Push To Implement Basic Income For All

[shaberon]

Posted by Mike (here)
A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. One *should* feel entitled to such things. There is no sensible reason why anyone should not be extended these basic dignities...whether they "earn" them or not.

I tend to agree with this, moreso than the monetary aspect. I would extend it to placing a huge honor on the ability to give, compared to what we have now is a huge honor to profit. If taking care of people is not the number one priority, then you really don't have civilization.

Labor for purposes of direct charity should be the standard.

It should all be about getting those bricks, cabbages, and pants where they need to go; perhaps by a system of rationing instead of free money. I would tend to think money should be reserved for something that's not a "basic need", such as, you want to ride a roller coaster at a theme park, it costs something. And in turn, perhaps you are required to work x number of hours as charity, before you are able to make any money.

I don't really have an answer for all the details of it. But I do know that if money was not such a huge obstacle, I would have no problem cranking out some work for free.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Money is slavery.

The indigenous peoples of the world do not use money. They seem to do all right, until they meet members of our tribe that is.

Of course everyone has the "right" to basic necessities. It is only that no money needs to be exchanged.

I think that productivity is another lame horse to trot out for the public. What does inflation do to your money? What do fat cat bankers do with their money management? Remember the libor rate scandal? The tax havens for the rich? How about the Cabage Patch Kids fiasco? Productivity is abominably low in the entire world because the value of all goods is tampered with. Interest on every dollar in circulation also steals productivity. Productivity is a measure of the output of a population and their return on that output. But what if what is produced is bombs, war machines and guns? That does not meet my criteria of productivity. Right now we go to work for forty hours every week. Thirty percent goes to taxes. Twenty to the car and related expenses. Another forty percent goes to the house and its maintenance. That leaves the average person with ten percent for their discretionary use. Does that sound productive? Four hours of every forty for personal use, the rest goes to house, car, taxes. If you want more you need to find a mate so that you can send them off to work too. Does this make sense? Does that sound productive?

The productive go to work to support the rich and their opulent lifestyles. No matter who you are, no matter how much you make, those above you made more from your sweat and labor. It is not productive to go to work for less than half what you are worth. It might be productive for the company or country but not for the individual.

While the ptb control the money, make the rules, enforce their strategies, and kill and maim innocent people any handout is detrimental and enabling.

Give us the technology that has been sequestered, give me my flying car and FE and now I`d be ready to consider handouts for those who wish to sit about and let others lead the way forward. But I will not be one of the targeted beneficiaries because I will not need anything from anybody ever again. Except for companionship and partying!

I say stop looking for crumbs from our masters and let`s get the real show on the road. Until then you can keep your stipends and handouts and entitlements. I`ll just hustle from the sidelines and make do with less.

[Hughe]

@Ernie Nemeth

Money is slavery.

The indigenous peoples of the world do not use money. They seem to do all right, until they meet members of our tribe that is.

Of course everyone has the "right" to basic necessities. It is only that no money needs to be exchanged.

I think that productivity is another lame horse to trot out for the public. What does inflation do to your money? What do fat cat bankers do with their money management? Remember the libor rate scandal? The tax havens for the rich? How about the Cabage Patch Kids fiasco? Productivity is abominably low in the entire world because the value of all goods is tampered with. Interest on every dollar in circulation also steals productivity. Productivity is a measure of the output of a population and their return on that output. But what if what is produced is bombs, war machines and guns? That does not meet my criteria of productivity. Right now we go to work for forty hours every week. Thirty percent goes to taxes. Twenty to the car and related expenses. Another forty percent goes to the house and its maintenance. That leaves the average person with ten percent for their discretionary use. Does that sound productive? Four hours of every forty for personal use, the rest goes to house, car, taxes. If you want more you need to find a mate so that you can send them off to work too. Does this make sense? Does that sound productive?

Well said. I totally agree with you.

I realized that money is slavery. Civilized society don't require money. Human civilization exists on exploitation which is abomination against Nature. This is main reason why labor works to produce goods for the necessities of survival has been freaking hard, difficult and dangerous. Typical example is conventional farming. In early spring of each year the first thing farmers do is to destroy soil, kill many life forms in massive scale. Few scientists discovered Natural farming in middle of 20th century but the governments and corporations do not encourage it yet. Why? Natural farming / Permaculture is spreading though out of necessity.

