9 ms·

This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. Why wo

This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of your life. I started a business 2 years ago and I don't plan on getting a job anytime soon. You have the freedom to do this..or work for someone..or you could even live in the woods on berries.

chasing 12y ago
You appear to be getting downvoted, but you've struck at the heart of the issue: If we want to do away with meaningless jobs, people will still need resources to survive. And that "one-in-ten-thousand" (or whatever) will need to be taxed very heavily so the wealth can be spread. We can't have all of our financial resources siloed into an increasingly small number of people's wallets. A great benefit to this system will be that people can do important work that might not necessarily reward them financially. The downside is that, well, those who do financially well will have to share their earnings. And we'll have to detach the notion of financial success with the notion of power, which will be difficult. And all of this runs anathema to the usual sort of libertarian financial-might-makes-right of the tech world, unfortunately. [Edit, since I can't reply to zo1, yet, below: No, I wasn't trying to tie libertarianism to "financial-might-makes-right." I meant that the tech world seems to slant libertarian, and people in this world seem to aggrandize money as the supreme metric of success.]
- zo1 12y ago
  "And all of this runs anathema to the usual sort of libertarian financial-might-makes-right of the tech world, unfortunately."? Woah, hold on there. Did you really just imply that "financial-might-makes-right" is a Libertarian thing/concept? That is absolutely not true, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I'm honestly curious why you would even think that. If you do, then you've been drinking some seriously nasty statist koolaid, and we're here for you if you need some help getting over that addiction. With reasoned arguments, no less!
  - 21echoes 12y ago
    Libertarianism is the belief that the only valid rights are 1) private property, and 2) no initiated direct physical violence. The only time either of these rules can be violated is: the second one may be violated to punish those who violated rule 1 or 2 (notice: rule 1 can never be violated). a pretty direct, if over-simplified, outcome: someone with a lot of financial might (say, an apple orchard), can deny another person with less financial might (say, nothing) access to food, leading to their death. as the second person was looking to violate rule number 1, and the first person didn't violate rule number 2, Libertarianism is totally fine with this chain of events. Libertarianism, phrased a different way, says "the only time you can hurt someone is when they take your stuff. if you hurt someone by having stuff while they have nothing, that's totally fine." In other words, financial might makes right.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      > Libertarianism is the belief that the only valid rights are 1) private property, and 2) no initiated direct physical violence. That's simply not true. Libertarianism is a group of related ideologies that includes libertarian socialism - often called "left communism" (and derided as such in Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism - An infantile disorder"). What libertarian ideologies share, is liberty as a prime goal. But many libertarian ideologies see private property as antithetical to liberty, as it intrinsically restricts access to limited natural resources, even when sharing access to the same would cause minimal reduction in liberty for someone who might otherwise have exclusive access to said property.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  I made a good point..and I wasn't even snarky or mean about it. I was down voted because I differed with someone's opinion. Silencing trolls is one thing..but silencing the opposition reminds me why need freedom of speech.
  - 21echoes 12y ago
    I'm sorry, but you really did not make good points. > Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? To help people. Maybe you don't feel like helping others, but most people do. To question even the existence of that motive is... pretty scary > You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of your life. I started a business 2 years ago and I don't plan on getting a job anytime soon. Starting a business requires capital, talent, and a lot of luck. Obviously, not everyone has access to these things, nor should we expect them to. > You have the freedom to do this..or work for someone..or you could even live in the woods on berries. No, living in the woods on berries is really not realistic.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    One thing I've learned around HN is that sometimes you have to wear your downvotes with pride.
- Artistry121 12y ago
  Libertarians would actually be against many policies designed to keep people in jobs - pushed by many of both major parties today. In fact full employment is a goal mostly supported by policies and politicians decidedly anti-free-market. Voluntary giving and charity and voluntary communal groups could easily grow. The notion that taxes are the only way to spread wealth is flawed. The nuclear family is already one example almost everyone can relate to where one or two people support a whole - in some cases old and young alike. It will take social change to make a less work based society work - forcing people into that route is silly and a long step on the road to totalitarianism. Libertarianism is the opposite of might-makes-right. Libertarianism is the view that coercive power should be incredibly limited in scope and that an individual's decisions and contracts are what makes right.
  - chasing 12y ago
    > Voluntary giving and charity and voluntary communal groups could easily grow. The notion that taxes are the only way to spread wealth is flawed. Except now you've created a situation where only the wealthy get to choose society's direction. We need taxes so that even those without financial resources can have a say in what our collective money funds. This is made even more extreme if only a small part of the population is doing work with immediate financial reward.
    - Artistry121 12y ago
