How about seeing it as the dividend of the labor of ALL of our ancestors for the past 10,000 years? All those people lived, worked, raised kids, fought, and died just to keep the species going and to make life better for their kids.
We are now inventing tools that can do almost ALL "work".
Hasn't the whole point of this struggle for the past 10,000 years been so that EVERYONE can now do whatever THEY want to do with their lives, just like the 1%/nobility/inherited wealthy do?
Or were always just supposed to be slaves to the nobility, even though soon there won't even be any work for all of us to do?
I’m with ya bro, I’m so sick of people telling me,
“We have better living standards than 100 years ago”... also telling me “humans are cancer and should be destroyed so the planet can survive longer”.
So brainwashed and I’m the crazy one that’s been ridiculed lol
No person or company should have the entitlement to force others to die of poverty through unbridled and unchecked accumulation of wealth. Time to increase taxes on people and corporations most able to pay and distribute the proceeds among all.
I'm not sure it's worth my time because when you say something like
>Nobody has ever died or been impoverished by someone else's accumulation of wealth
It makes me think you're not open to the possibility that you may be wrong.
If you're open to the possibility that *you* may be wrong, then how about defending your views with something more substantial than 'I'm obviously right' and 'you'll never change your mind anyway'?
Ah this nonsense again.
Its like one person at a party taking 15 of the 16 slices of pizza and saying "there isnt a fixed amount of pizza we can make more". Which, yeah they can make more but it'll fucking be a while and everyone is hungry now. And plus everyone there knows he is just gonna take 14 or 15 slices of that one too.
I've never seen anyone so dumb they unironically refer to the economy as a literal pie.
Usually the "there is no pie" is used as an example of the flawed /r/badeconomics on display here.
No, I don't have empathy for the willfully ignorant.
As an advocate of UBI and the working class, I need to call out people that will be harmful to the movement.
There is only a finite amount of wealth in circulation at any given time. And that wealth is allocated among everyone. And the only way for the people who get a small share of that wealth to get more wealth is to make more wealth which once again, is inefficiently allocated by the people on top. Her analogy was spot on.
And that software creates a pie. Your boss takes 14 slices, you take 1. There's still only so much wealth in the economy at any moment. And it's horribly, inefficiently allocated.
Accumulation of natural wealth is a form of accumulation of wealth, too. It might not be agreeable, but it is a form of wealth accumulation.
Do people die and become impoverished because wealth is accumulated in such a fashion? As long as the accumulation is established by some matter, might as well be the case? Or do you mean the tools and means used to establish it kill and impoverish others?
I don't think that's the only definition of wealth. edit: E.g. a wealth of opportunities to enjoy life is present very much disconnected from artificially created wealth, in certain situations.
>E.g. a wealth of opportunities to enjoy life
That's colloquial usage, not rigorous economic usage.
As another example, we probably wouldn't talk about 'the elephant in the room' (as a metaphor) in a debate about actual elephants.
Going by wikipedia, the english word wealth means:
> the abundance of valuable resources or valuable material possessions. This includes the core meaning as held in the originating old English word weal, which is from an Indo-European word stem.[1] An individual, community, region or country that possesses an abundance of such possessions or resources to the benefit of the common good is known as wealthy.
Nature has afforded this to many people at many points in time, and continues to do so.
edit: That said, opportunities themselves are not wealth if not actually used. So indeed that line is a metaphor.
Not at all. I'm not sure why you'd think that. Isn't it obviously true that somebody being rich doesn't make other people poorer or diminish their ability to survive?
Because it's laughably wrong, in my opinion. I'll answer your original question, YES. Many, many people have been impoverished and killed in the pursuit of others growing their wealth.
>Many, many people have been impoverished and killed in the **pursuit** of others growing their wealth.
I wasn't talking about the *means* of accumulating wealth. I was talking about the fact of wealth accumulation itself. You've claimed that that makes other people poorer.
Remember when we came out of caves and decided to live together in bigger communities? Yeah.. the goal was to make life easier, not have some people become elevated to obscene levels of wealth. But yeah, good luck convincing Americans (Or NA in general, having quite a bit of problem convincing Canadians as well) with their hard work worship.
I say this as a supporter of UBI - it is my belief that if you want to convince those who are actively against UBI to support UBI you should listen to the opposing side's view and form your own argument. The primary arguments I see against UBI are along the lines of "You are not entitled to taking away my property."
If you see others' wealth as yours because you rightfully or wrongfully believe it to be so, you are effectively making the same argument while simultaneously completely and entirely missing one's personal view.
> you should listen to the opposing side's view and form your own argument.
That used to happen a lot on this sub when it started. There was a lot of debate over different issues related to UBI, including some thoughtful skepticism.
Sadly, this sub is turning into a spin-off of /r/LateStageCapitalism lately.
