6 ms·

You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. Once you've established a "protection money" system, e

You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. Once you've established a "protection money" system, establishing their "right" to your money & property, they are now incentivized to demand - and take - more. Panem et circenses is the last stage of polite society; the cost eventually becomes unbearable as fewer work and more expect comfort & leisure for nothing. You give poor people money because it's generosity, kindness and help - freely given as your choice. The recipient receives knowing the charity is out of goodness, and is coupled to an expectation that the recipient will make a respectable effort to overcome poverty. As an American, we ensure people don't climb over the fence and kill us in our sleep because (A) the firepower many have within 3 steps of bed will give potential attackers pause, and (B) the local police will apprehend surviving thugs. We also strive to reduce legal barriers to productivity, promoting liberty to earn an honest wage for honest work (rather than creating high cost of entry with a flurry of stifling regulations). Between severe disincentives to crime, coupled with easy access to rewarding opportunity, we don't have to pay people to not kill us.

calibraxis 13y ago
Enlightened wealthy elites read from authors like like Adam Smith, who said, "Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=196&Itemid=27 http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...) Pretty much what the previous poster explained. After all, "your money & property" are purely social relations requiring a state. The state literally prints money, and enforces "rights to property" using people with sticks.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
If you think about it though, you're absolutely right. Not killing me is just something you should do by default. I shouldn't have to pay you to do that. If I do pay to not kill me, does that mean you can justify killing me if I stop paying you? After all, you're desperate and hungry. Oh wait, what if you waste your stipend on drugs or "loose it" or someone steals it from you because you weren't being responsible with what was basically free money? Do you get more money to waste, or do you get to kill me now for food?
barrkel 13y ago
Ideological response: Police are the thugs that rich people buy to defend themselves from the poor. Actually, basic income / negative income tax is a very good idea, much better than welfare schemes of almost all kinds - it has almost no administration overhead. Charity, like you advocate, has huge amounts of overhead. Milton Friedman was an advocate, for example, and he was hardly a socialist. And the idea that charity comes from goodness? That is utter bullshit. It's 95% social signalling. Altruism doesn't exist.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Police are assigned to serve all, protecting poor as well. If welfare is going to be provided to such a large scale as we do, then yes I'd rather the BI approach just to keep things simple and efficient - and to reveal the veiled problems a complex welfare system conceals. And no, charity is not utter bullshit. What I do isn't signaling anything to anyone, as I keep it as low-profile & anonymous as possible. Altruism exists, and the nature of it means you don't know much about that of others precisely because its nature is to be low-profile & anonymous.
  - evacuationdrill 13y ago
    Come to Houston, where most of the departments operating here earn lots of income from neighborhoods. Your HOA pays the departments to guarantee periodic patrols or even guarantee an officer present somewhere inside 24/7. This is not the same as off-duty police being hired; they pay the department toward officer salaries. Just because they're sworn to protect doesn't mean they can't prefer to protect certain areas.
- rjohnk 13y ago
  Exhibit A negating your last statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805699
- jl6 13y ago
  I've seen a lot of genuine charity motivated by religion, but we seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on that one.
ManFromUranus 13y ago
All you have to do is ask yourself, if you were getting this basic sum, would you be content to do nothing? The answer is probably no. I would do something, some kind of job, as would many people. If only for their sense of self worth / self esteem. I believe that almost everyone would get a job even though a basic income means they don't have to. Also keep in mind, that no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be people who refuse to work. You could make unemployment punishable by death, you still wouldn't be able to force those people who don't want to work to do something. That's just the way it is. So the only thing you can really do is pay them to stay out of the way and not cause any problems. This is cheaper than buying a gun and being eternally vigilant, or paying for security measures. Severe disincentives to crime aren't as useful as you think, because those committing the crimes do so because they don't think they will be caught. Look at some of the absolutely medieval penalties they have in the middle east for various crimes, and yet they still have criminals.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  You might be surprised. A friend of mine who is a very smart guy got laid of from his job with a bunch of redundancy money. All he did was sit and play WoW until the money started to run out and then went out and got another job. If you can do whatever you want, you will probably want to do stuff that makes you happy. One of those things will probably not be reporting to a boss or person to whom you are accountable but that accountability is an essential part of the economic feedback loop that tells you that what you are doing is a good use of time.
  - BillyMaize 13y ago
    This. I am an engineer and work hard because I enjoy the feeling of success as well as the wealth, but for many people (I believe most) this is not the case. On both sides of my family most heavily use government aid when they can and don't care about being successful but simply about getting by. My brother is obsessed with WoW and doesn't care about his future and my mother is perfectly content to just watch TV all day every day while my dad takes care of them both. Enjoying hard work is something you learn and is a feeling that the HN community seems to believe everyone has when really we are in the minority.