Productivity is joke. The market is flooded with garbage products that would be replaced within few years not a decade. Manufacturers love Obsolescence policy when they design new products to maintain profit margin. When you include resource management and total energy consumptions and human labors into productivity, building a quality product makes sense.

I`ll just hustle from the sidelines and make do with less.

Yes. Buckminster Fuller often emphasized it. "Do many with little effort." This perspective is against the capitalistic economy. So they marginalized him. Rather than living under mortgage debt for entire life, people should start build decent house under few thousands dollars. Driving a car whose fuel mileage is barely 10km/L, drive a tiny car that goes 100km/L. Each person in a developed country would save half million dollars by making alternative choices.

Free Energy? Average folks have to actualize it by themselves through the collective effort. The government and establishment will resist, prevent disrupt technologies to the end.

I wrote a short story about a future society that people live free. It can be done if few capable individuals work together, then spread the solution to people as a turnkey package. I named them as "Civilization builders".

[T Smith]

Let's assume, for sake of argument, the basic income is a right. Let's assume, as a society, we have developed an algorithm to quantify this right. (This is no easy task, but let's just assume we have mastered the equation and have somehow determined how to quantify the right).

This discussion is all mute until such time when we abolish the central banks that are sucking productivity from everyone, indigent to the well-to-do. The indigent are simply on the unfortunate end of the continuum and are affected in-proportionately, so naturally we're focusing on that end and trying to fix what we see. The woes of the well-to-do don't concern us. So they have to settle for a 40 foot yacht instead of a 50 foot yacht. Who cares? So what we overlook is the elephant in the room. The problem is systemic... it has nothing do with what is a right, privilege, etc.

But let's put this in very simple terms:

When you create 10 dollars out of nothing, dole it out to society, and then demand society produce 11 dollars for the favor, there will always be some poor schmuck without a dollar at the end of the day. That's how our monetary system works. It doesn't matter how we hem and haw and try to redistribute the 10 dollars to accommodate the down-and-out. This is a shell game, a ponzi-scheme. There is always someone without a dollar. But people have a very hard time grasping this very simple concept. All they see are fat cats with all the money and privilege, become outraged at the injustice, and demand the fat cats give some of their spoils to the indigent. It's all very reasonable, in theory, until you understand we are all being played. Those who fall prey to the solution of forced redistribution do not understand the problem. It makes no difference if you take the money from the top and redistribute it down. At the end of the day you can't redistribute what's not there.

A very good example of this is Obama care. Yes, I agree health care is a universal right. I'm not arguing that it isn't. But you can't force the system (as it stands currently) to pay for this right, any more than you can demand the sand of an hour glass to fill up its bottom half without taking from its top. I grant in the abstract this is a hard concept to grasp, from the electorate to the politicians to the bureaucrats who devise these schemes. So what do they do? They appeal to the emotions of the masses, who also agree health care should be a "right" and not a privilege, and then cajole the masses to adopt a system that ultimately increases health-care prices across the board by 13% a year. The result? For the first few years there is universal health care and everyone is happy (albeit with longer lines and lesser quality for all). No matter, it is still more fair than the system that denied health care to some, and those who can afford the increases grumble a little about it--some happily, as they are assured that their cost increases are providing health care to all--but what happens when prices increase another 13% the following year, and then another 13% the year after? Soon employers cap their contributions and pass on the increases to their employees to bear (the alternative is to go out of business), but no matter, everybody has heath care. Until those who are actually paying for the heath care can no longer afford the premiums. Then the entire system cracks. And nobody has health care. This is exactly where we are heading with the system in place now.

The bottom line, it's not sustainable. It may take a few years, but the system will crack. As long as the Federal Reserve is issuing the currency, no social welfare scheme will ever work. Period.

I'm all for the basic income, but I'm sorry, you can't issue the currency, as debt, and redistribute. Someone has to extinguish the debt.

