NOTE: I don't mean politics in the negative sense, I mean it in the sense of ones beliefs/experiences/political-stance/etc.
He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing.
Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get something from everyone else.
I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment.
The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences.
> The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now.
No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would say no, because we have collectively agreed that property rights should usually be enforced - the mere fact that I possess your laptop doesn't mean it is rightfully mine. Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations. Asking for something that in someone's possession but that they don't actually have right to is not what extortion is.
Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property. But if I tell you I'm going to hurt you if you don't give me your laptop, that is extortion.
> Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations.
"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).
Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that each will eat five of the hottest chilis in the world. Does that mean the remaining one has to eat them too, because they have "collectively decided" to eat chilis, or does he have the right not to participate?
Of course, the 9 people in the room have a sound and reasonable argument that murder is wrong (perhaps their argument is "it infringes the rights of others"), just as, we may presume, the nine chili-eaters have a sound and reasonable argument they must all eat the five hottest chilis. But in each instance, the tenth individual began from different premises and did not arrive at their conclusion (maybe he is an Incan time traveler and human sacrifice is part of his religious beliefs, and he does not see that there is any objective basis for human rights.)
Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not. If that makes you a slave, then all of mankind has been enslaved from the dawn of time save the loners in the wilderness.
One of the libertarian's "collective agreements" is that every individual has certain rights.
You're doing a pretty good job at sophistry, but since you happened to use the word "right", I'd point out that decisions don't affect rights.
Compare these two ideas:
1) No one wants to be killed, and therefore, we can
reasonably consider killing someone forbidden.
2) The nine of us want to eat shit, and therefore,
we can reasonably conclude that you must eat shit
too, regardless of whether you want to or not.
Consider for example:
1) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward?
2) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward,
even though there's someone right in front of you,
and you'd have to trample over him to move forward?
What's the rationale for this claim?
Furthermore, is it moral for your average Sicilian neighbourhood mafia to extort people? -If not, why is it alright for governments to extort people? Does the end justify the means? -What if the Sicilian mafia wants to feed a few poor people with the money they extort from you? -Would that make their extortion alright?
What if the mafia say they need your money to maintain peace in the neighbourhood? You see, without the mafia's protection services, people would be killing each other left and right, and we just can't have that, can we? -Extorting you is necessary for the common good then, wouldn't you agree?
Why?
You're stating this as an axiom. Indeed, you're taking the very concept of human rights itself as an axiom, and that's why everything follows so cleanly for you.
But step out of the box. There is no reason for everyone to believe that. Most people through history did not believe in it. Many of them would have equally rational arguments to the contrary. Your very concept of "rights" as something fundamental is a deeply held Western social norm and "collective agreement." Because 9/10 people collectively agree that we have rights, our rights are protected and enforced.
If they did not agree, your idea of rights would be regarded as a fine bit of eccentricity and people would kill you as a sacrifice to the god Asdkjhf and feel that it was not only right and just but necessary. In other words, your rights would be completely meaningless. They are not an objective construct you can hold up as a shield against all wrongs.
Morality is an entirely different argument. But within the commonly held philosophical framework, a (democratic) government cannot be compared to a mafia because the government represents the will of the people while the mafia does not. But this argument can never convince you, because you have taken the axiom of individual rights to the extreme while not taking other axioms.
Without axioms, we can't figure anything out. You say "human rights", but I'd say "natural rights". To me, the former is a state-centric concept - governments supposedly "protect" our "human rights", but somehow no one seems to figure out that governments are the biggest threat to "human rights" too - history is full of genocides committed by governments/rulers etc.
Rights are an idea meant to draw boundaries for acceptable behaviour, and natural rights is a version based on reasoning, starting from the axiomatic observation that we own our bodies - it's clear they're completely under our control, after all.
Ultimately, it's all about making sense of things, through reason and evidence. That's the only way to figure things out, and to reach logical, sound conclusions about societal issues.
> Because 9/10 people collectively agree that we have rights, our rights are protected and enforced.
This doesn't make sense to me. What does it mean that our rights are "protected and enforced"? -By whom? -The government? And what does a "collective agreement" have to do with whether our rights are protected and enforced?
If you think the government protects and enforces our rights, you're way off the mark. For starters, there's nothing the government does that prevents a random stranger from hurting you, and second, contrary to what they'd have you believe, governments are the single biggest threat to you and your rights anyway.
> If they did not agree, your idea of rights would be regarded as a fine bit of eccentricity and people would kill you as a sacrifice to the god Asdkjhf and feel that it was not only right and just but necessary
Yeah. Rights are an idea. Luckily it's an idea that the vast majority of people automatically adheres to, without ever even thinking about it. Everyone knows you "can't" just go around hurting people or taking their property, but what no one knows is that there's no reason why this shouldn't apply to governments too.
> They are not an objective construct you can hold up as a shield against all wrongs.
I'm not saying that the idea of rights protects me in any way, shape or form. But I would like to clear up the idea, so that people would stop conflating it (along with everything else) with what governments supposedly do to benefit us when in reality they're only harmful.