      You've actually created a situation where only those who provide value to others get to choose society's direction - and only in non-coercive ways. Thought leaders, religious leaders and other individuals can all have power as well - although non-violent power. In a heavy tax-scenario those who get to choose society's direction can do so with military level force and attain power through politics and favor trading unrestricted by limits of the law (i.e. they can rewrite the laws). Also, those with influence can influence the law and write favorable, coercive, policies for themselves (as evidenced by the banking crisis and bailouts and current low interest rate environment). Here is a list of current expenditures by the financial industry on lawmakers: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F&cycle=2014&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F&cycle... Either way someone accumulates wealth - in one case its through forced redistribution (which will benefit a specific class, and which is unlikely to be the class that doesn't have the funds to contribute to politicians) and in once case is through voluntary redistribution. Dr. Dre gets to be a billionaire because people want to give him money in exchange for his music and social cred and Steve Jobs gets to be a billionaire because people want to give him money for his company's technology. Taxes and regulations are needed in some cases - but the more power they get the more people will attempt to use them for anticompetitive purposes. 1000s of banks shut down during the financial crisis - but the worst offenders got cheap loans to make record profits in the succeeding years. It would be nice to think a central authority can have our best interests in minds. That central authority has killed more civilians than combatants in current wars: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ And the first lady and President openly pronounce disgust with Boko Haram while ordering airstrikes and military actions that have directly caused the deaths of far more children and left more than half of Iraqi children orphans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/world/meast/yemen-u-s-drone-wedding/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/world/meast/yemen-u-s-drone-we... (Notice US Officials declined to comment on actions they could have prevented - but are more than willing to comment on crimes in other countries far beyond their jurisdiction) On the "home front" non-violent and non-lying offenders in prison account for nearly 60% of incarcerated because violence has been used to punish these crimes of choice rather than social stigmas and education.
- vishnugupta 12y ago
  > And that "one-in-ten-thousand" (or whatever) will need to be taxed very heavily so the wealth can be spread I think this is always going to be problematic because once wealth gets concentrated it's going to be very hard to redistribute it, short of some revolution or coup. And I sense that this is going to be especially hard in democratic countries where there's a very close nexus between elected representatives and wealth holders; US, India being prime examples that I could think of. An alternative is to have systems and institutions such that wealth concentration doesn't even happen in the first place. Also I believe wealth gets concentrated by systemic and institutionalized transfer of wealth from middle and poor class to a selected few rich and not because those who are wealthy are geniuses or are contributing proportionately to society. I can think of a few examples of systemic, institutionalized wealth transfers that are happening right now. 1. Riding on others hard work: A labor working in inhuman conditions with peanuts for wage producing textiles which are sold with profit margin of a few thousand percentages. 2. Privatizing essential services: Poor/middle class persons having to pay out regular health premium and still live in fear of getting their claim rejected and end up paying through their nose for smallest of diseases, medicines. 3. Rent seeking: Natural resources (oil, spectrum etc.,), licenses, monopoly, forced software contracts, patents and such. 4. Crony Capitalism: Govt bail outs for failed private institutions that have caused massive financial crisis which in itself was a wealth transfer from poor to rich of a scale that was perhaps unheard of. 5. Crony Capitalism: Tax payer's money getting transferred to weapon's manufacturers and private military contractors who in turn are going to protect the interest of private oil corporations. 6. Riding on others hard work: Illegal or institutionalized collusion among private corporations to suppress the wage by not allowing free labor market. 7. Resource transfer: Government snatching massive tracts of farming land from the poor farmers and giving them away to private corporations for pittance. 9. Erect massive blockade to democratic institutions so that the common citizen, for whom they were meant for in the first place, will have no choice but to resort to middle men and shell out huge sums. Courts (lawyers, out of court settlements etc.,), parliaments (lobbyists) etc., If I look at the list of wealthiest people, rent seeking behavior and riding on cheap labor jumps out! Sure, they probably deserve to be wealthier than above average, but does the wealth they have accumulated is proportional to their social contribution? The intersection between those who have contributed to advancement of our civilization in whatever small way and the rich people is almost an empty set. That's a clear enough indicator that those who are very wealthy really don't deserve it and in fact snatched the wealth from others to start with!
- vidarh 12y ago
  > A great benefit to this system will be that people can do important work that might not necessarily reward them financially. The downside is that, well, those who do financially well will have to share their earnings. And we'll have to detach the notion of financial success with the notion of power, which will be difficult. You've basically restated Marx' view on what communism should be. His most famous quote on the subject is probably this from German Ideology: "in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wished, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic." A large part of Marx' point is that for socialism to become possible - and necessary - capitalism must first drive technological advances and production to a point where nothing near the full production capacity of humanity is needed for redistribution to be possible while eliminating poverty entirely, and in the process freeing society up to be extremely flexible about how people contributes.
- ramblerman 12y ago
  "And all of this runs anathema to the usual sort of libertarian financial-might-makes-right of the tech world, unfortunately." Is that the right usage of that word? It means to vehemently dislike or a papal curse. I think something along the lines of, 'but this is anathema to the libertarian ...' would be correct.
pliny 12y ago
>Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything? Because the business itself is important to you, or because that's the only way to get more than other people have. It seems like this is essentially the case today and people still build million dollar businesses and still get rich, in America and in Europe and in a lot of places with more or less aggressive wealth redistribution policies - but all of them do the thing that is taking a large share of your earnings and giving it to non-working people.
jeena 12y ago
> This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. It is already like this, only those who do valuable work support the resto of sociaty, so this wouldn't change. The only change would be that the other people, who now do bullshit jobs wouldn't need to do them anymore.
turnip1979 12y ago
I'm not someone who downvoted you but would like to discuss your points. Lets start bottom up. 1) You cannot legally collect berries in the woods. That may have been possible a few hundred years ago. For all my life, I've lived in concrete jungles where pretty much every shrub was manicured and every tree was allowed to survive for aesthetic reasons. More so that that, we don't have commons any more. In the stone ages, I could go and cut a tree or hunt deer. Doing that - without paying for permits and usage rights - would get you in a heap of trouble. Now, in the stone ages, you'd have to worry about bears and neanderthals coming and ending your existence. We don't have to worry about that since the state has a police force, courts, laws, animal control, etc. And that's the same state that's requiring permits. So it is a choice the current and previous generations have made. 2) I hated the idea of the welfare queen growing up. My parents never took welfare and I'd take it as a failure if I ever had to do the same (personal choice). If you do a bit of research, you might be surprised to learn that welfare queens don't exist in the vast numbers you think they do. Not anymore and not for a while. 3) Starting any business requires capital. You were lucky because you had access to it. A lot of people have no savings at all. That's the reason they work hard jobs (typically unskilled) for very small compensation. 4) Thought experiment. Lets say, you go to Africa. You see a village that's suffering from famine. You can take 10 bucks and that feeds them for the day. Would you feel disgusted that these people are mooching off of your hard earned cash? I don't think you would. I think you (and I) would feel grateful that we had the opportunity to help our fellow human beings. This is a complex topic that's not black and white. I wish people didn't downvote you. This is the kind of stuff that should be discussed.
- quasque 12y ago
  > You cannot legally collect berries in the woods. A minor point, but this is generally legal in the UK if you're doing it for personal consumption [1]. I expect other countries have similarly permissive exceptions. [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/4
  - bjelkeman-again 12y ago
    In the Nordic countries and especially in Sweden everyone can collect berries, flowers and mushrooms in the woods. It is the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden
ZenPro 12y ago
The classic fallacy is that everyone can be an entrepreneur. They cannot. A. Entrepreneurs need employees to scale B. If everyone was an Entrepreneur there would be very few consumers for goods and services.
- keithpeter 12y ago
  Especially if everyone was bootstrapping. Mildly provocative thought: what % of Ycombinator assisted companies have customers with 'real jobs' (by definition of OP, which I accept may be contested)?
- handzhiev 12y ago
  B doesn't make sense. Being an entrepreneur does not mean you don't need goods and services from others.
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    It makes perfect sense. You still need goods and services you have nowhere near the consumption habits or total required by individuals working in steady, paid employment. The majority of entrepreneurs have precious little time for broadcast media, socialising, reading for pleasure or other time-filling habit. Major purchasing decisions such as housing, vehicles and children are drastically affected and often delayed by entrepreneurs. Such purchases may even find themselves mortgaged if funds are tight. (Hopefully not the children...) Where would the purchasing power stem from in a world of bootstrapping entrepreneurs? I am struggling to find any rational reason why you think B does make sense... You can challenge the validity with data but claiming it is does not make sense is fallacious.
jamesisaac 12y ago
> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? Are you suggesting that the only motivation to start a business is to "make millions and keep millions"? What about: - Making the world a better place - Improving the lives of others - The personal satisfaction of building things and solving difficult problems These are all motivators to do something which creates "economic value".
- Artistry121 12y ago
  If all three of those are strong motivators then the government would not need to get involved with charity and welfare either - because individuals could get satisfaction from charity and providing opportunity for others by making the world a better place, improving the lives of others and gaining the personal satisfaction from helping solve a problem.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    One reason I'm not giving a good chunk of my money to charity right now, is because I'm afraid. Afraid. I have saving, which I could give away, but cling to because they could come in handy. Could lose my job (oops, I did lose my job), and I can't count on welfare to keep my standard of living forever. Something bad could happen to me, and I may need my savings. If I could count on a sustainable basic income, it would remove that fear. I would probably give more to charities. I'd probably be less afraid of freelance work. And I'd probably work on something actually worthwhile, such as research in programming techniques. I may even volunteer for a bit of menial physical work for a change.
mpyne 12y ago