[onawah]

An issue that leaps to my mind when considering the possible benefits of a guaranteed annual income is that it might help to eliminate jobs that marginalized people are forced to take just to survive--jobs that benefit no one, such as working in filthy chicken houses, slaughter houses, in jobs ripping flesh and fur from live animals or down from live geese--jobs that dehumanize people and torture innocent animals and create terrible karma for the whole planet.
The premise is akin to the saying: "what if they gave a war and nobody came?"
If nobody showed up for these kinds of jobs, those industries would either have to completely change their way of operating, or close down.
And if young people who thought the military was a good option had an option to go to school and train for something that didn't support war instead, by living on a guaranteed annual income while they trained for something better, we probably wouldn't have anymore wars.

[Daozen]

Why would we need governments to give us our own money?

[Ernie Nemeth]

Michael Tellinger recounts a story about money and its illusory effect on stimulating productivity. I wont retell it here, but it is worth contemplating its meaning. The story is about a hundred dollar bill that gets passed around the neighbourhood paying off debts before returning to the unsuspecting owner of the note.

Money is based on perception and belief and trust. That is why anything can be used as money - even worthless paper. Even counterfeit money. A million dollars in counterfeit money has the same effect on the economy as real money does. Money is not a representation of value, it is the perception of its value that has value - and anything can represent that perception. If value was placed where it belongs, in people and life and tangible goods, money would not be needed. Money is an intermediary that can be used by savvy individuals to control markets, states and the masses. Remove the middleman and the control structure cannot be hidden from view because they would have to control the actual valuable assets themselves overtly. The way it is we just shrug because the rich have all the goodies because they are rich (ie. have money). If the idea of "rich" were removed we would wonder why certain individuals have so much more than us - and we would not put up with it! The way things are we just shrug because with any luck one day we might be in the same position to enjoy more than we deserve. That is the carrot they dangle just out of reach so we will continue to strive for something we already deserve.

Michael also talks about the fact that we don't charge our kids for the food they eat or the cloths they wear or any other thing we supply them with. Why should society charge for the same thing? We can do this, we can create a world of plenty for all. And we can do it without money.

[East Sun]

Whatever happened to Credo Mutwa?

Sorry -- off topic.............

[christian]

Posted by Mike (here)
A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. One *should* feel entitled to such things. There is no sensible reason why anyone should not be extended these basic dignities...whether they "earn" them or not.

If you don't work for it, and you want to consider it a right, somebody else must work for it while you reap the rewards. That's called a system of slavery.

Posted by Mike (here)
This insidious idea of having to earn everything is a very distorted and perverted take on the ol protestant work ethic.

Well, mankind is on Earth. We gotta build shelters, plant food, weave clothing, power our heating systems… And we gotta work for all that, nobody is doing it for us. Would you call that insidious? Working to live. Having to do something in order to live, survive and thrive? Isn't that how nature works? Should we appeal to nature and argue with it to satisfy all our basic needs without us having to work for anything? Or who is gonna provide for us? The government? The politicians? The corporations? The people? All of them? Some of them? Which ones?

Posted by Mike (here)
There will always be so called unproductive people. There are many, many reasons for this...reasons those of us typing in the comfort of our cozy homes will never understand. It's EASY to sit here and spit statistics and throw around terms like "entitlement"....but ask yourself: have you ever been totally broke? Down and out? Homeless? Starving? In these conditions, its all empty rhetoric.

Im not suggesting we give everyone a mansion and a ferrari. Just the basics. Far from encouraging laziness, I believe these "unproductive" people would surprise us. Sure, some people would take advantage of a basic income, but others - having been extended some dignity for the first time in their lives - would thrive. Computers aside, its much easier to apply for a job with a full belly and clothes that don't double as rags.

So yeah, i'm all for it..even if the money is coming out of my pocket.

There will always be 10 bazillion kinds of unproductive people. Those who are in a desperate situation of no fault of their own. Those who are willing to contribute to work their way out. Those who are broke because they are lazy and anti-social. Those who are indeed feeling entitled. You wanna support all of them with the same basic income? Go ahead, but not with my money, please. I'm for supporting those in need, but not for supporting or encouraging abusive behavior.

Posted by Eram (here)
All trial versions of a basic income in Europe prove your points Mike.
unemployment, criminality and depression goes down, happiness, dignity and social contacts go up.

There have been some trial versions on a small scale in small environments that already had a relativeñy strong amount of social capital. Yes, there have been some good results.

If you wanna look at trial versions on a larger scale, look at any Socialist country in history.

[onawah]

Buckminster Fuller said:"We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."