pinaceae 13y ago
Right, and looking at stats like murder rates, incarceration numbers, etc. the US system is clearly working and superior. I can walk any street at 2am in Vienna without looking over my shoulder. Oakland? Philly? A personal gun doesn't stop anyone. Fantasy from lala land.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Oakland & Philly, for most practical purposes, ban carry of guns outright. Outside of official "gun-free zones", where armed citizens are legal, crime is very low.
  - pinaceae 13y ago
    so, in Vienna I can walk around unarmed, with zero risk of getting into a firefight and being hurt/killed. walk around as in drunk, with earbuds in, at 2am. in your gun-zones i need to carry concealed, know how to properly shoot and kill and have the risk of hurting/killing innocents. everyone loses in a real firefight. plus if i am drunk and carry stupid things happen. but the US model is clearly better. i need to arm myself to not get robbed.
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      Proper policing lowers crime, not welfare. Many Eastern Europe countries have very generous welfare systems (for example, Romania's welfare is modeled somewhat on Sweden's), but we still have plenty of crime (you can get beaten/stabbed if walking through the wrong parts of town at night). Even if the state gives you free money, you can always use some more. The solution to crime is an efficient and honest police force (or at least 2nd Amendment-style self defense), not more welfare.
    - consonants 13y ago
      Don't forget your armed private security personnel to keep watch when you can't.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    More guns is not the solution to stop crime. It's jobs, it's income, it's opportunity. People commit these petty crimes, join gangs, and so on - simply because there are no other options open to them - there are no jobs they can get to - beyond that our broken education system didn't give them the skills to hold a job.
kbenson 13y ago
The recipient receives knowing the charity is out of goodness, and is coupled to an expectation that the recipient will make a respectable effort to overcome poverty. This seems to imply that it's entirely within the recipients power. Do you truly believe that all it takes is hard work and perseverance to escape poverty? That there is no randomness inherent in success?
strlen 13y ago
The Latin American states where the elites lives on hill-side housing, protected by guards and fences, all have fairly strict gun laws. They aren't going to let the poor arm themselves! While European gun laws are usually stricter than those in the "red states" of US, there are many places that have more lax laws than New York, Connecticut, and California (Czech Republic and Italy two examples that popped to my head; New Zealand and some Canadian provinces -- while not in Europe -- are also more lax than NY/CT/CA/MD afaik). The reason you have the firepower is because those left behind by the knowledge work revolution and living in the inland US still have sufficient political power to counter the Manhattanites and San Franciscans eager to take that firepower away ("oh no, we can't let the peons be seen carrying their icky icky AR-15s, ewww!"). The biggest pusher of gun control in the United States is Mike Bloomberg -- he also happens to be a fairly enthusiastic defender of Wall Street. In his mind it makes perfect sense: why would the elites arm themselves directly, if they can just isolate themselves in Manhattan and Pacific Heights, protected by an armed police state. His gun control support (which seems to be back firing so far) is a great way for him to score brownie points many liberals (who would otherwise be diametrically opposed to most of his positions) without actually proposing any laws that would inconvenience the top 1-0.1% of the population. I'd imagine the Swiss voters (who are voting for this) are laughing extra hard; upon completion of their militia service, they're able buy their service rifle (SIG 552) for $35 (the cost of converting it to a semi-automatic) -- the US-export equivalent (SIG 556) costs in excess of $1800 and cannot be purchased by those in New York or CT (and without significant alterations, in California), the states where quasi-technocratic elites dominate politics: they "know" what's best for the lowest classes (hence support of paternalistic programs like SNAP as well as individual mandates like social security and ACA), they also "know" what's the best for you to defend yourself.
- pinaceae 13y ago
  gun ownership (illegal) in Brazil is crazy high, no ones gives a shit about legality. Switzerland? yes, you have an assault rifle. which you DO NOT CARRY while walking around. and, you have no ammo for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland you really think switzerland has low crime rates because people have empty assault rifles at home?
sharemywin 13y ago
Except we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and I read we pay somewhere around 80k per prisoner per year.
rayiner 13y ago
You're thinking in terms of small-step deviations from our existing society. But that's not what happens without government and civil society. A couple of guns under the bed isn't going to keep the local warlord away. There are no local police, just strongmen. You already pay for people not to kill you: you fund a government and a military to create civil order, without which you'd be a peasant serving a warlord. Once you create government, you have to pick some way to control it. Democracy seems the most fair, but there is as you point out an incentive for people to vote themselves material comforts. There is of course alternatives to democracy. Plutocratic libertarianism underwritten by brutal authoritarianism (I.e. Hong Kong) seems to be popular among a certain set these days. I don't think these are fundamentally stable though. Eventually people will realize that they'd be better off under democracy.
kelvin0 13y ago
Wow, America has solved all the social issues that plagues most other countries. No wonder they 'help' so many countries become like them and become 'democratic'. Thanks for enlightening us with these gems.