Well, you only need money to buy the things you need to survive. Many jobs are already "few doing work to support the rest of society", the only difference is that today we happen to be paying the few to do it. If you had people willing to do the work anyways, since it's what they like doing (e.g. farming) then why shouldn't the rest of society benefit? It's the same principle that drives open source programming. Not everything you do has to be based on maximizing your net worth. However I do think this is where Fuller's principles start going astray. There are so many jobs out there which people don't want to do, but are absolutely necessary. It's easy to say that people should see what needs to be done, and go do it, but people simply don't work that way. All other things being equal, we do what we want to do, not what needs to be done. Fuller would be right on track if people wanted to do what needs to be done, and with those two sets in proper proportion with each other. But I've seen no evidence to show that is what society does for us (and a whole lot of evidence to the contrary). Failing that, the quest for money helps to provide a forcing function to align society's needs with worker's wants, but this system has a lot of flaws as well.
Dylan16807 12y ago
>the majority of my earnings If the government is taxing a significant majority of your income you'll still be rich. Allow me to reframe the question, why bother starting a business where you'll only earn three million dollars a year? One good reason is because you want to take home three million dollars, even if it was theoretically 25 before taxes. Even if every slacker in the world gets a $20k stipend, there's plenty of incentive to solve problems and make money.
ForHackernews 12y ago
> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything? Because you'd still have millions of dollars, obviously! This is such a weird, sour-grapes style of thinking. Why do you bother running your business today when the government is just going to take X% of the money? Are you really going to take your ball and go home, just to prevent the "unfairness" of somebody else benefiting from your labor? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
chadcf 12y ago
> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? Why do people start million dollar businesses now when they can work at McDonald's or work at a call center or or teach schools or be a policeman or or or... It's almost like some people are naturally motivated to do certain things for reasons beyond just the desire to have food and a roof over their heads. I don't understand why people think if you offer everyone, say, $20k a year to do nothing that nobody would ever want to work to achieve more, earn more, improve people's lives, etc. Sure some people would (especially people who currently live on minimum wage). But many would not be satisfied with such a minimal existence. And with nobody having to worry about surviving without a job, it also frees up many people to explore ideas they otherwise would never have had time for.
- copperx 12y ago
  Exactly. I don't know why some people think that economic stability is everything to humans. Fame and recognition are so much stronger motivators than money.
- pradocchia 12y ago
  And with nobody having to worry about surviving without a job, it also frees up many people to explore ideas they otherwise would never have had time for. Well, even universal healthcare would have this same effect in America. There would be a veritable Cambrian explosion as hundreds of thousands of people quit their jobs and started doing something interesting, something they cared about. A lot of these interests would turn into businesses and we would all be far the richer for it, never mind the 50% taxes.
withdavidli 12y ago
There are some assumptions here: 1. You need money to survive - Nope. Money is a medium to exchange for goods. All the money in the world can't save you if there's no food/water. 2. Starting a business solely on personal gain - A million dollar business, I assume, is you're example of a successful business. Though it will be true for a lot of people, please pose the question "Would you start a successful business if it would save millions of lives and billions of work hours?" 3. Supporting people that didn't need to do anything - There's an assumption that people that don't need to support themselves will be unproductive. Is this neccessarily true? Though it might be a small fraction of the population, there are people's interests that they pursue that would greatly automate jobs or help their society. Theoritical work that people pursue are abstract, but the research findings could give great insight into physics, biology, social dynamics, etc. The heart of your statement is more philosophical in why communisum won't work. But would a purely capitalistic society be better? Where you know that near every action is derived from personal gain?
kyllo 12y ago
How is supporting people by employing them in unproductive bullshit jobs any better than supporting them with basic income? They are getting paid to do nothing of value either way.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ScottBurson 12y ago
> You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of your life. Indeed. I think you and Bucky are more in agreement than you realize. Bucky isn't suggesting that people go home and drink beer and watch TV for the rest of their lives. He is urging them to think, to be creative, to find themselves. Starting a business, for those so inclined, would be an outcome I think he would celebrate. Others might invent, or compose music, or write, or paint, etc. I think we are moving toward an economy like what Bucky envisioned, where there may be fewer jobs, but many more people find their true work.
- xrange 12y ago
  Is there some test that we could perform to identify whether we are living in that type of world? Would someone from say, 1848 think that we're already there, and most people would apparently prefer to work crappy jobs than live a life measureably better than the majority of people who lived in 1848?
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? Our time to actually get on with better lives is running out while you capitalists poison the planet and quite literally work the human race to death. Climb the Hierarchy of Needs to higher levels, or we will drag you up there by force ;-).
tim333 12y ago
>Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from... >you could even live in the woods on berries... It's not necessary to go as far as berries - in most of the developed world you can not work and be supported automatically by the government. But it's boring! Most people would much rather be building million dollar businesses even if the pay was much the same. In fact many people working for corporations build multi million dollar businesses where 99% or so of the value goes to the corporation but you don't see them complaining much.
mcv 12y ago
> This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. Yes, but why should people do totally useless work to get it?
increment_i 12y ago
You had better be damn good at hunting then, because as a human you'll croak quicker than you think from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