[ozmirage]

Posted by Eram (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. .... Only on earth would this be considered a nuisance. On more evolved planets it would likely be seen as a spiritual opportunity.

All trial versions of a basic income in Europe prove your points Mike.
unemployment, criminality and depression goes down, happiness, dignity and social contacts go up.

Ignoring all the gawful side effects of "benevolent" socialism (like destroyed families, declining birthrate, invasion by overpopulated neighbors, and restrictive governments), let us mandate that everyone should be entitled to be equally wealthy instead of equally poor.

BASIC INCOME?

If lack of money was the real problem, then why can’t we just credit everyone with 22 billion billion quatloos, more money than they can ever spend, so they never need money again?

Everyone is equally ‘wealthy.’ Since no one NEEDS money, no one bothers to work, farm, mine, fabricate, transport and produce goods and services. No one is bothering to grow food, distribute water, or build houses. All that money is useless, worthless, and civilization collapses... and even the starving child is in no “need of money.”

WAKE UP... for real.

MONEY is not reality. It is a tool for people to control others who are money mad. And assuming that giving everyone a "basic income" will solve poverty is utter madness.

To GIVE everyone a "basic supply" requires everyone to PRODUCE usable goods and services. Otherwise, some will get the goodies, while others get the misery.

Who do you suppose will enforce such a paradise?
[/sarcasm]

P.S. - you might inquire as to the source of European 'money' - as in who has the power to create it, value it, and spend it into circulation.

[ozmirage]

Posted by Mike (here)
A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. . . It's a right. . .
This insidious idea of having to earn everything is a very distorted and perverted take on the ol protestant work ethic.

If you think "earning everything" is perversion, then you must approve of predation - taking what you need from others, by force of government or whatever.

You might have an endowed right to life, but that does not include compelling others to work and sacrifice for your survival.

Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.

Do not embrace the nonsense of wealth redistribution. If poverty was caused by “needing money,” never needing money again should end it - but it doesn’t. If everyone woke up tomorrow with their bank accounts showing 22 billion billion quatloos - more money than they could ever spend - or need - what will they “spend” it on?

If everyone is equally rich - and no one “needs money” and therefore does not go work, farm, manufacture, transport, nor trade goods and services, what’s available to buy? NOTHING. Unless people are productive, all that money is worthless, useless and meaningless.

The carefully crafted scam of money madness keeps us striving to acquire the scarce money token, and paying interest for credit, so that we are perpetually enslaved. To add insult to injury, using government to TAKE from one to GIVE to another, is a perversion... and needs a police state to enforce.

Prosperity is not based on money. Prosperity is based on production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.

If you see a society with UNMET NEEDS, UNEMPLOYMENT, UNUSED FACTORIES, etc, you have to question the sanity of the people.

If you ask why are there unemployed, unused factories, and people in need, the universal answer is - "No one has enough money."
But I just showed that having more than enough money doesn't do diddly for prosperity.

Can you see the remedy now?

It's not redistribution, it's not wealth, and it's not collective ownership.

What is stopping the unemployed from "working" at some useful task?
What is stopping the production and trade of usable goods and services?

Fear of inequitable trade.
Fear of being cheated and robbed.

When you figure out how to account for equitable trade without the bottleneck of money madness, parasites like usurers, and government, civilization might be saved.

[shaberon]

Posted by christian (here)
If you don't work for it, and you want to consider it a right, somebody else must work for it while you reap the rewards. That's called a system of slavery.

Mostly we go on an almost unspoken assumption that children and the elderly are going to be given some stuff. There used to be an ideal that women should remain in non-productive domestic work. Then we wanted armies and police who produce nothing. Then the mentally and physically ill should be given some stuff. There's already a substantial agreement to give stuff to a whole bunch of people. Except to the worker.

And you can take Mr. Fuller's chain of thought much further: there is someone insuring the health of someone who educates someone to do studies to inform someone how to make rules about the person making instruments for an inspector to inspect an inspector. A lot of the labor pool goes to superfluity.

The problem is almost entirely one of distribution. I would have no problem if, for example, 25% of my labor was a straight giveaway so that all persons could have the basics, regardless of whether they "deserved" it. I do have a problem that a similar portion actually does go to "debt service", "defense", the federal entity in any way, in fact, almost everything that taxes are applied towards, except for a few roads and energy subsidies.