calibraxis 13y ago

Enlightened wealthy elites read from authors like like Adam Smith, who said, "Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=196&Itemid=27 http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...) Pretty much what the previous poster explained. After all, "your money & property" are purely social relations requiring a state. The state literally prints money, and enforces "rights to property" using people with sticks.

AsymetricCom 13y ago

If you think about it though, you're absolutely right. Not killing me is just something you should do by default. I shouldn't have to pay you to do that. If I do pay to not kill me, does that mean you can justify killing me if I stop paying you? After all, you're desperate and hungry. Oh wait, what if you waste your stipend on drugs or "loose it" or someone steals it from you because you weren't being responsible with what was basically free money? Do you get more money to waste, or do you get to kill me now for food?

barrkel 13y ago

Ideological response: Police are the thugs that rich people buy to defend themselves from the poor. Actually, basic income / negative income tax is a very good idea, much better than welfare schemes of almost all kinds - it has almost no administration overhead. Charity, like you advocate, has huge amounts of overhead. Milton Friedman was an advocate, for example, and he was hardly a socialist. And the idea that charity comes from goodness? That is utter bullshit. It's 95% social signalling. Altruism doesn't exist.

ctdonath 13y ago
Police are assigned to serve all, protecting poor as well. If welfare is going to be provided to such a large scale as we do, then yes I'd rather the BI approach just to keep things simple and efficient - and to reveal the veiled problems a complex welfare system conceals. And no, charity is not utter bullshit. What I do isn't signaling anything to anyone, as I keep it as low-profile & anonymous as possible. Altruism exists, and the nature of it means you don't know much about that of others precisely because its nature is to be low-profile & anonymous.
- evacuationdrill 13y ago
  Come to Houston, where most of the departments operating here earn lots of income from neighborhoods. Your HOA pays the departments to guarantee periodic patrols or even guarantee an officer present somewhere inside 24/7. This is not the same as off-duty police being hired; they pay the department toward officer salaries. Just because they're sworn to protect doesn't mean they can't prefer to protect certain areas.
rjohnk 13y ago
Exhibit A negating your last statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805699
jl6 13y ago
I've seen a lot of genuine charity motivated by religion, but we seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on that one.

ManFromUranus 13y ago

All you have to do is ask yourself, if you were getting this basic sum, would you be content to do nothing? The answer is probably no. I would do something, some kind of job, as would many people. If only for their sense of self worth / self esteem. I believe that almost everyone would get a job even though a basic income means they don't have to. Also keep in mind, that no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be people who refuse to work. You could make unemployment punishable by death, you still wouldn't be able to force those people who don't want to work to do something. That's just the way it is. So the only thing you can really do is pay them to stay out of the way and not cause any problems. This is cheaper than buying a gun and being eternally vigilant, or paying for security measures. Severe disincentives to crime aren't as useful as you think, because those committing the crimes do so because they don't think they will be caught. Look at some of the absolutely medieval penalties they have in the middle east for various crimes, and yet they still have criminals.

jiggy2011 13y ago
You might be surprised. A friend of mine who is a very smart guy got laid of from his job with a bunch of redundancy money. All he did was sit and play WoW until the money started to run out and then went out and got another job. If you can do whatever you want, you will probably want to do stuff that makes you happy. One of those things will probably not be reporting to a boss or person to whom you are accountable but that accountability is an essential part of the economic feedback loop that tells you that what you are doing is a good use of time.
- BillyMaize 13y ago
  This. I am an engineer and work hard because I enjoy the feeling of success as well as the wealth, but for many people (I believe most) this is not the case. On both sides of my family most heavily use government aid when they can and don't care about being successful but simply about getting by. My brother is obsessed with WoW and doesn't care about his future and my mother is perfectly content to just watch TV all day every day while my dad takes care of them both. Enjoying hard work is something you learn and is a feeling that the HN community seems to believe everyone has when really we are in the minority.

pinaceae 13y ago

Right, and looking at stats like murder rates, incarceration numbers, etc. the US system is clearly working and superior. I can walk any street at 2am in Vienna without looking over my shoulder. Oakland? Philly? A personal gun doesn't stop anyone. Fantasy from lala land.