chasing 12y ago

You appear to be getting downvoted, but you've struck at the heart of the issue: If we want to do away with meaningless jobs, people will still need resources to survive. And that "one-in-ten-thousand" (or whatever) will need to be taxed very heavily so the wealth can be spread. We can't have all of our financial resources siloed into an increasingly small number of people's wallets. A great benefit to this system will be that people can do important work that might not necessarily reward them financially. The downside is that, well, those who do financially well will have to share their earnings. And we'll have to detach the notion of financial success with the notion of power, which will be difficult. And all of this runs anathema to the usual sort of libertarian financial-might-makes-right of the tech world, unfortunately. [Edit, since I can't reply to zo1, yet, below: No, I wasn't trying to tie libertarianism to "financial-might-makes-right." I meant that the tech world seems to slant libertarian, and people in this world seem to aggrandize money as the supreme metric of success.]

zo1 12y ago
"And all of this runs anathema to the usual sort of libertarian financial-might-makes-right of the tech world, unfortunately."? Woah, hold on there. Did you really just imply that "financial-might-makes-right" is a Libertarian thing/concept? That is absolutely not true, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I'm honestly curious why you would even think that. If you do, then you've been drinking some seriously nasty statist koolaid, and we're here for you if you need some help getting over that addiction. With reasoned arguments, no less!
- 21echoes 12y ago
  Libertarianism is the belief that the only valid rights are 1) private property, and 2) no initiated direct physical violence. The only time either of these rules can be violated is: the second one may be violated to punish those who violated rule 1 or 2 (notice: rule 1 can never be violated). a pretty direct, if over-simplified, outcome: someone with a lot of financial might (say, an apple orchard), can deny another person with less financial might (say, nothing) access to food, leading to their death. as the second person was looking to violate rule number 1, and the first person didn't violate rule number 2, Libertarianism is totally fine with this chain of events. Libertarianism, phrased a different way, says "the only time you can hurt someone is when they take your stuff. if you hurt someone by having stuff while they have nothing, that's totally fine." In other words, financial might makes right.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    > Libertarianism is the belief that the only valid rights are 1) private property, and 2) no initiated direct physical violence. That's simply not true. Libertarianism is a group of related ideologies that includes libertarian socialism - often called "left communism" (and derided as such in Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism - An infantile disorder"). What libertarian ideologies share, is liberty as a prime goal. But many libertarian ideologies see private property as antithetical to liberty, as it intrinsically restricts access to limited natural resources, even when sharing access to the same would cause minimal reduction in liberty for someone who might otherwise have exclusive access to said property.
paulhauggis 12y ago
I made a good point..and I wasn't even snarky or mean about it. I was down voted because I differed with someone's opinion. Silencing trolls is one thing..but silencing the opposition reminds me why need freedom of speech.
- 21echoes 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but you really did not make good points. > Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? To help people. Maybe you don't feel like helping others, but most people do. To question even the existence of that motive is... pretty scary > You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of your life. I started a business 2 years ago and I don't plan on getting a job anytime soon. Starting a business requires capital, talent, and a lot of luck. Obviously, not everyone has access to these things, nor should we expect them to. > You have the freedom to do this..or work for someone..or you could even live in the woods on berries. No, living in the woods on berries is really not realistic.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  One thing I've learned around HN is that sometimes you have to wear your downvotes with pride.
Artistry121 12y ago
Libertarians would actually be against many policies designed to keep people in jobs - pushed by many of both major parties today. In fact full employment is a goal mostly supported by policies and politicians decidedly anti-free-market. Voluntary giving and charity and voluntary communal groups could easily grow. The notion that taxes are the only way to spread wealth is flawed. The nuclear family is already one example almost everyone can relate to where one or two people support a whole - in some cases old and young alike. It will take social change to make a less work based society work - forcing people into that route is silly and a long step on the road to totalitarianism. Libertarianism is the opposite of might-makes-right. Libertarianism is the view that coercive power should be incredibly limited in scope and that an individual's decisions and contracts are what makes right.
- chasing 12y ago
  > Voluntary giving and charity and voluntary communal groups could easily grow. The notion that taxes are the only way to spread wealth is flawed. Except now you've created a situation where only the wealthy get to choose society's direction. We need taxes so that even those without financial resources can have a say in what our collective money funds. This is made even more extreme if only a small part of the population is doing work with immediate financial reward.
  - Artistry121 12y ago