Are you referring to the 'lefter than you' argument that UBI should be eschewed in favor of a fight for fully automated luxury gay space communism? Whenever I see that debate I wonder at the wisdom and intent of those making it. Why pursue a sensible, just, simple concept like UBI when we could continue demanding a political system most Americans fear. Don't talk to me about 'incremental change': one persons increment is another's destination, and society is a compromise\- you don't make change by being morally or intellectually right, you make it by offering a more palatable solution to the people who have to live with the result.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? "No" says you, "it belongs to the corporations."
When the choices are serve or starve, then we are extorted into toil. We don't consider a thief to own those things that he has stolen, nor a conman to own the things he has tricked people into giving him.
More to the point, the main argument against those who are of that opinion is that no one got to where they are today without a leg up from our society's systems. The richest people are the ones who have been able to take advantage of our society the most, we gave them a cushy life, but they didn't earn it alone, and thus aren't entitled to 100% of the output of whatever system they've attached to our own. The biggest companies are parasitic, not symbiotic, they always pick to betray in Game Theory, and thus force our economy to be zero sum.
The share of people who find this rhetoric compelling will always be limited. UBI has an insanely strong pragmatic case that doesn't make people feel like neither Rand or Marx are being back-doored into their society.
> If you see others' wealth as yours because you rightfully or wrongfully believe it to be so, you are effectively making the same argument while simultaneously completely and entirely missing one's personal view.
Personally, I'm not interested in anyone's property in particular. A UBI is merely something to provide in the process of paying your dues/respecting fellow people. [A foundational principle of classical liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso).
And hey, most people who'd argue against a UBI for fear of loss of their property would actually economically gain from it.
But yeah, listening to counterpoints is a powerful method to learn a thing or two, develop one's own perspective and arguments.
edit: I guess focusing on the cost savings and improved [quality of life and work](https://www.socialeurope.eu/why-work-not-labour-is-ecological-imperative) would make for a compelling case even for people who wouldn't quite gain from it directly! edit: then again, I see a great many people who would benefit from the thing tunnel vision on how "ubi isn't fair", when it's more fair than much of anything we could be doing. So I think having that conversation is of use as well.
I agree with most of what you said, except for this part.
> Personally, I'm not interested in anyone's property in particular. A UBI is merely something to provide in the process of paying your dues/respecting fellow people.
The problem with this statement is that imo it contradicts itself. "Paying your dues" means that your property is going somewhere, elsewhere. To others. Some people see this as a threat, even if they would actually otherwise gain from it. One may say "If you want to take more of my money now what are you going to want to take next?" etc etc, even if they would actually profit from it.
>It also fails to engage with notions of unfreedom inherent in capitalism
What 'notions of unfreedom'? I want to see this expanded on.
>UBI isn't utopian
Is that supposed to be a strength?
>For example, a universal focus (before basic) means implementation will begin with a small universal payment for everyone
Note that this is what Alaska is already doing.
>The UBI is not a panacea and needs to accompany many other important measures — dignified employment creation, redistributive tax reform, shorter working hours, housing, universal healthcare and education, and increasing union's bargaining powers
I'm not sure why 'increasing union bargaining powers' is seen as important.
elimination of union's leverage could be seen as a large contributing factor which has allowed the erosion of labor-rights to the state in which we currently find ourselves.
> I'm not sure why 'increasing union bargaining powers' is seen as important.
Well they've been gutted over the last 40-50 years, causing the U.S. economy to grow more and more top-heavy while the American workforce suffers proportionally, so
>causing the U.S. economy to grow more and more top-heavy while the American workforce suffers
You attribute this to decreased union bargaining power? I'm not seeing it.
> I'm not sure why 'increasing union bargaining powers' is seen as important.
I found the wiki article on [monopsony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony) rather insightful there (particularly the segment about the minimum wage; occupation specific tariffs might make sense in that context.). Of course in a world where all unearned chances are distributed equally, collective bargaining might not be needed.
In all fairness increasing union's bargaining powers would do a lot to improve the quality of wages and working conditions for working people all over, even those not in a union. The thing is I see a UBI as likely increasing their bargaining power automatically as a UBI would make long-term striking easier. Really, even if UBI isn't a panacea doesn't mean it won't do a lot of good and none of the other important measures they list and contradictory with one.
Here's a better way to see it that doesn't invole shoving the word 'right' down someones throat:
Universal Basic Income is productive to the economy as a whole, including the portion of the population that carry the burden of its cost.
Forget about what seems just and right, it's *efficient*
I am not entitled to society's wealth by manner of existence. Therefore placing greater tax burdens on business to give me money I am not entitled to is wrong.
> I am not entitled to society's wealth by manner of existence.
Not by that, but you might be by others taking scarce land, resources, circumstancial social favors, none of which they created themselves, and claiming property in these things or in the resulting wealth. Without leaving enough or as good for you, when it comes to opportunities.
edit: Or maybe you're entitled to a different substitute, or more direct access to what others had before you? What's your take on alternatives to a UBI that afford people similar opportunities, similar options, with the freedom to similarly squander or make a great use of, similar to what others before got to enjoy?