If the dollar had retained its original value, with the "progress" of industry, we would now be able to make a living by working about ten hours a week. Yet we live in houses that would not be allowed in Germany, since they are designed to fall apart and require expensive repairs, therefor giving someone work that would not even be necessary if it was made with quality in the first place. Winchester put themselves out of business by making rifles that outlived the owner; too bad for the profiteers, but that shouldn't really be important.

I would go so far as to say, that providing for the well-being of everyone, whether by a money system or otherwise, would be mankind's first achievement.

[MorningSong]

Next week, Switzerland will be voting a referendum on this very topic:

http://www.basicincome2016.org/

I think we all need to really dive into this and try to see the potential wolf-in-sheep's-skin -OR- utopian paradise this may be. I thank everyone on the thread for think-tanking this topic that is very lkely to become a reality in our lifetime.

I personally fear that it is a trick to truely enslave us all, but that's just my gut feeling of mistrust in all I see nowadays...


Here are more sites/news from the web:

http://www.bin-italia.org/what-if-we...about-to-test/

http://www.bin-italia.org/

http://www.basicincomecanada.org/

http://citizensincome.org/

http://www.usbig.net/

...the list goes on...

[Iloveyou]

I suppose that the majority of people here (including me) are privileged and live in the comfort zone, more or less. With privileged I mean basic education and having had the opportunity to develop a basic trust in life, a critical mind and creative capabilities, too. Easy to theorize from this position.

Wouldn't you like to make the thought experiment and imagine (in detail) how your own and the life of people around you (family, neighbours, people you don't know but who you run across regularly) would change with basic income?

In the country where I live there's a large (and growing) portion of the population who have retired (with state pension in their mid/ late 50 s, and who - one should think - would enjoy a content, fulfilled life without the struggle to make ends meet from month to month, for the next 30 years, maybe even ready to help others. Far from it. Jealousy, envy, self-righteousness are widespread among these people, most are desillusioned, broken inside. Why? A lifetime of SLAVE WORK from their early youth on. Forced into a life of struggle for food and shelter from age 14, 17 or if they'd been lucky, from their mid 20s on. Now, at 50, 60 years it's too late to start from anew. Break people at a young age, and you will not have to worry about them challenging the system, later.

Human beings love to be social, creative, productive, they love to deal with challenges and even to work hard, as long as it is their own, self-determined decision. Modern slave work produces 'people'. And I'm not talking about Third World countries' life-threatening slave work - and living conditions in a much more literal sense. That's a different thing, though the same on a different level.

Basic income will not be a solution for all problems - but it could be a start to set people free, to breathe free for the first time, to contemplate their life, their existence.

I'm all for it

(And yes, others, 'lazy' ones, would probably profit from my work. So what? As long as I love my work and have a good life, too - I very much hope that wouldl be the case.)

[Carmody]

When technology is held back from us, when the discoveries are held back from us, the ones that create the groundwork for a rich resource backdrop, those are the origins of the problem of moving from Darwinist-capitalist-viciousness... into the idea of a peaceful open money-free social structure.

But that is only part of the complex issue. A small part. Critical, but small.

A Darwinist/capitalist/etc resource poor life environment self limits over expression and emotionally driven living. It allows for animalism to drive the body into extremes, as the system itself provides ultimate limits as ultimate controls. (and vice versa)

In order to move into a resource rich environment for a money free society and culture, the roots of the emotionally driven life must end in their entirety. In totality. Period. No exceptions.

An open world with unlimited resource..for it to survive or have chance at all, requires the end of all animal driven thinking of any kind.

This means a mass change in consciousness and intelligence tied to such idea of moving into a new physicality. For it is not just a new socio-cultural environment, it is a new mental-physical environment.

Such a system is coupled to the unlimited resource idea, at the root. No need for monies, also requires no controls on resource and no controls on resource ...means over unity energies and over unity systems, which means no scientific controls on people, which means potentials for ultimate destruction are in the hands of all individuals.

In the middle phase of such a transition, lies the rub, as it were. the quandary, the issue, the mess. The place we stand, right now.

This means, first steps involve things likened to.... extreme observation and control of all peoples, integration of all peoples, and the end of all divisive tactics such as regionalism, and specifically, the idea of religion. (war, division, and so on)

A step into a form of universal awareness as a key component of lighting a fire into a new intellect that is world wide in scope. a time of reformation, a mental confusion, an essential and real madness of all peoples and individuals.

