch of people who are effectively non-workers. I used to support it but I've come to realize it's not a solution. There's also the approach of a negative income tax, but to be at a useful level this would push a form of graft--fake jobs with kickbacks. (I'll hire you to sit in the office for $5/hr. You pay me $8/hr under the table from the tax rebate you're getting.) I also dislike approaches like universal health care--from looking at the nations that have implemented it it has a major fox-guarding-the-henhouse problem: the same people decide what the standards are and spend the money to meet the standards. Oops, the route to getting votes is to lower the standards as that gets you more votes from low taxes than loses from people lacking treatment, especially if their doctors never tell them of the problem. (You're not likely to miss option X if your doctor doesn't tell you about it in the first place.) Something I would like to see is to modify the ACA towards lower copays and a much lower *monthly* out of pocket max (perhaps tied to last year's AGI), then give everyone a subsidy equal to the cheapest plan they qualify for with a forced-placement system to that plan if you don't pick one. And I would like to put a time limit on the wait for service--for a routine matter they have say 30 days to provide service (first available appointment with the proper type of doctor) or they have to cover out of network as if it was in network--and once that's been triggered you can keep that doc regardless. The clock starts on the day the referral is made, or the service requested if referrals are not required.
quesera 4y ago
Sure, that's the easy answer. But you must have a legal framework in which to do so. Otherwise, what do you have?
- haswell 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that there is no legal framework (or avenue to one) that would allow the federal government to step in here?
  - ViViDboarder 4y ago
    Yea, the OP said federal legislators should do something. The constitution provides them a legal framework for writing laws.
    - lazide 4y ago
      The current setup is strongly based on historic water rights laws. Touching that would be opening a giant Pandora’s box few legislators want to handle. And with how broken Congress is in general, do ANY of the states involved think that would produce a better outcome?
      - AgentOrange1234 4y ago
        Yes of course congress is a mess and intervention will have major consequences, but the alternative seems to be everyone stands around watching the water dry up.
        lazide 4y ago
        And hoping this winter will be a wet one. Which, hey maybe. But nah. Sounds about right! If the little guy gets screwed too, SNAFU.
- diggernet 4y ago
  the legal framework is eminent domain
phpisthebest 4y ago
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  >>I get it, I'm an anarchist. > Doubtful There's pragmatic anarchism - the belief in the concepts that some facets of anarchy is good : i.e. less reliance on a central govt and hierarchies, perhaps instead some system where 90% of your tax money has to be spent w/in 100 miles of your home, the rest can be fought over between the State+Federal. Make states more like EU countries, etc. Instead of full socialism - just make companies either switch to co-ops or make the 'board' be made up of at least x% average (non-management-level) workers and give every worker at least (some) voting powers, and make labor unions practically a given. Companies could create mutual aid programs that benefit their local residents who are their customers as well as employees. Universal healthcare for example could come from just being loyal to worker-owned businesses above corporate companies. >> Government is the problem here We have government regardless of if it works in our best interest or not (protecting water, ubi, healthcare). I'm an anarchist too, albeit pragmatic, with a focus on syndicalism, but we have to work in the framework we're given and that's capitalistic country, so the only way we can fix this is govt intervention or community enforced interventions. Ideally to me THIS is what the federal govt SHOULD be about and ONLY this : interstate matters, foreign affairs, and military (though I think each STATE should have their own military that they 'loan' to the feds). I'm with Jefferson on the idea that we should be more loyal to our local neighborhood, then our state and only then the federal. We definitely can use more regulation for companies that don't have some social benefit designation, but I'm not sure how to reconcile that specifically with anarchism except going all in on co-ops because a company where all the workers are on the board, are less likely to vote Yay on dumping forever chemicals in the water and poisoning their own water sources. The problem is corporations are treated like humans without any of the moral costs and punishments. Corporations should be able to be 'executed'.
  - lazide 4y ago
    What does that have to do with the Colorado River Compact again?
- 4y ago
paxys 4y ago
> I get it, I'm an anarchist You may need to read up the definition of that word
- Psyladine 4y ago
  At the end of the day everyone's really a pragmatist. Exceptions tend to shake the world, and not really for the better.
- smcl 4y ago
  Most people I know who have these beliefs - anarchism, communism - don’t believe a sudden big-bang is how a transition to their l preferred system of government would work, and are pragmatic in moving towards it without upending society in the process. Hell look at Russia’s “shock therapy” transition to capitalism, we are seeing the very direct consequences of that to this day.
- ancapsfascists 4y ago
  My guy, I've spent a decade reading up on that word. You want to talk Bookchin, Kroptkin, or Öcalan I'm available any time. Respect to my anarchist comrades who are all or nothing, but I recognize the current system we live in, and I'm not going to throw away the useful tools before replacing them.
  - diob 4y ago
    Heck, even Chomsky is an anarchist. I don't know what the comment to you was insinuating, that we shouldn't fix things? Big https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47... energy.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "I don't know what the comment to you was insinuating" Obviously that anarchism means, being opposed to all government activity, regulation and rules, so he cannot call him an anarchist if he wants rules for a river. But the thing with anarchism is, that there is not really a authorative definition accepted and in use ..
jrs235 4y ago
I agree with you. "No single rain drop believes it is responsible for the flood."

