2 ms·

While I'm not a fan of coercive taxation, it's better than The Hunger Games. It's also important to note that populist revolutions also often result in totalita

by api 11y ago

While I'm not a fan of coercive taxation, it's better than The Hunger Games. It's also important to note that populist revolutions also often result in totalitarianism. So without basic income I think we have a choice between a totalitarian state of the 1% and a totalitarian state of the 99% (or at least one that claims to be -- we saw what the USSR turned into). It's likely the best way to preserve the most freedom and openness, at least given the political tools at our disposal. I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating coercive taxation but I do not see it as something politically achievable in the foreseeable future. ... and yes, there will be some percentage of people who get basic income and just sit around and get high and eat chips. I do not believe that is avoidable. I suppose today a lot of those people are working in bullshit jobs that are on their way out, or are on an existing welfare system. It's dumb to sacrifice our freedom or quality of life just because it offends us to see a few people dicking around. Ultimately it's their loss -- they are the ones wasting their lives on unfulfilling time-wasting "entertainment," and they'll probably regret it later. We need not subject ourselves to totalitarianism or poverty in order to "punish" people for laziness -- a life wasted is punishment enough.

itistoday2 11y ago
> I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating coercive taxation but I do not see it as something politically achievable in the foreseeable future. It is also questionable whether basic income itself is politically achievable. The beauty of the non-coercive voluntary approaches to basic income is that it can be implemented right now by any group without requiring or waiting on any political gesticulation.
- api 11y ago
  I'm curious about this. Any references? The problem I see is that you already have this huge taxation burden which soaks up surplus wealth that might power such things. Implementing basic income at the government level would redirect this firehose, but I don't see how decentralized voluntarist approaches would achieve that.
  - itistoday2 11y ago
    > I'm curious about this. Any references? Yes, see my post above for links about one possible cryptocurrency approach called Group Currency (disclaimer: I am one of the contributors to that idea). Group currencies can be thought of as "company-tribes" where relationships are familial instead of exchange-based. We'll post a simplified version of this scheme to https://blog.okturtles.com https://blog.okturtles.com soon. The TLDR of the simple method is: (1) members of the company-tribe all accept payment for their products and services to the group's account. (2) Funds are divided evenly until a basic income has been reached for each member (say, for the month), after which all additional funds go to the member who is generating them. > The problem I see is that you already have this huge taxation burden which soaks up surplus wealth that might power such things. Implementing basic income at the government level would redirect this firehose, but I don't see how decentralized voluntarist approaches would achieve that. This is a great point, and one that needs to be considered and discussed. It is possible for a group to both pay taxes and provide its members with a basic income (and campaign for an end to mandatory income taxes ;).
- tjradcliffe 11y ago
  Basic income schemes are getting seriously discussed in Canada right now (they were first mooted in the 1980's, to no effect, but have been lurking in the background since then). The concensus amongst economists is that they are very expensive if you provide a genuine living with a reasonably low phase-out (which is required to not have insanely progressive tax rates on the working poor.) Still, these are practical problems that may turn out to be solveable, and the efficiencies that basic income schemes give are potentially large, as they would wipe out a lot of government workers whose sole job it to manage redundant arrays of independent welfare schemes. Some badly formated discussion here: https://storify.com/bis_pilot/canadian-economists-on-basic-income-pilot https://storify.com/bis_pilot/canadian-economists-on-basic-i...
darkmighty 11y ago
You've just touched on the greatest challenge to US basic income, in my opinion. I am an outsider, but from everything I know about the american culture (or maybe from a large part of the world?), the average american is willing to sacrifice general welfare to punish a handful of slackers. It results from centuries of culture regarding work ethics and whatnot (wherein working more innevitably meant being more happy, more successful, better integrated in the community, etc) but it simply will stop making sense. Work is not the end goal, it was merely a necessary means. So I have no trouble seeing the average american irrationally reject this kind of mechanism even if themselves (and society as a whole) were worse off. It goes along with the quote [along the lines of] "Every american thinks of himself as an only temporarily embarrassed millionaire".
- api 11y ago
  You are absolutely correct. As is the case in other countries with a strong religious fundamentalist base, there are many who are willing to suffer in order to punish perceived sinfulness. I guess you see the most extreme version of this with Islamic fundamentalism-- "I want to die so that you can die." How people manage not to see this as a form of moral nihilism is beyond me-- it's basically selfless malice. In the old days I suppose these creeds existed to enforce discipline in a hostile zero-sum world, but today they're pointless and achieve nothing but the perpetuation of suffering.
crdoconnor 11y ago
The thing that a lot of basic income proponents do not seem to understand is that this situation we have where apparent material wealth goes hand in hand with joblessness is temporary. China essentially made a deal with us that said "look, we'll give you a ~30% discount on everything we manufacture, and in return you look the other way when your industry gradually moves over to take advantage." Actually, it was more than just China. Many countries gave us this deal. This situation has been going on for decades but it is still temporary. This stream of goods arriving in west coast ports at cut down prices feels like it will continue forever, one day, when China feels like there is no advantage to her in giving us that discount, because our industries have been truly annihilated, she will turn off that tap and when that happens we will see a shocking amount of inflation if we don't have an industrial base to fall back on that can substitute those imports. Basic income is a nice idea that we could certainly afford today, but it will be inflationary, and it will contribute to the ongoing death of our industrial base, and if that China tap ever gets turned off, and if the rest of the world gradually agrees that the dollar is not needed as a reserve currency any more, the results could really be disastrous. So, maybe it could work, but first, we need to reject the Chinese "30% off everything" offer.
- api 11y ago
  In the short term there's probably some truth to this, but in the long term I'm talking more about the hyperdeflationary effect of a "software defined world" than about outsourcing of labor.
iamcurious 11y ago
a life wasted is punishment enough. Our moral values reflect the momentum of a power equation. When the power shifts, it takes a while to shift the values. Your last sentence reflects the moral values of a society past all this struggle. The struggle is that money is power, and a BI takes power away from those who have lots of money. It also takes some away from those who have some money. Both of these groups will fight it. Given the power of Turing complete automation. If we wait long enough both these groups will get smaller, but their power will increase, and thus their distance from those who need BI. If those in need for BI get desperate enough, there are means to get them in line now that there weren't at the starts of the major democracies. So that most likely gives us a totalitarian state. The way to convince these groups is to give something in exchange for that power. The only thing you can get just from BI are nicer neighbors. In small communities, this is obvious. In large countries, this isn't all that obvious. The way forward, would be to somehow escalate the nice neighbors idea. Fortunately there seem to be many experiments in that area, for instance in the form of political correctness. So far, the results are impressive. It is dangerous balance. Wait too much and nasty things happen. Do it too early, before you have a sound automatized economy, and you risk a crisis, which have a way of turning nice neighbors into nasty ones.