    You've actually created a situation where only those who provide value to others get to choose society's direction - and only in non-coercive ways. Thought leaders, religious leaders and other individuals can all have power as well - although non-violent power. In a heavy tax-scenario those who get to choose society's direction can do so with military level force and attain power through politics and favor trading unrestricted by limits of the law (i.e. they can rewrite the laws). Also, those with influence can influence the law and write favorable, coercive, policies for themselves (as evidenced by the banking crisis and bailouts and current low interest rate environment). Here is a list of current expenditures by the financial industry on lawmakers: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F&cycle=2014&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F&cycle... Either way someone accumulates wealth - in one case its through forced redistribution (which will benefit a specific class, and which is unlikely to be the class that doesn't have the funds to contribute to politicians) and in once case is through voluntary redistribution. Dr. Dre gets to be a billionaire because people want to give him money in exchange for his music and social cred and Steve Jobs gets to be a billionaire because people want to give him money for his company's technology. Taxes and regulations are needed in some cases - but the more power they get the more people will attempt to use them for anticompetitive purposes. 1000s of banks shut down during the financial crisis - but the worst offenders got cheap loans to make record profits in the succeeding years. It would be nice to think a central authority can have our best interests in minds. That central authority has killed more civilians than combatants in current wars: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ And the first lady and President openly pronounce disgust with Boko Haram while ordering airstrikes and military actions that have directly caused the deaths of far more children and left more than half of Iraqi children orphans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/world/meast/yemen-u-s-drone-wedding/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/world/meast/yemen-u-s-drone-we... (Notice US Officials declined to comment on actions they could have prevented - but are more than willing to comment on crimes in other countries far beyond their jurisdiction) On the "home front" non-violent and non-lying offenders in prison account for nearly 60% of incarcerated because violence has been used to punish these crimes of choice rather than social stigmas and education.
vishnugupta 12y ago
> And that "one-in-ten-thousand" (or whatever) will need to be taxed very heavily so the wealth can be spread I think this is always going to be problematic because once wealth gets concentrated it's going to be very hard to redistribute it, short of some revolution or coup. And I sense that this is going to be especially hard in democratic countries where there's a very close nexus between elected representatives and wealth holders; US, India being prime examples that I could think of. An alternative is to have systems and institutions such that wealth concentration doesn't even happen in the first place. Also I believe wealth gets concentrated by systemic and institutionalized transfer of wealth from middle and poor class to a selected few rich and not because those who are wealthy are geniuses or are contributing proportionately to society. I can think of a few examples of systemic, institutionalized wealth transfers that are happening right now. 1. Riding on others hard work: A labor working in inhuman conditions with peanuts for wage producing textiles which are sold with profit margin of a few thousand percentages. 2. Privatizing essential services: Poor/middle class persons having to pay out regular health premium and still live in fear of getting their claim rejected and end up paying through their nose for smallest of diseases, medicines. 3. Rent seeking: Natural resources (oil, spectrum etc.,), licenses, monopoly, forced software contracts, patents and such. 4. Crony Capitalism: Govt bail outs for failed private institutions that have caused massive financial crisis which in itself was a wealth transfer from poor to rich of a scale that was perhaps unheard of. 5. Crony Capitalism: Tax payer's money getting transferred to weapon's manufacturers and private military contractors who in turn are going to protect the interest of private oil corporations. 6. Riding on others hard work: Illegal or institutionalized collusion among private corporations to suppress the wage by not allowing free labor market. 7. Resource transfer: Government snatching massive tracts of farming land from the poor farmers and giving them away to private corporations for pittance. 9. Erect massive blockade to democratic institutions so that the common citizen, for whom they were meant for in the first place, will have no choice but to resort to middle men and shell out huge sums. Courts (lawyers, out of court settlements etc.,), parliaments (lobbyists) etc., If I look at the list of wealthiest people, rent seeking behavior and riding on cheap labor jumps out! Sure, they probably deserve to be wealthier than above average, but does the wealth they have accumulated is proportional to their social contribution? The intersection between those who have contributed to advancement of our civilization in whatever small way and the rich people is almost an empty set. That's a clear enough indicator that those who are very wealthy really don't deserve it and in fact snatched the wealth from others to start with!
vidarh 12y ago
> A great benefit to this system will be that people can do important work that might not necessarily reward them financially. The downside is that, well, those who do financially well will have to share their earnings. And we'll have to detach the notion of financial success with the notion of power, which will be difficult. You've basically restated Marx' view on what communism should be. His most famous quote on the subject is probably this from German Ideology: "in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wished, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic." A large part of Marx' point is that for socialism to become possible - and necessary - capitalism must first drive technological advances and production to a point where nothing near the full production capacity of humanity is needed for redistribution to be possible while eliminating poverty entirely, and in the process freeing society up to be extremely flexible about how people contributes.
ramblerman 12y ago
"And all of this runs anathema to the usual sort of libertarian financial-might-makes-right of the tech world, unfortunately." Is that the right usage of that word? It means to vehemently dislike or a papal curse. I think something along the lines of, 'but this is anathema to the libertarian ...' would be correct.