andrei_says_ 4y ago

Also, UBI is often the cheapest and most efficient way to prop people out of poverty and (surprised?) to support their ambitions in education, starting business etc.

slashdev 4y ago
There isn’t enough data to make that claim with any confidence yet. It could just easily be the start of a spiral into an Argentina style socialist nightmare. The ability to vote for the party offering you a raise may be too dangerous. There’s no real way to know, because it’s never been tried at enough scale, or real enough, to have any data one way or the other.
QuantumGood 4y ago
UBI has long-term challenges in that organizations will try everything they can to siphon off the money ("rent seeking") until they succeed. UBI needs to deal with this reality to succeed even in the medium term.
- eikenberry 4y ago
  I've also never seen anyone address the high chance that post UBI the #1 issue for every politician will become "I will raise the UBI" and if they don't their opposition will. How will we deal with an ever increasing UBI and where will that every increasing source of money come from?
  - mongol 4y ago
    Yes I don't think UBI is stable, politically. It will be a platform to make further promises from.
  - hakfoo 4y ago
    I think the solution is to both problems is that you "de-dollarize" major parts of the economy. Instead of UBI as a bag of dollars, which landlords and merchants will immediately seek to plunder, you deliver highly-subsidized food, shelter, and rich public services. This is much harder to capture, and also has less of a ratchet factor. Consider, for example, a universal health care component. The interest in more services and coverage wanes once it reaches a level of "good enough for most people." There may be some niche voters pulled in by "we'll also cover leeches", but most people will find those arguments uncompelling. In the worst case, benefits do escalate, and you end up with more and more economic activity under government control, either as a direct UBI delivery system, or through ever growing tax rates to finance the subsidized programs. Which in and of itself may not be so bad. I know the entrpeneurship/free markets/self-directed mindset is very big in this community, but if the goal is maximizing quality-of-life metrics, this might be a viable way to deliver it. Ideally, we're all healthy, securely housed, and well fed, and our cultural-economic question becomes "how much of a discretionary hobby budget is $job_title worth?"
    - leoqa 4y ago
      This is how it works in Cuba. You get a set of coupons each month for food etc
  - a9h74j 4y ago
    Dmitri Orlov has remarked: Universal Basic Income leads to Universal Basic Outcome, which is poverty.
LorenPechtel 4y ago
We have any proof it works?! Besides, I see two serious problems: 1) There's always the political incentive to raise it. More people benefit than are harmed, thus it will bring votes even as it crushes the economy. 2) It's a trap. You'll end up with the lower segment of the population not having useful job skills. If for whatever reason you have to scale back/eliminate UBI you have a bunch of people who are effectively non-workers. I used to support it but I've come to realize it's not a solution. There's also the approach of a negative income tax, but to be at a useful level this would push a form of graft--fake jobs with kickbacks. (I'll hire you to sit in the office for $5/hr. You pay me $8/hr under the table from the tax rebate you're getting.) I also dislike approaches like universal health care--from looking at the nations that have implemented it it has a major fox-guarding-the-henhouse problem: the same people decide what the standards are and spend the money to meet the standards. Oops, the route to getting votes is to lower the standards as that gets you more votes from low taxes than loses from people lacking treatment, especially if their doctors never tell them of the problem. (You're not likely to miss option X if your doctor doesn't tell you about it in the first place.) Something I would like to see is to modify the ACA towards lower copays and a much lower *monthly* out of pocket max (perhaps tied to last year's AGI), then give everyone a subsidy equal to the cheapest plan they qualify for with a forced-placement system to that plan if you don't pick one. And I would like to put a time limit on the wait for service--for a routine matter they have say 30 days to provide service (first available appointment with the proper type of doctor) or they have to cover out of network as if it was in network--and once that's been triggered you can keep that doc regardless. The clock starts on the day the referral is made, or the service requested if referrals are not required.