by api 11y ago

itistoday2 11y ago

> I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating coercive taxation but I do not see it as something politically achievable in the foreseeable future. It is also questionable whether basic income itself is politically achievable. The beauty of the non-coercive voluntary approaches to basic income is that it can be implemented right now by any group without requiring or waiting on any political gesticulation.

api 11y ago
I'm curious about this. Any references? The problem I see is that you already have this huge taxation burden which soaks up surplus wealth that might power such things. Implementing basic income at the government level would redirect this firehose, but I don't see how decentralized voluntarist approaches would achieve that.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  > I'm curious about this. Any references? Yes, see my post above for links about one possible cryptocurrency approach called Group Currency (disclaimer: I am one of the contributors to that idea). Group currencies can be thought of as "company-tribes" where relationships are familial instead of exchange-based. We'll post a simplified version of this scheme to https://blog.okturtles.com https://blog.okturtles.com soon. The TLDR of the simple method is: (1) members of the company-tribe all accept payment for their products and services to the group's account. (2) Funds are divided evenly until a basic income has been reached for each member (say, for the month), after which all additional funds go to the member who is generating them. > The problem I see is that you already have this huge taxation burden which soaks up surplus wealth that might power such things. Implementing basic income at the government level would redirect this firehose, but I don't see how decentralized voluntarist approaches would achieve that. This is a great point, and one that needs to be considered and discussed. It is possible for a group to both pay taxes and provide its members with a basic income (and campaign for an end to mandatory income taxes ;).
tjradcliffe 11y ago
Basic income schemes are getting seriously discussed in Canada right now (they were first mooted in the 1980's, to no effect, but have been lurking in the background since then). The concensus amongst economists is that they are very expensive if you provide a genuine living with a reasonably low phase-out (which is required to not have insanely progressive tax rates on the working poor.) Still, these are practical problems that may turn out to be solveable, and the efficiencies that basic income schemes give are potentially large, as they would wipe out a lot of government workers whose sole job it to manage redundant arrays of independent welfare schemes. Some badly formated discussion here: https://storify.com/bis_pilot/canadian-economists-on-basic-income-pilot https://storify.com/bis_pilot/canadian-economists-on-basic-i...