pliny 12y ago

>Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything? Because the business itself is important to you, or because that's the only way to get more than other people have. It seems like this is essentially the case today and people still build million dollar businesses and still get rich, in America and in Europe and in a lot of places with more or less aggressive wealth redistribution policies - but all of them do the thing that is taking a large share of your earnings and giving it to non-working people.

jeena 12y ago

> This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. It is already like this, only those who do valuable work support the resto of sociaty, so this wouldn't change. The only change would be that the other people, who now do bullshit jobs wouldn't need to do them anymore.

turnip1979 12y ago

I'm not someone who downvoted you but would like to discuss your points. Lets start bottom up. 1) You cannot legally collect berries in the woods. That may have been possible a few hundred years ago. For all my life, I've lived in concrete jungles where pretty much every shrub was manicured and every tree was allowed to survive for aesthetic reasons. More so that that, we don't have commons any more. In the stone ages, I could go and cut a tree or hunt deer. Doing that - without paying for permits and usage rights - would get you in a heap of trouble. Now, in the stone ages, you'd have to worry about bears and neanderthals coming and ending your existence. We don't have to worry about that since the state has a police force, courts, laws, animal control, etc. And that's the same state that's requiring permits. So it is a choice the current and previous generations have made. 2) I hated the idea of the welfare queen growing up. My parents never took welfare and I'd take it as a failure if I ever had to do the same (personal choice). If you do a bit of research, you might be surprised to learn that welfare queens don't exist in the vast numbers you think they do. Not anymore and not for a while. 3) Starting any business requires capital. You were lucky because you had access to it. A lot of people have no savings at all. That's the reason they work hard jobs (typically unskilled) for very small compensation. 4) Thought experiment. Lets say, you go to Africa. You see a village that's suffering from famine. You can take 10 bucks and that feeds them for the day. Would you feel disgusted that these people are mooching off of your hard earned cash? I don't think you would. I think you (and I) would feel grateful that we had the opportunity to help our fellow human beings. This is a complex topic that's not black and white. I wish people didn't downvote you. This is the kind of stuff that should be discussed.

quasque 12y ago
> You cannot legally collect berries in the woods. A minor point, but this is generally legal in the UK if you're doing it for personal consumption [1]. I expect other countries have similarly permissive exceptions. [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/4
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  In the Nordic countries and especially in Sweden everyone can collect berries, flowers and mushrooms in the woods. It is the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden

ZenPro 12y ago

The classic fallacy is that everyone can be an entrepreneur. They cannot. A. Entrepreneurs need employees to scale B. If everyone was an Entrepreneur there would be very few consumers for goods and services.

keithpeter 12y ago
Especially if everyone was bootstrapping. Mildly provocative thought: what % of Ycombinator assisted companies have customers with 'real jobs' (by definition of OP, which I accept may be contested)?
handzhiev 12y ago
B doesn't make sense. Being an entrepreneur does not mean you don't need goods and services from others.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  It makes perfect sense. You still need goods and services you have nowhere near the consumption habits or total required by individuals working in steady, paid employment. The majority of entrepreneurs have precious little time for broadcast media, socialising, reading for pleasure or other time-filling habit. Major purchasing decisions such as housing, vehicles and children are drastically affected and often delayed by entrepreneurs. Such purchases may even find themselves mortgaged if funds are tight. (Hopefully not the children...) Where would the purchasing power stem from in a world of bootstrapping entrepreneurs? I am struggling to find any rational reason why you think B does make sense... You can challenge the validity with data but claiming it is does not make sense is fallacious.

jamesisaac 12y ago

> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? Are you suggesting that the only motivation to start a business is to "make millions and keep millions"? What about: - Making the world a better place - Improving the lives of others - The personal satisfaction of building things and solving difficult problems These are all motivators to do something which creates "economic value".

Artistry121 12y ago
If all three of those are strong motivators then the government would not need to get involved with charity and welfare either - because individuals could get satisfaction from charity and providing opportunity for others by making the world a better place, improving the lives of others and gaining the personal satisfaction from helping solve a problem.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  One reason I'm not giving a good chunk of my money to charity right now, is because I'm afraid. Afraid. I have saving, which I could give away, but cling to because they could come in handy. Could lose my job (oops, I did lose my job), and I can't count on welfare to keep my standard of living forever. Something bad could happen to me, and I may need my savings. If I could count on a sustainable basic income, it would remove that fear. I would probably give more to charities. I'd probably be less afraid of freelance work. And I'd probably work on something actually worthwhile, such as research in programming techniques. I may even volunteer for a bit of menial physical work for a change.

mpyne 12y ago

Well, you only need money to buy the things you need to survive. Many jobs are already "few doing work to support the rest of society", the only difference is that today we happen to be paying the few to do it. If you had people willing to do the work anyways, since it's what they like doing (e.g. farming) then why shouldn't the rest of society benefit? It's the same principle that drives open source programming. Not everything you do has to be based on maximizing your net worth. However I do think this is where Fuller's principles start going astray. There are so many jobs out there which people don't want to do, but are absolutely necessary. It's easy to say that people should see what needs to be done, and go do it, but people simply don't work that way. All other things being equal, we do what we want to do, not what needs to be done. Fuller would be right on track if people wanted to do what needs to be done, and with those two sets in proper proportion with each other. But I've seen no evidence to show that is what society does for us (and a whole lot of evidence to the contrary). Failing that, the quest for money helps to provide a forcing function to align society's needs with worker's wants, but this system has a lot of flaws as well.