> But within the commonly held philosophical framework, a (democratic) government cannot be compared to a mafia because the government represents the will of the people while the mafia does not. But this argument can never convince you, because you have taken the axiom of individual rights to the extreme while not taking other axioms.
That argument can never convince me, because it makes no sense when you get to the bottom of it. It's not about cherry-picking axioms to accept. Either something is axiomatic, or it's not, and two separate statements can't be contradictory and axiomatic at the same time.
First, taxation really is extortion, there's simply no way around that. Can you consent to something that happens against your will? (Hint: "No."). There goes your fake axiom about the will of the people. Even if you're willing to pay taxes now (mostly because you're in denial about the extortion), it changes nothing about the nature of taxation. We all know you can't stop paying them.
Second, we're all brainwashed to believe governments are beneficial and necessary. Don't believe me? -Well, does it seem a bit strange that people are arguing for their own extortion? Or that without governments, we wouldn't have roads, or hospitals or education? As if those services can only be provided with money that's been forcefully confiscated from people.
Thinking that people who have been brainwashed into not seeing extortion for what it is actually want it to happen is comparable to thinking that a comatose person wants you to stick a fork in his eye. There goes "the will of the people" again.
Rational actors may absolutely wish to agree to be forced into something. This is known as a "collective action problem" - where any individual may benefit if they defect, but each individual benefits more if everyone cooperates than if everyone defects.
How about a toy example:
Say we're living in a small coastal village, and storm season is approaching. If we don't build a levee, we're all going to lose a lot more - in total - than the cost of building the levee. But the levee is expensive (more than we can collectively come up with up front) and will take a long time to build (we don't have time to save, before we need to start construction). So we all agree to pay monthly. Come the second month, I'm thinking "Well, I want the levee built, but the value my portion of the funds adds to the levee really isn't worth as much to me as the funds themselves..." If the choice is "Everyone pays or no one pays" I clearly prefer "everyone pays". I prefer "everyone but me pays" even more, but everyone else is only going to pay if we all credibly commit to paying, which means we commit to be forced if we later decide we don't want to pay.
Yes they can. It just means the system is inconsistent. I'd recommend studying some logic, if you intend to use your mighty powers of REASON to reach TRUTH.
But with the wrong axioms, we can figure out things that are false and think they are true. Just because you're taking something as an axiom doesn't mean you are correct to do so.
Yes, that's my point. But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
'"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).'
I disagree. Yes, we are all individuals. Yes, we all have the same rights. But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point.
> But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.
> But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people.
Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it. They'd do that because they'd both want to move on with their lives instead of wasting time, energy and effort on ultimately pointless bickering.
Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence.
'Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.'
This really couldn't be more handwavy. I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do. I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society. I also think it's clear that an ability to solve collective action problems is necessary and that massive concentration of power is a problem. My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex.
"A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people."
Again, your language is absurd. Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved - as normal people would use the word, not something you can technically force into place by ignoring important aspects of what people usually mean when they say enslavement - or gtfo.
A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied. We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check and that initiation of violence to a minimum, but monopoly is tremendously better than allowing competitive violence - monopolies under-produce.
"Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it."
How do they pick which arbiter to turn to, if they haven't had dealings with each other before? If it's always a certain arbiter in a certain area, that's just the existing court system.
I got it just fine. But even if the laptop weren't my property (by social convention or otherwise), demanding it back would not constitute extortion without a threat. Either way, I still don't see the point.
> This really couldn't be more handwavy
Sure, but I didn't mean to "prove" anything to you.
> I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do.
Cool. Read up on Murray Rothbard for example. If that's too heavy (I can relate), how about starting with an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 ? -Watch the videos on that channel, and you'll start understanding that governments are only harmful to economies too.
> If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do.
Well that sure is fucked up.
> My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex.
Yep, the world is complex, and so is the vast mountain of bullshit layered on top of Reason & Evidence to make governments look necessary/legitimate/beneficial. Yeah, I don't have the time or energy to try and prove that either. You'll have to go through the process of reaching enlightenment (ie. "waking up") on your own anyway.
> Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved
If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken by someone else, you're a slave. If 50% are forcefully taken, you're a "50% slave". Even 50% enslavement is enslavement, and so, we're all slaves. The degree of enslavement doesn't matter, just like it's irrelevant whether you raped a woman for 10 minutes or three hours - it's still rape.
Yeah, that still leaves you the wiggle-room of pointing out that we get to choose what we do to earn money. But that's more like an implementation detail, and doesn't mean it's unreasonable to call it enslavement. How about "indirect enslavement"? -That seems apt too. We get to choose what to do because the most productive slave is the one who thinks he's free.
> A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied.
Care to elaborate? What's "recourse to the state" in this case, and how is it denied?
> We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check
The problem is that it's impossible to keep governments in check. They're not responsible to anyone for their actions, after all. You'd think that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and countless other mass-murderers would have kind of driven this point home already, but um.. no.
I'll give up now, at least for today. Feel free to make a clear claim about violence or private courts, and maybe I'll address it.