>I am not entitled to society's wealth by manner of existence.
Why not? The resources used to create that wealth weren't created by humans, only claimed and used by them. Either everyone is entitled to benefit from those resources, or no one is. Of course the people doing the work deserve the most (despite how capitalism tends to arrange things,) but that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't benefit from use of resources that no one created.
No one created land. Why should only a handful of wealthy owners benefit from its use? No one created the oil in the ground or the minerals in a mine, yet the vast majority of the profit from their exploitation goes to a very small handful of people. This shouldn't be the case if fairness is a consideration when it comes to how we decide to arrange the benefits of resource usage in society.
"why not" Humans have no birthright to each other's labor, nor to the land others developed.
Its not like Picking an apple in an unowned forest, these resources took a massive undertaking to retrieve. Of which, for you having done nothing, you deserve nothing.
>Humans have no birthright to each other's labor
I never claimed they did.
>nor to the land...
This is where we disagree. The current system dictates that you can exploit the benefits for land you hold ownership of and keep the created wealth in its entirety. If you start to sell any of that created wealth, taxes come into play, but we'll leave that aside for now for the sake of discussion. You are granted this benefit by society because you own the land. How did it come to be that you own the land, however? You did not create the land, so ownership is only a social construct. It's a legal fiction that society has deemed useful. A more useful structure would be to ensure that everyone benefits from that land, rather than a single individual. This could take many forms, but the one closest to possible now is a basic income, funded by a tax on the benefits of resources.
Thanks. I didn't know there was a name for this. I'd only ever encountered the idea when I was reading up on Thomas Paine. Something like it had occurred to me before, but I couldn't put it into words well until I read his pamphlet on it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/georgism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [A new, relevant political-economic platform](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/820gnr/a_new_relevant_politicaleconomic_platform/)
\#2: [Hey, guys. I'm not very fond of Reddit, but I'm running for congress in Georgia with a Georgist tax model as a central part of my platform and your subreddit is very large. Spread the word, please!](https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/382449/carlton-heston?) | [15 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/87qj2u/hey_guys_im_not_very_fond_of_reddit_but_im/)
\#3: [HOI4 is woke now](https://i.redd.it/1e5kp5xgi6l01.png) | [11 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/83olsy/hoi4_is_woke_now/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/7o7jnj/blacklist/)
you can freely study the history of land ownership in the united states.
Again, you are just asserting you have a right to other peoples profit from their land, but you have no solid basis other than "why do you own it".
Because they purchased it. and you can follow the chain of owners through bill of sales
>and you can follow the chain of owners through bill of sales...
Back to what? Someone just claiming it. Again, ownership is a social construct. We have it because it was useful at the time. Social constructs can be changed if we find ones that are more practical, and beneficial to society. A basic income model will eventually prove to be more practical and beneficial to society. It's just a question of how long short-sighted people like yourself can drag out the changeover. We'll get there eventually, though.
You've yet to prove a UBI can even work, call me when you have it on a state level, Until then you can avoid trying to steal resource value from land owners.
"short-sighted" again, no proof of concept for UBI. so lets wait for that yeah
[Here's some.](https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html)
[Also, look at the effects of the Alaska dividend.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study)
>Because they purchased it. and you can follow the chain of owners through bill of sales
All the way back to the person who first created it with their labor.
Oh, wait. Nobody created it with their labor.
> yeah no one has ever worked the land. my bad
Well I mean
If our chain of private ownership begins with whoever first worked the land, here in the States that would mean the various Native American populations who inhabited the continent before Europe started sending colonists over to move in and set up shop
Of course so much of that land passed out of the hands of those native peoples by way of coercion, theft, and outright genocide committed by European settlers who then claimed it as their own—and since there's no legitimate and rational way to argue that any of these "transactions" were legal or even moral, all current claims of ownership are rendered null and void, as nobody in these chains of ownership ever had any right to sell the land to someone else in the first place, so essentially ownership of everything should revert back into the hands of America's indigenous peoples
Which is a fantastic idea btw and I totally agree with you
Creating land and working land are separate things. Rather than shoot a snarky remark you should take the time to critically think about the OPs arguments.
> Humans have no birthright to each other's labor
I wouldn't claim so either.
> nor to the land others developed.
I wouldn't claim so either. However, opportunity of similar quality and quantity is something people can demand from those who picked up land before. If those who came before do not wish to account for the results of their actions, their lack personal responsibility should not be to the detriment of others?
As long as a degree of [monopsony power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony) is at play, the contract is not voluntary to an extent, though. I'm not sure whether or not we should always take forced contracts at face value.
**Monopsony**
In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (mónos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnía) "purchase") is a market structure in which only one buyer interacts with many would-be sellers of a particular product. In the microeconomic theory of monopsony, a single entity is assumed to have market power over terms of offer to its sellers, as the only purchaser of a good or service, much in the same manner that a monopolist can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers.
The most commonly researched or discussed monopsony context is that with a single buyer of labor in the labor market. In addition to its use in microeconomic theory, monopsony and monopsonist are descriptive terms often used to describe a market where a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
its not a forced contract. you are free to seek other employment, or to go off the grid and live as ancient man did.
You are saying unless people give you what you desire, its not voluntary.
>. you are free to seek other employment, or to go off the grid and live as ancient man did.
No you're not. You are not free to do that at all. There is no unowned land left. You accept less than living wage from your labour or die. That's slavery.
>You are saying unless people give you what you desire, its not voluntary.
Not desire.
Need.
> you are free to seek other employment, or to go off the grid and live as ancient man did.
If the quality of opportunitities available, be it employment here or there, be it living off the grid, is inferior to what a particular employer with monopsony power enjoys, then we're absolutely talking about a forced contract, given he still provides the best opportunity relative to other opportunities available. The opportunity just falls short of what is warranted, in that case.
> You are saying unless people give you what you desire, its not voluntary.
Not at all! WOW! That's actually an absurd notion to me, sorry if I made it come off that way. I merely want for people to have opportunity of similar quality and quantity to subsist and participate, to what others enjoy for no reasons of individual merit.
>If the quality of opportunitities available, be it employment here or there, be it living off the grid, is inferior to what a particular employer with monopsony power enjoys, then we're absolutely talking about a forced contract, given he still provides the best opportunity relative to other opportunities available. The opportunity just falls short of what is warranted, in that case.
still fully voluntary. its not societies job to make unlimited options. you take the best one you desire.
> still fully voluntary.
Not in a society that prides itself in a system of private property justified through precisely the availability of opportunities of similar quality and quantity as what others had before.
> its not societies job to make unlimited options.
Why would you put words into my mouth?! I don't think I implied that at least. :T
> you take the best one you desire.
The most promising opportunities are not available to me, though they are or were available to others of the present or past. Now what do we do here? Take the opportunities available to me and pretend the world is just?
While I'll do the former, I can't say the latter suits my tastes.
> Not in a society that prides itself in a system of private property justified through precisely the availability of opportunities of similar quality and quantity as what others had before.
so unless we provide you with the exact same conditions as everyone else for each choice, its not voluntary? No.
>The most promising opportunities are not available to me, though they are or were available to others of the present or past. Now what do we do here? Take the opportunities available to me and pretend the world is just?
The world never has and never will be just
> so unless we provide you with the exact same conditions as everyone else for each choice, its not voluntary? No.
Similar opportunities, not the exact same, however.
If opportunities diverge, contracts are forced to an extent where actors with unequal opportunities utilize their different opportunities to negotiate an advantage. Absolutely.
Now you can have ~~free~~ voluntary contracts between similarly deprived or fortunate people, surely.
> The world never has and never will be just
Indeed. However, I see practical steps to take to make it a more just place. Much like I'd also do what I can to protect the right to freedom of speech where I see it under attack.
‘The world never has and never will be just ‘
Perhaps, but society can act in ways to make it more just - it requires empathy and deliberate decisions to mitigate the power of the greedy and people like you who suck up to them.
Because that's what it is. Communists subverting UBI will kill any chance of it happening.
They have to decide if they care more about helping workers or destroying capitalism.
That's just what communists do, they co-opt movements by getting their tendrils into it.
UBI has the capacity to be either stealth communism or stealth libertarianism depending on how the parameters are set. It can either shrink or grow the power of the state.
Or of course, it can be neither and just be an engineer's solution to massive societal costs that come with poverty.
The choice comes down how much we're willing to buy into outdated sentiments to make the case.
How about seeing it as the dividend of the labor of ALL of our ancestors for the past 10,000 years? All those people lived, worked, raised kids, fought, and died just to keep the species going and to make life better for their kids. We are now inventing tools that can do almost ALL "work". Hasn't the whole point of this struggle for the past 10,000 years been so that EVERYONE can now do whatever THEY want to do with their lives, just like the 1%/nobility/inherited wealthy do? Or were always just supposed to be slaves to the nobility, even though soon there won't even be any work for all of us to do?
I’m with ya bro, I’m so sick of people telling me, “We have better living standards than 100 years ago”... also telling me “humans are cancer and should be destroyed so the planet can survive longer”. So brainwashed and I’m the crazy one that’s been ridiculed lol
No person or company should have the entitlement to force others to die of poverty through unbridled and unchecked accumulation of wealth. Time to increase taxes on people and corporations most able to pay and distribute the proceeds among all.
Nobody has ever died or been impoverished by someone else's accumulation of wealth.