Dylan16807 12y ago

>the majority of my earnings If the government is taxing a significant majority of your income you'll still be rich. Allow me to reframe the question, why bother starting a business where you'll only earn three million dollars a year? One good reason is because you want to take home three million dollars, even if it was theoretically 25 before taxes. Even if every slacker in the world gets a $20k stipend, there's plenty of incentive to solve problems and make money.

ForHackernews 12y ago

> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything? Because you'd still have millions of dollars, obviously! This is such a weird, sour-grapes style of thinking. Why do you bother running your business today when the government is just going to take X% of the money? Are you really going to take your ball and go home, just to prevent the "unfairness" of somebody else benefiting from your labor? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

chadcf 12y ago

> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? Why do people start million dollar businesses now when they can work at McDonald's or work at a call center or or teach schools or be a policeman or or or... It's almost like some people are naturally motivated to do certain things for reasons beyond just the desire to have food and a roof over their heads. I don't understand why people think if you offer everyone, say, $20k a year to do nothing that nobody would ever want to work to achieve more, earn more, improve people's lives, etc. Sure some people would (especially people who currently live on minimum wage). But many would not be satisfied with such a minimal existence. And with nobody having to worry about surviving without a job, it also frees up many people to explore ideas they otherwise would never have had time for.

copperx 12y ago
Exactly. I don't know why some people think that economic stability is everything to humans. Fame and recognition are so much stronger motivators than money.
pradocchia 12y ago
And with nobody having to worry about surviving without a job, it also frees up many people to explore ideas they otherwise would never have had time for. Well, even universal healthcare would have this same effect in America. There would be a veritable Cambrian explosion as hundreds of thousands of people quit their jobs and started doing something interesting, something they cared about. A lot of these interests would turn into businesses and we would all be far the richer for it, never mind the 50% taxes.

withdavidli 12y ago

There are some assumptions here: 1. You need money to survive - Nope. Money is a medium to exchange for goods. All the money in the world can't save you if there's no food/water. 2. Starting a business solely on personal gain - A million dollar business, I assume, is you're example of a successful business. Though it will be true for a lot of people, please pose the question "Would you start a successful business if it would save millions of lives and billions of work hours?" 3. Supporting people that didn't need to do anything - There's an assumption that people that don't need to support themselves will be unproductive. Is this neccessarily true? Though it might be a small fraction of the population, there are people's interests that they pursue that would greatly automate jobs or help their society. Theoritical work that people pursue are abstract, but the research findings could give great insight into physics, biology, social dynamics, etc. The heart of your statement is more philosophical in why communisum won't work. But would a purely capitalistic society be better? Where you know that near every action is derived from personal gain?

kyllo 12y ago

How is supporting people by employing them in unproductive bullshit jobs any better than supporting them with basic income? They are getting paid to do nothing of value either way.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ScottBurson 12y ago

> You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of your life. Indeed. I think you and Bucky are more in agreement than you realize. Bucky isn't suggesting that people go home and drink beer and watch TV for the rest of their lives. He is urging them to think, to be creative, to find themselves. Starting a business, for those so inclined, would be an outcome I think he would celebrate. Others might invent, or compose music, or write, or paint, etc. I think we are moving toward an economy like what Bucky envisioned, where there may be fewer jobs, but many more people find their true work.

xrange 12y ago
Is there some test that we could perform to identify whether we are living in that type of world? Would someone from say, 1848 think that we're already there, and most people would apparently prefer to work crappy jobs than live a life measureably better than the majority of people who lived in 1848?

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? Our time to actually get on with better lives is running out while you capitalists poison the planet and quite literally work the human race to death. Climb the Hierarchy of Needs to higher levels, or we will drag you up there by force ;-).

tim333 12y ago

>Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from... >you could even live in the woods on berries... It's not necessary to go as far as berries - in most of the developed world you can not work and be supported automatically by the government. But it's boring! Most people would much rather be building million dollar businesses even if the pay was much the same. In fact many people working for corporations build multi million dollar businesses where 99% or so of the value goes to the corporation but you don't see them complaining much.

mcv 12y ago

> This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. Yes, but why should people do totally useless work to get it?

increment_i 12y ago

You had better be damn good at hunting then, because as a human you'll croak quicker than you think from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation