4 ms·

A civil responsibility-tested income would be another reasonable alternative. That is, if you do your taxes, are not currently a criminal, vote in some election

by Retra 12y ago

A civil responsibility-tested income would be another reasonable alternative. That is, if you do your taxes, are not currently a criminal, vote in some elections, obey basic health and safety requirements, exercise responsible finances, recycle, etc.. There are lots of things worth considering along this line of thought. You are essentially being paid to be a responsible citizen. EDIT: When I said there are a lot of things worth considering, I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. For one, it wouldn't have to be all-or-nothing. Surely if you have to pay a traffic ticket, it will already be coming out of your income. But if you chose to gamble your income away and you have children to feed, why should you keep getting it?

cbd1984 12y ago
> I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. Ah, but someone's common sense, i.e. thought, is someone else's absolute unutterable idiocy. For example: Some consider it absolute basic rock-simple common sense that a marriage is between one man and one woman, both of whom were born with those genitals, period. Completely inarguable, as in if you try to argue the point, they will scream at you until you give up. Therefore, they conclude in their inarguable fashion, no same-sex couples should get benefits, because it is contrary to basic intelligence that the government should fund such things. There. Now you have a political dispute which is completely immune to negotiation, because if you give one red cent to same-sex couples, one side has utterly lost the argument. There is no Overton-Window-Approved middle ground. That's why Basic Income needs to be no-strings-attached and unconditional for it to work.
- Retra 12y ago
  I don't see what that has to do with basic income. I never mentioned paying people based on their sexual orientation, but upon things that we almost unanimously agree to.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > things that we almost unanimously agree to. My whole point is that this might as well be the empty set, for all the good it's going to do you, and if you make Basic Income contingent on this, people opposed to Basic Income for whatever reason will work hard to make it the empty set.
    - Retra 12y ago
      You could say the same thing about the "human right to live." Sure, some people might disagree that we have a right to live. But that is not really relevant to the scale of national policy. If I said you don't have a right to a fair trial, that is not a reason to abolish fair trial laws.
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    I personally didn't agree with any single point that you mentioned.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
It would be an alternative but it wouldn't be a basic income. Rather than type it all in again I'll include by reference my previous comment on the subject (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647882). To summarize, after a lot of reading and research I believe that there is some merit to the idea, and some of the more common arguments, like everyone would just stay at home and sleep, are not well supported either by research or experience. I'd love to see it tested for 'real' though.
nitrogen 12y ago
The only way a basic income can avoid being politicized and destroyed is by making it truly unconditional. See various government-run web filters as an example of the creeping scope expansion every non-unconditional program will encounter. The easiest way to get people to stop fighting over which conditions are the right conditions is to have no conditions.
- Retra 12y ago
  You are probably correct, but it would better serve the idea that people are actually being paid for what they are worth -- what responsibilities they are expected to uphold as citizens, rather than this idea that it is just 'free money.' A lot of people like to think that BI is paying people for nothing. It isn't. You still have civil responsibilities, and upholding those responsibilities has real economic value.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    You are probably correct, but it would better serve the idea that people are actually being paid for what they are worth... "Worth" just gets to be too sticky of a subject. If I went to either side of my extended family and asked for a list of things that made someone "worthy" of receiving money, I would expect drastically different results. I think if we can't get people to agree on a choice, we have to restructure the problem to remove the need for a choice. Plus, I think we'd be better off if all the "worth" that anyone needed to deserve some dignity was simply being human. A lot of people like to think that BI is paying people for nothing. It isn't. You still have civil responsibilities, and upholding those responsibilities has real economic value. Civic responsibility is important, but as with defining "worth", it seems one would be unlikely to get much agreement on a definition.
    - Retra 12y ago
      Nothing I am suggesting requires you to define 'worth' or ask anybody for any opinions on it. People are valuable simply because they are alive. We can pay them to stay that way. If they refuse, we stop paying them. Anything on top of that is just to encourage a responsibility to share their successes.
ThomPete 12y ago
Yeah but that will just work as a point of no return for some. It has to be truly unconditional so there is no way to cheat it.
eru 12y ago
And you only get to vote, if you served in the military? (See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/StarshipTroopers http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/StarshipTro...)

by Retra 12y ago

cbd1984 12y ago

> I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. Ah, but someone's common sense, i.e. thought, is someone else's absolute unutterable idiocy. For example: Some consider it absolute basic rock-simple common sense that a marriage is between one man and one woman, both of whom were born with those genitals, period. Completely inarguable, as in if you try to argue the point, they will scream at you until you give up. Therefore, they conclude in their inarguable fashion, no same-sex couples should get benefits, because it is contrary to basic intelligence that the government should fund such things. There. Now you have a political dispute which is completely immune to negotiation, because if you give one red cent to same-sex couples, one side has utterly lost the argument. There is no Overton-Window-Approved middle ground. That's why Basic Income needs to be no-strings-attached and unconditional for it to work.

Retra 12y ago
I don't see what that has to do with basic income. I never mentioned paying people based on their sexual orientation, but upon things that we almost unanimously agree to.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > things that we almost unanimously agree to. My whole point is that this might as well be the empty set, for all the good it's going to do you, and if you make Basic Income contingent on this, people opposed to Basic Income for whatever reason will work hard to make it the empty set.
  - Retra 12y ago
    You could say the same thing about the "human right to live." Sure, some people might disagree that we have a right to live. But that is not really relevant to the scale of national policy. If I said you don't have a right to a fair trial, that is not a reason to abolish fair trial laws.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  I personally didn't agree with any single point that you mentioned.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

It would be an alternative but it wouldn't be a basic income. Rather than type it all in again I'll include by reference my previous comment on the subject (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647882). To summarize, after a lot of reading and research I believe that there is some merit to the idea, and some of the more common arguments, like everyone would just stay at home and sleep, are not well supported either by research or experience. I'd love to see it tested for 'real' though.

nitrogen 12y ago

The only way a basic income can avoid being politicized and destroyed is by making it truly unconditional. See various government-run web filters as an example of the creeping scope expansion every non-unconditional program will encounter. The easiest way to get people to stop fighting over which conditions are the right conditions is to have no conditions.

Retra 12y ago
You are probably correct, but it would better serve the idea that people are actually being paid for what they are worth -- what responsibilities they are expected to uphold as citizens, rather than this idea that it is just 'free money.' A lot of people like to think that BI is paying people for nothing. It isn't. You still have civil responsibilities, and upholding those responsibilities has real economic value.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  You are probably correct, but it would better serve the idea that people are actually being paid for what they are worth... "Worth" just gets to be too sticky of a subject. If I went to either side of my extended family and asked for a list of things that made someone "worthy" of receiving money, I would expect drastically different results. I think if we can't get people to agree on a choice, we have to restructure the problem to remove the need for a choice. Plus, I think we'd be better off if all the "worth" that anyone needed to deserve some dignity was simply being human. A lot of people like to think that BI is paying people for nothing. It isn't. You still have civil responsibilities, and upholding those responsibilities has real economic value. Civic responsibility is important, but as with defining "worth", it seems one would be unlikely to get much agreement on a definition.
  - Retra 12y ago
    Nothing I am suggesting requires you to define 'worth' or ask anybody for any opinions on it. People are valuable simply because they are alive. We can pay them to stay that way. If they refuse, we stop paying them. Anything on top of that is just to encourage a responsibility to share their successes.

ThomPete 12y ago

Yeah but that will just work as a point of no return for some. It has to be truly unconditional so there is no way to cheat it.

eru 12y ago

And you only get to vote, if you served in the military? (See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/StarshipTroopers http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/StarshipTro...)