A thing that causes a total change in all psychology in all people in all ways, all done simultaneously. (sound like the alien reveal strategy? Why not, for it has to be universal and universal life changing, for all, in all ways)

Such a scenario is just one facet of what a drive into a universal income can be and would have to be.

What we have now, the animal drive to survive, cannot co-exist with a universal income. The animal drive will eat the world into non-existence very quickly, if it is given a universal income environment, which is akin to giving unlimited resource to a cancer. The explosion would consume the planet.

This is why a universal/basic income could only be a transition point, not a end point.

a basic universal income would also require a parallel drive in a mode of a strict control and the strict control must also include the dissolution's of all falseness in people, and that includes all racism, low intelligence eradication, eradication of all dogma and religion, all war mentality and violence in people..all this.... must end in all ways.

The end roll out is the roll out of unlimited resource via over unity and free energy systems.

First, the transformation of the people from a shotgun/chainsaw cancer in an explosive turmoil of unlimited growth...into peaceful thinking expanding people.

Some feel that is a drive toward creating lifeless automatons, and they may be correct.

But, an open world with unlimited resource also requires the end of all mental and physical modes of living as a uncontrolled expansionist animal cancer.

People do and will self limit their expansion (limit children and resource consumption), in a complementary environment, yes, but it is the transition that is the problem. The shift itself is uncontrollably and unpredictably messy. The initial expression into that area is explosive and pressured. To shift from being a terminal world eating cancer of animal thinking and being, into comforts... and a rising caring thinking intellectualized human.

One way to ensure a future for such a system is to implement a separate experiment where intellectually gifted people, and technologically adapted and enabled people...where they expand, in a rigidly controlled environment.... and step off the planet.

Separately, secretly, outside of the Darwinist animal masses, outside of the knowing of masses who do not possess self control or awareness. and to make sure those masses do NOT make a mess out of the attempt to do this, by enforcing their ignorance, to the point of killing their explorers and motions into a world of uncontrolled open resource.

When far enough away from that mess of religion, low intelligence, animalism, etc.... then try and introduce some modicum of change into it. begin the process of making the attempt of helping it change. Instead of the prior effort of holding it back.

Holding it (the masses) back to ensure (ultimate exact fail-safes and perfected plans/conditions-ie, military paranoia) some form overall human survival in the face of alien observation as a perceived potential threat. The ending of the use of the unaware masses as a cover, as the other plan and act is far enough along, as being wholly separated as a form of an ark, unto themselves. They themselves still captivated by the residuals of their own animalism as it enabled their rise into a secretive and separated new world. Basically, they feel they've equalized their technology to meet any potentials their own animalism feels might be contained/hiding in the 'alien threat'.

To restate---- to hopefully clarify....All while having plan B fully in existence. All while Plan B (the breakaway high technology unlimited resource group) has it's own issues with residual animalism and violence in it's given factions. All while Plan B (Or plan A group, depending on where one stand and thinks) is dealing with the perceived threat of alien systems outside of that, alien systems which already exist (and rub against the unaware masses - an enforced unawareness), in their given alien levels and ways of intellectualism or animalism, depending on how that given alien group/life/etc came into being in their particular circumstances.



Sound familiar?

[Eram]

Posted by christian (here)

There will always be 10 bazillion kinds of unproductive people. Those who are in a desperate situation of no fault of their own. Those who are willing to contribute to work their way out. Those who are broke because they are lazy and anti-social. Those who are indeed feeling entitled. You wanna support all of them with the same basic income? Go ahead, but not with my money, please. I'm for supporting those in need, but not for supporting or encouraging abusive behavior.

Posted by Eram (here)
All trial versions of a basic income in Europe prove your points Mike.
unemployment, criminality and depression goes down, happiness, dignity and social contacts go up.

There have been some trial versions on a small scale in small environments that already had a relativeñy strong amount of social capital. Yes, there have been some good results.

If you wanna look at trial versions on a larger scale, look at any Socialist country in history.

