Nay, I'd prefer government benefits to be channeled through work or other conditions. There are many negative effects to unemployment
Do you mean in addition to all the programs we currently have (e.g., housing vouchers, food stamps, unemployment benefits, SS, Medicare/Medicaid) or as a replacement?
I would rather we had created "make-work" infrastructure projects back in '08, like when we built every outside basketball court or high school football stadium ever during the WPA. Maybe develop some kind of TVA for high-speed internet access. Basic income would seem to deter some individuals from finding and taking work, although I wonder if there really are enough jobs to go around, like to get U-6 to below five percent or something.
Of course yes. The negative effects of unemployment in a community where you can possibly die from lack of basic necessities is not the same as unemployment in a community where you don't have to compete with your neighbour to survive. Human nature says people will still want to compete and that's good, but they'll be competing in things they consider important rather than things that benefit the biggest wealth owners. Even if what they consider important is random and scattered, that is a major improvement from a concentration on profit which is driving us all into the ground. Let's be honest. Economies will not grow as fast and efficiency will be lost but there will be less depression, less mental illness, more community initiatives, and we will get rid of the billionaire class which has been strangling the American people for decades if not centuries. Moreover, it will be a rocky start because those who have profited tremendously from exploiting their fellow humans will invest mind boggling sums of money into sabotaging such a project. Assassinations, bribery, terrorist tactics, media wars, financial and cyber warfare like we've never seen. We have to anticipate and tolerate it with peace. The key here is that the state should not have free reign to play with peoples' basic incomes otherwise they will just peel everything back over time like they did since the new deal. At the end of the day, no major human rights were ever gained voluntarily. It has to come from the ground up, turning the system upside down otherwise the state will simply become the dominant biased force and corruption will flourish. What has to happen is institutions built from the ground up, with today's leaders turning into tomorrow's secretaries. Leadership is a disease, we need to protect ourselves against the side of our nature that hurts us. I don't know that unions can achieve this since they have their own problems, but I know that many new structures are evolving which leave the current system as well as traditional socialism/communism in the dust bin where they should be. Worker co-operatives are a step in the right direction IMO. For me, there is no amount of money in the world that would make me more content than knowing a significantly higher proportion of people are not worried about basic living needs. We've never achieved anything as morally admirable with any other system. I have no idea why I would care if a country is growing at 1% or 10% if everyone is secure. What's the rush? The race to grow the pie doesn't benefit anyone except those playing a game, and the game is hurting too many people now.
I presume this is about the Dutch movement for Basic Income. http://www.techinsider.io/basic-income-is-spreading-in-netherlands-2015-8 My own view is close to Pouhe's as I would like to see something like that tied to a WPA program especially if it was in the US. We have a lot of infrastructure needs which aren't being adequately addressed so if we can both strengthen the social safety net while addressing those needs would be a huge benefit to the country.
I agree that a basic income program will most likely not lead to a major decline in productivity and sloth with people just living on the goal. I think for the most part human nature and societal pressure will continue to drive most who would be on a basic income program to still want to find some way to be productive. What I don't agree with though is the idea that a basic income program will somehow get rid of billionaires or lead to major changes in leadership. Even with guaranteed income to keep people above the poverty level I don't see how that will change the consumer culture. Walmart will still want to maximize profits and people will still want to maximize their purchasing power. At the same time politicians will still pander to their bases on social and other issues.
Basic income???? Does that involve the federal government paying you to sit on your ass, do nothing and give you free housing, Obama phones, food stamps, free Obamacare, etc... just to buy your vote???????
Your facts are a little off. You can start by googling whether Obama phones are was actually real, and then go from there.
FB seriously?? Do you not see that the more people dependent on government, the more votes for one certain party??? I know you are not that naive!!!!
It doesn't matter if its called an Obama phone, but www.fcc.gov/lifeline does exist for low income people. Apparently they are not too difficult to get.
Since Roe V. Wade happened during Nixon's presidency, can we call abortions "Nixon Abortions" ? And calling it a Reagan-phone won't deprive any opportunities for racist snark, as long as one remains creative: As in, "The welfare queen stalled traffic in order to make a call on her Reagan-phone in order to book a same-day appointment to get a Nixon-abortion."
The idea of a basic guaranteed income is fascinating to me. If you had a large population of people whose basic needs for food and clothing were guaranteed, how would they behave? How many would go to half time work? (A lot of parents would.) How many would leave the workforce altogether? I'm optimistic that when most people are freed from worrying about their basic needs being met, they are motivated to pursue that which is most important to them. It gives one the chance to answer the question: if money were no object, what would you do? What do you love to do? There are a lot of talented artists out there who would invest more time into their talent if they knew their rent and meals were taken care of. They would take far more risks with their art without regard to what would be popular. Entrepreneurs would be far more motivated to take the leap and work on their new business if they knew their families would still be sheltered and fed if the business failed. For those of you who hate bureaucracy, BGI would significantly reduce that. Welfare state, food stamps, housing assistance, and much more - gone. No legions of people behind desks determining who gets what- just a basic income for every citizen. The Libertarian case for a Basic Income The Conservative case for a Basic Guaranteed Income There are reasons for the largest companies out there to be in favor of a BGI. It would introduce a MASSIVE influx of cash into the economy. Retailers would see historic revenue as the poor flood their stores with cash to take care of basics for their families. Loans would be paid off. Technology is going to decimate entire fields of employment within decades. We have to find a solution where people can live in a world with much less employment. BGI might not be it, but it should be in the conversation.
I like it in principle. Our worker productivity has been going up and up for the last couple centuries and futurists would write about how people will have to work less and less, and yet that never happens because the equity-holders take the lion's share of all the profits from all our productivity gains. I'd like to do something to fundamentally shift the game and give people back some dividends paid in free time. On the flip side, I imagine it'd spark massive inflation, create economic turmoil, and trigger unprecedented capital flight. So, it's not all peachy.
Zwolinski's "libertarianism" is more accurately defined as "more efficient statism"*. There is nothing at all libertarian about the state taking money from some and giving it to others. *Note: this isn't unique to him. Others think of libertarianism the same way, but IMO most don't.
"Libertarianism" is sort of a branch of science fiction, fantasy or theoretical philosophy. Let's imagine a world with billions of people without government or taxes in which the imaginary invisible hand of the market solves all problems. All we need is private armies and courts and police to keep things in order for those few areas where folks might rebel against THE Market. On a practical level for the big guys, who finance the spread of a doctrine that would otherwise be very obscure, libertarianism serves a role sort of like fundamentalist religion for those little guys who aren't that into religion. It diverts them into not thinking how the big guys are getting over on them because they claim to be "libertarians", too.. Rather than waiting for theirs in Heaven like the religious, little guy libertarians keep waiting for trickle down which will come if you keep deregualating and lowering taxes enough on their employers, the big guys and their corporations.