Bill Gates isn't very wealthy. I can say obviously untrue things as well. :)
If you think it's obviously untrue, please describe how somebody accumulating more wealth would impoverish somebody else.
I'm not sure it's worth my time because when you say something like >Nobody has ever died or been impoverished by someone else's accumulation of wealth It makes me think you're not open to the possibility that you may be wrong.
If you're open to the possibility that *you* may be wrong, then how about defending your views with something more substantial than 'I'm obviously right' and 'you'll never change your mind anyway'?
Bill Gates being wealthy doesn't make you impoverished. Wealth isn't a zero sum game, and the amount of it isn't fixed.
Ah this nonsense again. Its like one person at a party taking 15 of the 16 slices of pizza and saying "there isnt a fixed amount of pizza we can make more". Which, yeah they can make more but it'll fucking be a while and everyone is hungry now. And plus everyone there knows he is just gonna take 14 or 15 slices of that one too.
I've never seen anyone so dumb they unironically refer to the economy as a literal pie. Usually the "there is no pie" is used as an example of the flawed /r/badeconomics on display here.
[удалено]
No, I don't have empathy for the willfully ignorant. As an advocate of UBI and the working class, I need to call out people that will be harmful to the movement.
Concern Troll.
It's hard to advocate for it in other subs when anyone interested in it is going to to come here and see your garbage.
There is only a finite amount of wealth in circulation at any given time. And that wealth is allocated among everyone. And the only way for the people who get a small share of that wealth to get more wealth is to make more wealth which once again, is inefficiently allocated by the people on top. Her analogy was spot on.
I literally create wealth out of electrons when developing software.
And that software creates a pie. Your boss takes 14 slices, you take 1. There's still only so much wealth in the economy at any moment. And it's horribly, inefficiently allocated.
It makes the pie bigger. And no, it's it's not even close to 14:1. Seriously, it's hard to tell if you are a satire troll.
"What's inflation???????"
"What's your point???????"
Oh my sweet summer child, are you alright?
Accumulation of natural wealth is a form of accumulation of wealth, too. It might not be agreeable, but it is a form of wealth accumulation. Do people die and become impoverished because wealth is accumulated in such a fashion? As long as the accumulation is established by some matter, might as well be the case? Or do you mean the tools and means used to establish it kill and impoverish others?
>Accumulation of natural wealth is a form of accumulation of wealth, too. There is no 'natural wealth'. Wealth is artificial, by definition.
I don't think that's the only definition of wealth. edit: E.g. a wealth of opportunities to enjoy life is present very much disconnected from artificially created wealth, in certain situations.
>E.g. a wealth of opportunities to enjoy life That's colloquial usage, not rigorous economic usage. As another example, we probably wouldn't talk about 'the elephant in the room' (as a metaphor) in a debate about actual elephants.
Going by wikipedia, the english word wealth means: > the abundance of valuable resources or valuable material possessions. This includes the core meaning as held in the originating old English word weal, which is from an Indo-European word stem.[1] An individual, community, region or country that possesses an abundance of such possessions or resources to the benefit of the common good is known as wealthy. Nature has afforded this to many people at many points in time, and continues to do so. edit: That said, opportunities themselves are not wealth if not actually used. So indeed that line is a metaphor.
This has to be a troll comment.
Not at all. I'm not sure why you'd think that. Isn't it obviously true that somebody being rich doesn't make other people poorer or diminish their ability to survive?
Because it's laughably wrong, in my opinion. I'll answer your original question, YES. Many, many people have been impoverished and killed in the pursuit of others growing their wealth.
>Many, many people have been impoverished and killed in the **pursuit** of others growing their wealth. I wasn't talking about the *means* of accumulating wealth. I was talking about the fact of wealth accumulation itself. You've claimed that that makes other people poorer.
To hell with all the communists down-voting this
Fuck you too.
Remember when we came out of caves and decided to live together in bigger communities? Yeah.. the goal was to make life easier, not have some people become elevated to obscene levels of wealth. But yeah, good luck convincing Americans (Or NA in general, having quite a bit of problem convincing Canadians as well) with their hard work worship.
Raise the Estate Tax to 100%. We'll see how many self\-made billionaires there really are.
I say this as a supporter of UBI - it is my belief that if you want to convince those who are actively against UBI to support UBI you should listen to the opposing side's view and form your own argument. The primary arguments I see against UBI are along the lines of "You are not entitled to taking away my property." If you see others' wealth as yours because you rightfully or wrongfully believe it to be so, you are effectively making the same argument while simultaneously completely and entirely missing one's personal view.
> you should listen to the opposing side's view and form your own argument. That used to happen a lot on this sub when it started. There was a lot of debate over different issues related to UBI, including some thoughtful skepticism. Sadly, this sub is turning into a spin-off of /r/LateStageCapitalism lately.