ctdonath 13y ago
Oakland & Philly, for most practical purposes, ban carry of guns outright. Outside of official "gun-free zones", where armed citizens are legal, crime is very low.
- pinaceae 13y ago
  so, in Vienna I can walk around unarmed, with zero risk of getting into a firefight and being hurt/killed. walk around as in drunk, with earbuds in, at 2am. in your gun-zones i need to carry concealed, know how to properly shoot and kill and have the risk of hurting/killing innocents. everyone loses in a real firefight. plus if i am drunk and carry stupid things happen. but the US model is clearly better. i need to arm myself to not get robbed.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    Proper policing lowers crime, not welfare. Many Eastern Europe countries have very generous welfare systems (for example, Romania's welfare is modeled somewhat on Sweden's), but we still have plenty of crime (you can get beaten/stabbed if walking through the wrong parts of town at night). Even if the state gives you free money, you can always use some more. The solution to crime is an efficient and honest police force (or at least 2nd Amendment-style self defense), not more welfare.
  - consonants 13y ago
    Don't forget your armed private security personnel to keep watch when you can't.
- Aloha 13y ago
  More guns is not the solution to stop crime. It's jobs, it's income, it's opportunity. People commit these petty crimes, join gangs, and so on - simply because there are no other options open to them - there are no jobs they can get to - beyond that our broken education system didn't give them the skills to hold a job.

kbenson 13y ago

The recipient receives knowing the charity is out of goodness, and is coupled to an expectation that the recipient will make a respectable effort to overcome poverty. This seems to imply that it's entirely within the recipients power. Do you truly believe that all it takes is hard work and perseverance to escape poverty? That there is no randomness inherent in success?

strlen 13y ago

The Latin American states where the elites lives on hill-side housing, protected by guards and fences, all have fairly strict gun laws. They aren't going to let the poor arm themselves! While European gun laws are usually stricter than those in the "red states" of US, there are many places that have more lax laws than New York, Connecticut, and California (Czech Republic and Italy two examples that popped to my head; New Zealand and some Canadian provinces -- while not in Europe -- are also more lax than NY/CT/CA/MD afaik). The reason you have the firepower is because those left behind by the knowledge work revolution and living in the inland US still have sufficient political power to counter the Manhattanites and San Franciscans eager to take that firepower away ("oh no, we can't let the peons be seen carrying their icky icky AR-15s, ewww!"). The biggest pusher of gun control in the United States is Mike Bloomberg -- he also happens to be a fairly enthusiastic defender of Wall Street. In his mind it makes perfect sense: why would the elites arm themselves directly, if they can just isolate themselves in Manhattan and Pacific Heights, protected by an armed police state. His gun control support (which seems to be back firing so far) is a great way for him to score brownie points many liberals (who would otherwise be diametrically opposed to most of his positions) without actually proposing any laws that would inconvenience the top 1-0.1% of the population. I'd imagine the Swiss voters (who are voting for this) are laughing extra hard; upon completion of their militia service, they're able buy their service rifle (SIG 552) for $35 (the cost of converting it to a semi-automatic) -- the US-export equivalent (SIG 556) costs in excess of $1800 and cannot be purchased by those in New York or CT (and without significant alterations, in California), the states where quasi-technocratic elites dominate politics: they "know" what's best for the lowest classes (hence support of paternalistic programs like SNAP as well as individual mandates like social security and ACA), they also "know" what's the best for you to defend yourself.

pinaceae 13y ago
gun ownership (illegal) in Brazil is crazy high, no ones gives a shit about legality. Switzerland? yes, you have an assault rifle. which you DO NOT CARRY while walking around. and, you have no ammo for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland you really think switzerland has low crime rates because people have empty assault rifles at home?

sharemywin 13y ago

Except we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and I read we pay somewhere around 80k per prisoner per year.

rayiner 13y ago

You're thinking in terms of small-step deviations from our existing society. But that's not what happens without government and civil society. A couple of guns under the bed isn't going to keep the local warlord away. There are no local police, just strongmen. You already pay for people not to kill you: you fund a government and a military to create civil order, without which you'd be a peasant serving a warlord. Once you create government, you have to pick some way to control it. Democracy seems the most fair, but there is as you point out an incentive for people to vote themselves material comforts. There is of course alternatives to democracy. Plutocratic libertarianism underwritten by brutal authoritarianism (I.e. Hong Kong) seems to be popular among a certain set these days. I don't think these are fundamentally stable though. Eventually people will realize that they'd be better off under democracy.

kelvin0 13y ago

Wow, America has solved all the social issues that plagues most other countries. No wonder they 'help' so many countries become like them and become 'democratic'. Thanks for enlightening us with these gems.