Christian,
To compare a basic income on a large scale with a socialist country is seriously flawed.
What type of socialism are you talking about here, ...the communistic form of socialism?
There is a host of reasons why such state forms have failed and a basic income (only for those who cannot provide for themselves) has never even been part of such a system.
To provide the same income for all is hardly comparable with a basic income, not to mention all the other factors that made communism fail.
The big difference being the financial incentive still present to go out and find your own (bigger) income if you want to have more (of whatever), which was not there in the historical communist countries.

In fact, there is not one significant argument to think of why a trial version on a small scale (a few hundred thousand people in a city) would not work nation wide.

Your main argument for opposing a basic income is that you don't want to pay for lazy people.

Well, you are already paying for so called lazy people through the welfare system, healthcare, crime fighting and jails that are part of most if not all Western countries.

Number crunchers estimate (based on the trial versions) that a basic income would save money in comparison to the current welfare systems and the hidden costs of higher criminality, healthcare, drug abuse etc.

[christian]

Posted by shaberon (here)
The problem is almost entirely one of distribution. I would have no problem if, for example, 25% of my labor was a straight giveaway so that all persons could have the basics, regardless of whether they "deserved" it.

It's about distribution, that's correct. It's very noble of you that you'd be willing to give some of your income to everybody, but a basic income implies that you want the property of others redistributed (not just your own). What gives you or anyone the right to take the property or produce from someone who worked for it? Can't you see how legalizing to forcefully take people's property will breed ill-will and myriads of calamities in society?

How about no taxes and let each person decide for him or herself where to put his or her money? Sovereignty?

Posted by shaberon (here)
I would go so far as to say, that providing for the well-being of everyone, whether by a money system or otherwise, would be mankind's first achievement.

Absolutely. But this has nothing to do with a basic income that's redistributed by force, because that will lead to a development that we can see in any planned economy. Provide for the well-being doesn't mean just giving people stuff by taking from productive people by force. That's not helping the well-being of everyone, cause many people will be less self-reliant while at the same time you disincentivize innovation and production. That's not helping with the well-being of a society.

Providing for people voluntarily, yes. On a personal level, yes. But not through some government authority through force and the threat of violence. Can you see the difference?

Posted by Eram (here)
To compare a basic income on a large scale with a socialist country is seriously flawed.
What type of socialism are you talking about here, ...the communistic form of socialism?

I talk about the state controlling sectors of the economy and redistributing property. The more of it, the more Socialism, which essentially means a state-controlled economy. Communism is the same taken to the extreme. Total control by force and then suddenly everybody will be happy and nobody will need the state anymore cause they all just got it. That's what the Communist Manifesto says.

Posted by Eram (here)
In fact, there is not one significant argument to think of why a trial version on a small scale (a few hundred thousand people in a city) would not work nation wide.

Your main argument for opposing a basic income is that you don't want to pay for lazy people.

Well, you are already paying for so called lazy people through the welfare system, healthcare, crime fighting and jails that are part of most if not all Western countries.

Number crunchers estimate (based on the trial versions) that a basic income would save money in comparison to the current welfare systems and the hidden costs of higher criminality, healthcare, drug abuse etc.

If you have a basic income on a small scale where people know, trust and respect each other, they care for each other. They don't tend to be abusive. If you have a basic income on a large scale, it becomes anonymous. You're not receiving money from your neighbors any longer, whom you trust and value, but from the state, a faceless giant. Then you will see people somewhere else, far away, who appear to be lazy. You will think it's not fair that they receive what they get while others whom you like more work much harder to provide for them. See where that goes?

Societal dynamics are not just numbers. You have to take into account what any given system of redistribution does to the minds and motivations of the people. You cannot leave that out of the equation. That is my main argument. With a basic income you don't just pay for the lazy people. You incentivize consumerism while at the same time punishing creativity. You take from creative people to give to consumers. Can't you see how that is doomed to fail? Who would want to produce anything? That's why there's toilet paper shortages in Socialist countries. It's the same dynamics.

And yes, the current system in the Western world is already very Socialist, and you can see what mess it is. It breeds cronyism and parasitism. Such a system cannot be taken over by "good people" as the Bernie Sanders crowd suggests. The reason is simple: Don't give anybody power over other people and their property, it will encourage abuse. Let each person be sovereign and it will encourage self-responsibility. Same is true for a basic income.