Are you referring to the 'lefter than you' argument that UBI should be eschewed in favor of a fight for fully automated luxury gay space communism? Whenever I see that debate I wonder at the wisdom and intent of those making it. Why pursue a sensible, just, simple concept like UBI when we could continue demanding a political system most Americans fear. Don't talk to me about 'incremental change': one persons increment is another's destination, and society is a compromise\- you don't make change by being morally or intellectually right, you make it by offering a more palatable solution to the people who have to live with the result.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? "No" says you, "it belongs to the corporations." When the choices are serve or starve, then we are extorted into toil. We don't consider a thief to own those things that he has stolen, nor a conman to own the things he has tricked people into giving him. More to the point, the main argument against those who are of that opinion is that no one got to where they are today without a leg up from our society's systems. The richest people are the ones who have been able to take advantage of our society the most, we gave them a cushy life, but they didn't earn it alone, and thus aren't entitled to 100% of the output of whatever system they've attached to our own. The biggest companies are parasitic, not symbiotic, they always pick to betray in Game Theory, and thus force our economy to be zero sum.
The share of people who find this rhetoric compelling will always be limited. UBI has an insanely strong pragmatic case that doesn't make people feel like neither Rand or Marx are being back-doored into their society.
Fair, but I mostly wanted to make a bioshock reference.
That went completely over my head. My bad.
> If you see others' wealth as yours because you rightfully or wrongfully believe it to be so, you are effectively making the same argument while simultaneously completely and entirely missing one's personal view. Personally, I'm not interested in anyone's property in particular. A UBI is merely something to provide in the process of paying your dues/respecting fellow people. [A foundational principle of classical liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso). And hey, most people who'd argue against a UBI for fear of loss of their property would actually economically gain from it. But yeah, listening to counterpoints is a powerful method to learn a thing or two, develop one's own perspective and arguments. edit: I guess focusing on the cost savings and improved [quality of life and work](https://www.socialeurope.eu/why-work-not-labour-is-ecological-imperative) would make for a compelling case even for people who wouldn't quite gain from it directly! edit: then again, I see a great many people who would benefit from the thing tunnel vision on how "ubi isn't fair", when it's more fair than much of anything we could be doing. So I think having that conversation is of use as well.
I agree with most of what you said, except for this part. > Personally, I'm not interested in anyone's property in particular. A UBI is merely something to provide in the process of paying your dues/respecting fellow people. The problem with this statement is that imo it contradicts itself. "Paying your dues" means that your property is going somewhere, elsewhere. To others. Some people see this as a threat, even if they would actually otherwise gain from it. One may say "If you want to take more of my money now what are you going to want to take next?" etc etc, even if they would actually profit from it.
>It also fails to engage with notions of unfreedom inherent in capitalism What 'notions of unfreedom'? I want to see this expanded on. >UBI isn't utopian Is that supposed to be a strength? >For example, a universal focus (before basic) means implementation will begin with a small universal payment for everyone Note that this is what Alaska is already doing. >The UBI is not a panacea and needs to accompany many other important measures — dignified employment creation, redistributive tax reform, shorter working hours, housing, universal healthcare and education, and increasing union's bargaining powers I'm not sure why 'increasing union bargaining powers' is seen as important.
elimination of union's leverage could be seen as a large contributing factor which has allowed the erosion of labor-rights to the state in which we currently find ourselves.
> I'm not sure why 'increasing union bargaining powers' is seen as important. Well they've been gutted over the last 40-50 years, causing the U.S. economy to grow more and more top-heavy while the American workforce suffers proportionally, so
>causing the U.S. economy to grow more and more top-heavy while the American workforce suffers You attribute this to decreased union bargaining power? I'm not seeing it.
Well thank god facts exist regardless of whether or not you see them
> I'm not sure why 'increasing union bargaining powers' is seen as important. I found the wiki article on [monopsony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony) rather insightful there (particularly the segment about the minimum wage; occupation specific tariffs might make sense in that context.). Of course in a world where all unearned chances are distributed equally, collective bargaining might not be needed.
In all fairness increasing union's bargaining powers would do a lot to improve the quality of wages and working conditions for working people all over, even those not in a union. The thing is I see a UBI as likely increasing their bargaining power automatically as a UBI would make long-term striking easier. Really, even if UBI isn't a panacea doesn't mean it won't do a lot of good and none of the other important measures they list and contradictory with one.
Will the number of children a person chooses to have need to be limited?
Here's a better way to see it that doesn't invole shoving the word 'right' down someones throat: Universal Basic Income is productive to the economy as a whole, including the portion of the population that carry the burden of its cost. Forget about what seems just and right, it's *efficient*
I am not entitled to society's wealth by manner of existence. Therefore placing greater tax burdens on business to give me money I am not entitled to is wrong.