quesera 4y ago

Sure, that's the easy answer. But you must have a legal framework in which to do so. Otherwise, what do you have?

haswell 4y ago
Are you suggesting that there is no legal framework (or avenue to one) that would allow the federal government to step in here?
- ViViDboarder 4y ago
  Yea, the OP said federal legislators should do something. The constitution provides them a legal framework for writing laws.
  - lazide 4y ago
    The current setup is strongly based on historic water rights laws. Touching that would be opening a giant Pandora’s box few legislators want to handle. And with how broken Congress is in general, do ANY of the states involved think that would produce a better outcome?
    - AgentOrange1234 4y ago
      Yes of course congress is a mess and intervention will have major consequences, but the alternative seems to be everyone stands around watching the water dry up.
      - lazide 4y ago
        And hoping this winter will be a wet one. Which, hey maybe. But nah. Sounds about right! If the little guy gets screwed too, SNAFU.
diggernet 4y ago
the legal framework is eminent domain

phpisthebest 4y ago

gremlinsinc 4y ago
>>I get it, I'm an anarchist. > Doubtful There's pragmatic anarchism - the belief in the concepts that some facets of anarchy is good : i.e. less reliance on a central govt and hierarchies, perhaps instead some system where 90% of your tax money has to be spent w/in 100 miles of your home, the rest can be fought over between the State+Federal. Make states more like EU countries, etc. Instead of full socialism - just make companies either switch to co-ops or make the 'board' be made up of at least x% average (non-management-level) workers and give every worker at least (some) voting powers, and make labor unions practically a given. Companies could create mutual aid programs that benefit their local residents who are their customers as well as employees. Universal healthcare for example could come from just being loyal to worker-owned businesses above corporate companies. >> Government is the problem here We have government regardless of if it works in our best interest or not (protecting water, ubi, healthcare). I'm an anarchist too, albeit pragmatic, with a focus on syndicalism, but we have to work in the framework we're given and that's capitalistic country, so the only way we can fix this is govt intervention or community enforced interventions. Ideally to me THIS is what the federal govt SHOULD be about and ONLY this : interstate matters, foreign affairs, and military (though I think each STATE should have their own military that they 'loan' to the feds). I'm with Jefferson on the idea that we should be more loyal to our local neighborhood, then our state and only then the federal. We definitely can use more regulation for companies that don't have some social benefit designation, but I'm not sure how to reconcile that specifically with anarchism except going all in on co-ops because a company where all the workers are on the board, are less likely to vote Yay on dumping forever chemicals in the water and poisoning their own water sources. The problem is corporations are treated like humans without any of the moral costs and punishments. Corporations should be able to be 'executed'.
- lazide 4y ago
  What does that have to do with the Colorado River Compact again?
4y ago

paxys 4y ago

> I get it, I'm an anarchist You may need to read up the definition of that word

Psyladine 4y ago
At the end of the day everyone's really a pragmatist. Exceptions tend to shake the world, and not really for the better.
smcl 4y ago
Most people I know who have these beliefs - anarchism, communism - don’t believe a sudden big-bang is how a transition to their l preferred system of government would work, and are pragmatic in moving towards it without upending society in the process. Hell look at Russia’s “shock therapy” transition to capitalism, we are seeing the very direct consequences of that to this day.
ancapsfascists 4y ago
My guy, I've spent a decade reading up on that word. You want to talk Bookchin, Kroptkin, or Öcalan I'm available any time. Respect to my anarchist comrades who are all or nothing, but I recognize the current system we live in, and I'm not going to throw away the useful tools before replacing them.
- diob 4y ago
  Heck, even Chomsky is an anarchist. I don't know what the comment to you was insinuating, that we shouldn't fix things? Big https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47... energy.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "I don't know what the comment to you was insinuating" Obviously that anarchism means, being opposed to all government activity, regulation and rules, so he cannot call him an anarchist if he wants rules for a river. But the thing with anarchism is, that there is not really a authorative definition accepted and in use ..

jrs235 4y ago

I agree with you. "No single rain drop believes it is responsible for the flood."