darkmighty 11y ago

You've just touched on the greatest challenge to US basic income, in my opinion. I am an outsider, but from everything I know about the american culture (or maybe from a large part of the world?), the average american is willing to sacrifice general welfare to punish a handful of slackers. It results from centuries of culture regarding work ethics and whatnot (wherein working more innevitably meant being more happy, more successful, better integrated in the community, etc) but it simply will stop making sense. Work is not the end goal, it was merely a necessary means. So I have no trouble seeing the average american irrationally reject this kind of mechanism even if themselves (and society as a whole) were worse off. It goes along with the quote [along the lines of] "Every american thinks of himself as an only temporarily embarrassed millionaire".

api 11y ago
You are absolutely correct. As is the case in other countries with a strong religious fundamentalist base, there are many who are willing to suffer in order to punish perceived sinfulness. I guess you see the most extreme version of this with Islamic fundamentalism-- "I want to die so that you can die." How people manage not to see this as a form of moral nihilism is beyond me-- it's basically selfless malice. In the old days I suppose these creeds existed to enforce discipline in a hostile zero-sum world, but today they're pointless and achieve nothing but the perpetuation of suffering.

crdoconnor 11y ago

The thing that a lot of basic income proponents do not seem to understand is that this situation we have where apparent material wealth goes hand in hand with joblessness is temporary. China essentially made a deal with us that said "look, we'll give you a ~30% discount on everything we manufacture, and in return you look the other way when your industry gradually moves over to take advantage." Actually, it was more than just China. Many countries gave us this deal. This situation has been going on for decades but it is still temporary. This stream of goods arriving in west coast ports at cut down prices feels like it will continue forever, one day, when China feels like there is no advantage to her in giving us that discount, because our industries have been truly annihilated, she will turn off that tap and when that happens we will see a shocking amount of inflation if we don't have an industrial base to fall back on that can substitute those imports. Basic income is a nice idea that we could certainly afford today, but it will be inflationary, and it will contribute to the ongoing death of our industrial base, and if that China tap ever gets turned off, and if the rest of the world gradually agrees that the dollar is not needed as a reserve currency any more, the results could really be disastrous. So, maybe it could work, but first, we need to reject the Chinese "30% off everything" offer.

api 11y ago
In the short term there's probably some truth to this, but in the long term I'm talking more about the hyperdeflationary effect of a "software defined world" than about outsourcing of labor.

iamcurious 11y ago

a life wasted is punishment enough. Our moral values reflect the momentum of a power equation. When the power shifts, it takes a while to shift the values. Your last sentence reflects the moral values of a society past all this struggle. The struggle is that money is power, and a BI takes power away from those who have lots of money. It also takes some away from those who have some money. Both of these groups will fight it. Given the power of Turing complete automation. If we wait long enough both these groups will get smaller, but their power will increase, and thus their distance from those who need BI. If those in need for BI get desperate enough, there are means to get them in line now that there weren't at the starts of the major democracies. So that most likely gives us a totalitarian state. The way to convince these groups is to give something in exchange for that power. The only thing you can get just from BI are nicer neighbors. In small communities, this is obvious. In large countries, this isn't all that obvious. The way forward, would be to somehow escalate the nice neighbors idea. Fortunately there seem to be many experiments in that area, for instance in the form of political correctness. So far, the results are impressive. It is dangerous balance. Wait too much and nasty things happen. Do it too early, before you have a sound automatized economy, and you risk a crisis, which have a way of turning nice neighbors into nasty ones.