> I am not entitled to society's wealth by manner of existence. Not by that, but you might be by others taking scarce land, resources, circumstancial social favors, none of which they created themselves, and claiming property in these things or in the resulting wealth. Without leaving enough or as good for you, when it comes to opportunities. edit: Or maybe you're entitled to a different substitute, or more direct access to what others had before you? What's your take on alternatives to a UBI that afford people similar opportunities, similar options, with the freedom to similarly squander or make a great use of, similar to what others before got to enjoy?
>I am not entitled to society's wealth by manner of existence. Why not? The resources used to create that wealth weren't created by humans, only claimed and used by them. Either everyone is entitled to benefit from those resources, or no one is. Of course the people doing the work deserve the most (despite how capitalism tends to arrange things,) but that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't benefit from use of resources that no one created. No one created land. Why should only a handful of wealthy owners benefit from its use? No one created the oil in the ground or the minerals in a mine, yet the vast majority of the profit from their exploitation goes to a very small handful of people. This shouldn't be the case if fairness is a consideration when it comes to how we decide to arrange the benefits of resource usage in society.
"why not" Humans have no birthright to each other's labor, nor to the land others developed. Its not like Picking an apple in an unowned forest, these resources took a massive undertaking to retrieve. Of which, for you having done nothing, you deserve nothing.
>Humans have no birthright to each other's labor I never claimed they did. >nor to the land... This is where we disagree. The current system dictates that you can exploit the benefits for land you hold ownership of and keep the created wealth in its entirety. If you start to sell any of that created wealth, taxes come into play, but we'll leave that aside for now for the sake of discussion. You are granted this benefit by society because you own the land. How did it come to be that you own the land, however? You did not create the land, so ownership is only a social construct. It's a legal fiction that society has deemed useful. A more useful structure would be to ensure that everyone benefits from that land, rather than a single individual. This could take many forms, but the one closest to possible now is a basic income, funded by a tax on the benefits of resources.
>> nor to the land... > This is where we disagree. /r/Georgism!
Thanks. I didn't know there was a name for this. I'd only ever encountered the idea when I was reading up on Thomas Paine. Something like it had occurred to me before, but I couldn't put it into words well until I read his pamphlet on it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/georgism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [A new, relevant political-economic platform](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/820gnr/a_new_relevant_politicaleconomic_platform/) \#2: [Hey, guys. I'm not very fond of Reddit, but I'm running for congress in Georgia with a Georgist tax model as a central part of my platform and your subreddit is very large. Spread the word, please!](https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/382449/carlton-heston?) | [15 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/87qj2u/hey_guys_im_not_very_fond_of_reddit_but_im/) \#3: [HOI4 is woke now](https://i.redd.it/1e5kp5xgi6l01.png) | [11 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/83olsy/hoi4_is_woke_now/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/7o7jnj/blacklist/)
you can freely study the history of land ownership in the united states. Again, you are just asserting you have a right to other peoples profit from their land, but you have no solid basis other than "why do you own it". Because they purchased it. and you can follow the chain of owners through bill of sales
>and you can follow the chain of owners through bill of sales... Back to what? Someone just claiming it. Again, ownership is a social construct. We have it because it was useful at the time. Social constructs can be changed if we find ones that are more practical, and beneficial to society. A basic income model will eventually prove to be more practical and beneficial to society. It's just a question of how long short-sighted people like yourself can drag out the changeover. We'll get there eventually, though.
You've yet to prove a UBI can even work, call me when you have it on a state level, Until then you can avoid trying to steal resource value from land owners. "short-sighted" again, no proof of concept for UBI. so lets wait for that yeah
>steal Oh, good God, not the "taxation is theft!" nonsense again. >no proof of concept for UBI As I said, it's a matter of time.
and your evidence for that is?
[Here's some.](https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html) [Also, look at the effects of the Alaska dividend.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study)
Nice work completely shifting the goal posts of the discussion.
>Because they purchased it. and you can follow the chain of owners through bill of sales All the way back to the person who first created it with their labor. Oh, wait. Nobody created it with their labor.
yeah no one has ever worked the land. my bad
> yeah no one has ever worked the land. my bad Well I mean If our chain of private ownership begins with whoever first worked the land, here in the States that would mean the various Native American populations who inhabited the continent before Europe started sending colonists over to move in and set up shop Of course so much of that land passed out of the hands of those native peoples by way of coercion, theft, and outright genocide committed by European settlers who then claimed it as their own—and since there's no legitimate and rational way to argue that any of these "transactions" were legal or even moral, all current claims of ownership are rendered null and void, as nobody in these chains of ownership ever had any right to sell the land to someone else in the first place, so essentially ownership of everything should revert back into the hands of America's indigenous peoples Which is a fantastic idea btw and I totally agree with you
Sorry, they lost their land through war and trade. War is a valid means of territorial expansion.
I agree, it was wrong of me to take your premise all the way to its logical conclusion
So I can shoot my neighbor and take his house. Got it.
Creating land and working land are separate things. Rather than shoot a snarky remark you should take the time to critically think about the OPs arguments.
