4 ms·

As a libertarian myself, I am also sympathetic to the basic income proposition. I like the idea in principle, but feel more experimentation is warranted. I li

by bhauer 13y ago

As a libertarian myself, I am also sympathetic to the basic income proposition. I like the idea in principle, but feel more experimentation is warranted. I like the premise of trying it out in small increments. My chief concern is that progressives will ask us to explain how we contend with people who despite being given a stack of currency still manage to squander that, leaving themselves hungry, without shelter, or without savings. They may not say that now, but I think that challenge would eventually arrive. I personally favor family and charity as a last safety net, but progressives routinely dismiss those as impractical or insufficient. My pessimistic side believes that a portion of the progressive inclination for central planning comes from a fear of allowing people to act stupidly and suffer the consequences. In other words, it's not necessarily that they want to manage the allocation of funds and/or delivery of services and products to the poor, but that they believe if they don't do this, bad decisions will be made, leading to suffering. Meanwhile libertarians such as myself routinely are naively optimistic, believing everyone will make decent or good choices in spending their basic income (knowing to put some into healthcare, some into savings, and so on).

DanBC 13y ago
> My chief concern is that progressives will ask us to explain how we contend with people who despite being given a stack of currency still manage to squander that, leaving themselves hungry, without shelter, or without savings. They may not say that now, but I think that challenge would eventually arrive. I personally favor family and charity as a last safety net, but progressives routinely dismiss those as impractical or insufficient. It's complex. See the UK, where we have complicated benefits and medical care and social housing. If you drink your money, and cause yourself to become homeless, you'll have no money and have nowhere to live. I think understanding how people get themselves into that kind of situation, and guiding them into better choices, is useful to society as a whole. That small investment avoids costs later.
glibgil 13y ago
Remedies for those problems already exist. Courts can order many things to happen automatically (think of child support payments as an example). The community and police can refer a case to a government attorney. The government can sue an individual in court for misuse of funds. The court can order that the individual's income be garnished to pay for housing automatically. Then the individual who has demonstrated that they cannot handle too much freedom keeps their minimum income but doesn't become homeless. This can all happen very quickly and stacks of these cases can be resolved in a couple of hours.
protomyth 13y ago
> My chief concern is that progressives will ask us to explain how we contend with people who despite being given a stack of currency still manage to squander that, leaving themselves hungry, without shelter, or without savings. Pay every weekday morning - it fixes the food part Shelter is tough because we are not trying new things anymore. You rent an apartment or rent / buy a home. We don't have many cheaper shelters like capsule hotels[1] or maybe some modular-type apartments. Innovation in shelters is not a thing and seriously hampered by existing laws. > I personally favor family and charity as a last safety net, but progressives routinely dismiss those as impractical or insufficient. It was the way of things in the early days, but we really need to stop making it difficult for third-partys to actually provide these services. 1) yes, this is not long term or family friendly, but I've live in worse than what I saw in videos of these things.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  People with these needs having a steady source of income, low as it is, is likely to drive competition to serving their needs. We might well find more innovation there.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    I keep thinking you are right, but it just seems like all the regulators and people's perceptions are going to kill any innovation. Never mind the government screwing the market with loans to people who couldn't really afford houses to get houses[1]. We got it in our heads that you must buy a home and our definition of home is fixed. In my wilder moments, I wonder what would happen if a standard "module" size and connection (structural support, door location, water, electric, etc) for apartments happened and you could plug the modules into buildings. I'm sure there are 1,000s of other ideas. 1) small fact, those programs won't loan money to Native Americans on reservations since they cannot take the land anymore. Not sure that's actually a bad thing, but it is odd.
001sky 13y ago
My pessimistic side believes that a portion of the progressive inclination for central planning comes from a fear of allowing people to act stupidly and suffer the consequences Historically, the inclination came from out of work low-level aristocrats looking for "jobs". Welfare for the poor has always been (disguised) welfare for the rich. This sociologic explanation was highlighted by Nietzche in the 19thC, referred to it as "Master ans Slave" morality.
sologoub 13y ago
I agree this won't be an easy road. Personally, I don't think it will happen within our lifetimes in US.
in2liberty 13y ago
Here's how we do Guaranteed Income the free market way... http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-choose-your-boss-the-market-based http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-in...

by bhauer 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

> My chief concern is that progressives will ask us to explain how we contend with people who despite being given a stack of currency still manage to squander that, leaving themselves hungry, without shelter, or without savings. They may not say that now, but I think that challenge would eventually arrive. I personally favor family and charity as a last safety net, but progressives routinely dismiss those as impractical or insufficient. It's complex. See the UK, where we have complicated benefits and medical care and social housing. If you drink your money, and cause yourself to become homeless, you'll have no money and have nowhere to live. I think understanding how people get themselves into that kind of situation, and guiding them into better choices, is useful to society as a whole. That small investment avoids costs later.

glibgil 13y ago

Remedies for those problems already exist. Courts can order many things to happen automatically (think of child support payments as an example). The community and police can refer a case to a government attorney. The government can sue an individual in court for misuse of funds. The court can order that the individual's income be garnished to pay for housing automatically. Then the individual who has demonstrated that they cannot handle too much freedom keeps their minimum income but doesn't become homeless. This can all happen very quickly and stacks of these cases can be resolved in a couple of hours.

protomyth 13y ago

> My chief concern is that progressives will ask us to explain how we contend with people who despite being given a stack of currency still manage to squander that, leaving themselves hungry, without shelter, or without savings. Pay every weekday morning - it fixes the food part Shelter is tough because we are not trying new things anymore. You rent an apartment or rent / buy a home. We don't have many cheaper shelters like capsule hotels[1] or maybe some modular-type apartments. Innovation in shelters is not a thing and seriously hampered by existing laws. > I personally favor family and charity as a last safety net, but progressives routinely dismiss those as impractical or insufficient. It was the way of things in the early days, but we really need to stop making it difficult for third-partys to actually provide these services. 1) yes, this is not long term or family friendly, but I've live in worse than what I saw in videos of these things.

dllthomas 13y ago
People with these needs having a steady source of income, low as it is, is likely to drive competition to serving their needs. We might well find more innovation there.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I keep thinking you are right, but it just seems like all the regulators and people's perceptions are going to kill any innovation. Never mind the government screwing the market with loans to people who couldn't really afford houses to get houses[1]. We got it in our heads that you must buy a home and our definition of home is fixed. In my wilder moments, I wonder what would happen if a standard "module" size and connection (structural support, door location, water, electric, etc) for apartments happened and you could plug the modules into buildings. I'm sure there are 1,000s of other ideas. 1) small fact, those programs won't loan money to Native Americans on reservations since they cannot take the land anymore. Not sure that's actually a bad thing, but it is odd.

001sky 13y ago

My pessimistic side believes that a portion of the progressive inclination for central planning comes from a fear of allowing people to act stupidly and suffer the consequences Historically, the inclination came from out of work low-level aristocrats looking for "jobs". Welfare for the poor has always been (disguised) welfare for the rich. This sociologic explanation was highlighted by Nietzche in the 19thC, referred to it as "Master ans Slave" morality.

sologoub 13y ago

I agree this won't be an easy road. Personally, I don't think it will happen within our lifetimes in US.

in2liberty 13y ago

Here's how we do Guaranteed Income the free market way... http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-choose-your-boss-the-market-based http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-in...