[Ernie Nemeth]

The concepts I adhere to and espouse are post-transition and so they sound strange and unworkable to our contemporary minds. I fully understand that we cannot live in that world as we are today. That type of future world comes with an inner sense of responsibility we do not, as a collective, yet share. I was trying to show why by pointing to the occulted information this world is famous for - in almost all areas of study. This is where improper thinking and conclusions are drawn. This is why most people are essentially good. We have to make sense of the world with faulty and misleading information. But we did not know it was incorrect and we based our beliefs on good faith that those with the information were divulging all the facts to the best of their ability. This leads to frustration when our view of the world is challenged by superior facts we didn't have access to, for whatever reason.

When the truth comes out we are going to go crazy, like Carmody says.

That is why I suggested a ten year party where we can blow off some steam in some sort of semi-official sanctioned goof-off period of adjustment. Don't worry, the responsible ones will still do what needs to be done, like they always do anyway.

I'm a lazy person, I admit it. But I still like to apply myself on my own terms. I still get caught up in my own projects and can easily spend 24-36 hours non-stop if I have a mind to. I study every day, new research and ideas, here and elsewhere. And I write. I even almost like to hustle for my daily bread, except for the stress it creates living so close to the edge all the time. But go to work 40 hours for another to get rich off me, nope - too lazy. I'll do it for a stretch to climb out of the hole but that's it. And I hate how a job makes me think. I suddenly need to be there every minute so I get a full paycheck every week. And I begin thinking about the future and how to make my money grow, where to invest it, that sort of thing. I find that to be the most unnatural thing in the world and I hate it. Worrying about my credit. Worrying about car payments, insurance payments, extraneous payments created by working, and on and on. Worrying about how to get in with boss and job security, which there is none. And at the end of the day, even my very best day, coming to the conclusion that: I can never have enough money! To me it has always been insane and unnatural and not worth pursuing. And I resent being in a society that forces me to do it despite my best efforts not to. The punishment for not being a hard-working man, for being my type of lazy is, of course, destitution. It's taken me a long time to carve out this niche that is almost suitable to my sensibilities, but it is far from perfect.

I know there is better way. In time maybe we will find it.

[shaberon]

Posted by christian (here)

It's about distribution, that's correct. It's very noble of you that you'd be willing to give some of your income to everybody, but a basic income implies that you want the property of others redistributed (not just your own). What gives you or anyone the right to take the property or produce from someone who worked for it? Can't you see how legalizing to forcefully take people's property will breed ill-will and myriads of calamities in society?

How about no taxes and let each person decide for him or herself where to put his or her money? Sovereignty?

Well, I don't suppose I have any right to force you to do something like that, but, so far we have made it through a system that forces redistribution on us anyway--unfortunately it mostly went to usury and warfare. I'm guessing that the "calamities" that would result from investing this cash in general well-being are of a lesser order than the things done with military and police to benefit the rich. The amount it would take, to provide...is really so small...that I can't quite see the comparison in "the government is going to violently prosecute non-contributors" any differently than it is now.

They currently want to charge me $700 for the privilege of working last year. I no longer work, because the company decided it couldn't afford its employees. As well-intentioned as I am, if this situation goes to its logical conclusion, I will turn into a predator overnight, and people can just suffer by my hand and then spend more of their hard-earned cash on "correcting" me. However, if a tax bill and unemployment was not pushing me towards homelessness and starvation, there would be no need to lash out.

Even under a "shariah" law the house would be paid for, and without usury it would have cost almost nothing to start with.

I tend to agree with sovereignty, and maybe the abolishment of taxes and/or money. In the colonial U. S., there was no real unemployment or poverty due to the use of colonial scrips instead of bankers' cash. Neighbors helped each other voluntarily all through the settlers' times. But what I see now is the rich swanning about in their gated communities, and the tax pool being used to ruin everything, with an attitude towards the poor that it's their fault and they should not have been born.

Here's capitalism: $500 million spent to establish a yogurt plant and a bunch of taxpayer money to deal with its massive water use. Small person like me looks for work there, what happened? It had already shut down in less than a year. There goes another creative, productive idea, and another few hundred people like me, who don't work, not because they're lazy, it's just not there. Production of a big empty factory, perhaps because there are not enough people who can afford the luxury of yogurt any more. And if you did work there, I think Ernie's points would apply pretty strongly.