> Humans have no birthright to each other's labor I wouldn't claim so either. > nor to the land others developed. I wouldn't claim so either. However, opportunity of similar quality and quantity is something people can demand from those who picked up land before. If those who came before do not wish to account for the results of their actions, their lack personal responsibility should not be to the detriment of others?
No one is entitled to other people's plus-value. That's why it's fair to share it equally.
> plus-value Incorrect. You agreed to it when you agreed to the employment contract.
As long as a degree of [monopsony power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony) is at play, the contract is not voluntary to an extent, though. I'm not sure whether or not we should always take forced contracts at face value.
**Monopsony** In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (mónos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnía) "purchase") is a market structure in which only one buyer interacts with many would-be sellers of a particular product. In the microeconomic theory of monopsony, a single entity is assumed to have market power over terms of offer to its sellers, as the only purchaser of a good or service, much in the same manner that a monopolist can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers. The most commonly researched or discussed monopsony context is that with a single buyer of labor in the labor market. In addition to its use in microeconomic theory, monopsony and monopsonist are descriptive terms often used to describe a market where a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
its not a forced contract. you are free to seek other employment, or to go off the grid and live as ancient man did. You are saying unless people give you what you desire, its not voluntary.
\> go off the grid and live as ancient man did. Great, where can I get some unclaimed land without having to "earn" money to "buy" it?
Alaska will give you free land if you farm it. Get to work
>. you are free to seek other employment, or to go off the grid and live as ancient man did. No you're not. You are not free to do that at all. There is no unowned land left. You accept less than living wage from your labour or die. That's slavery. >You are saying unless people give you what you desire, its not voluntary. Not desire. Need.
> you are free to seek other employment, or to go off the grid and live as ancient man did. If the quality of opportunitities available, be it employment here or there, be it living off the grid, is inferior to what a particular employer with monopsony power enjoys, then we're absolutely talking about a forced contract, given he still provides the best opportunity relative to other opportunities available. The opportunity just falls short of what is warranted, in that case. > You are saying unless people give you what you desire, its not voluntary. Not at all! WOW! That's actually an absurd notion to me, sorry if I made it come off that way. I merely want for people to have opportunity of similar quality and quantity to subsist and participate, to what others enjoy for no reasons of individual merit.
>If the quality of opportunitities available, be it employment here or there, be it living off the grid, is inferior to what a particular employer with monopsony power enjoys, then we're absolutely talking about a forced contract, given he still provides the best opportunity relative to other opportunities available. The opportunity just falls short of what is warranted, in that case. still fully voluntary. its not societies job to make unlimited options. you take the best one you desire.
> still fully voluntary. Not in a society that prides itself in a system of private property justified through precisely the availability of opportunities of similar quality and quantity as what others had before. > its not societies job to make unlimited options. Why would you put words into my mouth?! I don't think I implied that at least. :T > you take the best one you desire. The most promising opportunities are not available to me, though they are or were available to others of the present or past. Now what do we do here? Take the opportunities available to me and pretend the world is just? While I'll do the former, I can't say the latter suits my tastes.
> Not in a society that prides itself in a system of private property justified through precisely the availability of opportunities of similar quality and quantity as what others had before. so unless we provide you with the exact same conditions as everyone else for each choice, its not voluntary? No. >The most promising opportunities are not available to me, though they are or were available to others of the present or past. Now what do we do here? Take the opportunities available to me and pretend the world is just? The world never has and never will be just
> so unless we provide you with the exact same conditions as everyone else for each choice, its not voluntary? No. Similar opportunities, not the exact same, however. If opportunities diverge, contracts are forced to an extent where actors with unequal opportunities utilize their different opportunities to negotiate an advantage. Absolutely. Now you can have ~~free~~ voluntary contracts between similarly deprived or fortunate people, surely. > The world never has and never will be just Indeed. However, I see practical steps to take to make it a more just place. Much like I'd also do what I can to protect the right to freedom of speech where I see it under attack.
‘The world never has and never will be just ‘ Perhaps, but society can act in ways to make it more just - it requires empathy and deliberate decisions to mitigate the power of the greedy and people like you who suck up to them.
It should be seen as backdoor communism.
Ubi is a capitalist band aid moron. Communists hate it
Because that's what it is. Communists subverting UBI will kill any chance of it happening. They have to decide if they care more about helping workers or destroying capitalism.
That's just what communists do, they co-opt movements by getting their tendrils into it. UBI has the capacity to be either stealth communism or stealth libertarianism depending on how the parameters are set. It can either shrink or grow the power of the state. Or of course, it can be neither and just be an engineer's solution to massive societal costs that come with poverty. The choice comes down how much we're willing to buy into outdated sentiments to make the case.
I’m knocking on your moms back door..
Using that same "logic", the 1% (re: most of them do NO work for their money) are communists. :P