If all you do is make the request, and there is no (explicit or implicit) threat that you'll take it by force or involve police or anything else, then yes it is not extortion for an additional reason. Would you really advocate that people simply let it go? If so, we're having a different conversation than I thought we were. It was a straightforward attempt at a simple existence proof - you had said "things which meet these criteria are extortion", I provided something that met those criteria that was not extortion. Couldn't be simpler; an entirely relevant application of reason to the problem.
"Cool. Read up on Murray Rothbard for example. If that's too heavy (I can relate), how about starting with an educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8 ? -Watch the videos on that channel, and you'll start understanding that governments are only harmful to economies too."
I'm familiar with the literature, including Rothbard. Many of the ideas are certainly fascinating, but I reject Austrian school economics because they reject empiricism. There is an infinitude of internally consistent axiomatic systems, the only way to tell whether yours actually has any relation to the real world is to measure and compare (other stuff you've written here leads me to think you sympathetic to this viewpoint, so I don't know why you're so accepting of that stuff).
Nonetheless, as I say later (though you didn't quote it) "I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society."
'> If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do.
Well that sure is fucked up.'
Wow, that is some powerful REASON right there.
I would say that clinging to the things you've arbitrarily blessed as rights when better outcomes are attainable is fucked up. Rights are not what I value first order. I value people living long and healthy lives and preferably happy lives, where they can find meaning in whatever ways they derive it.
That said, I'm speaking of principles here. In practice, I'm not eager to trade away most of the things various people have called "rights" - it would have to meet a high burden of proof that it's genuinely a good idea in the medium to long term. To my mind, asserting our rights helps provide security against government; collectively demanding that the rights of everyone be respected is how we keep government in check. But we collectively decide what those rights must be, and should pick them so as to most prevent excess consolidation of power (in government or elsewhere) where that power might be used to inappropriately (... which is pretty much anywhere), but also so as to maximize the benefits government can provide where that does not cost us too much in the other respect.
'Yep, the world is complex, and so is the vast mountain of bullshit layered on top of Reason & Evidence to make governments look necessary/legitimate/beneficial. Yeah, I don't have the time or energy to try and prove that either. You'll have to go through the process of reaching enlightenment (ie. "waking up") on your own anyway.'
I have to laugh a bit here at how stereotypical the above reads of fundamentalist whack-job or conspiracy nut. "I have a privileged viewpoint! Ignore the lies and listen to the prophets and you too can be enlightened!"
I don't see enough actual content there for a real response.
'If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken by someone else, you're a slave. If 50% are forcefully taken, you're a "50% slave". Even 50% enslavement is enslavement, and so, we're all slaves. The degree of enslavement doesn't matter, just like it's irrelevant whether you raped a woman for 10 minutes or three hours - it's still rape.
Yeah, that still leaves you the wiggle-room of pointing out that we get to choose what we do to earn money. But that's more like an implementation detail, and doesn't mean it's unreasonable to call it enslavement. How about "indirect enslavement"? -That seems apt too. We get to choose what to do because the most productive slave is the one who thinks he's free.'
I think there are a huge number of aspects of slavery that are missing in our relationship with government. You can choose not to work (or earn less than the standard deduction) and not have to pay any taxes. You can, as you say, choose where you work. You can also choose to leave the country, if another country will give you citizenship, give up your US citizenship, and pay taxes to the other country - slaves cannot choose their master. You're also not likely to be sold away from your family.
Having some aspects in common with slavery doesn't make it 50% slavery.
'Care to elaborate? What's "recourse to the state" in this case, and how is it denied?'
Harry Brown covered this quite approachably in "Why Government Doesn't Work".
If I'm selling peaches, and someone comes along and says "this neighborhood is my peach selling turf; stop selling peaches or I'll shoot you", I can report it to the police. If I'm selling cocaine and someone says the same, and I tell the police, I don't get assistance. Likewise, if someone steals my peaches versus if someone steals my cocaine. Making individuals responsible for enforcing their own property rights against one another leads to violence between individuals (and, ultimately, gangs). You don't see Jim Beam doing drive-bys of Seagrams distributors - but you did during prohibition.
"The problem is that it's impossible to keep governments in check. They're not responsible to anyone for their actions, after all. You'd think that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and countless other mass-murderers would have kind of driven this point home already, but um.. no."
Any technology can be misused, and government is no different. A pile of disasters, from which we've learned some (though, I agree, not enough), by no means demonstrates impossibility of avoiding them. We've seen plenty of times the violence that can come about from too little government as well, and it can easily compete (in terms of percentage of the population) with the travesties you cite.
"Feel free to make a clear claim about violence or private courts, and maybe I'll address it."
I'm not sure what you're demanding of me, here.
I pointed out that taxation meets the criteria for extortion: you're giving up your property under threat of violence. It's clearly a match.
You asked if me demanding my laptop back would constitute extortion, which we both know it doesn't. There are two reasons why not: 1) the laptop is my property (regardless of "how"), 2) there is no threat. This is why my original reaction was: "Oh come on".
But now you're saying the laptop was an example of something that meets the criteria of extortion without being extortion.. and that's just not true.
>>> I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do
>> Well that sure is fucked up.
> Wow, that is some powerful REASON right there.
What you said is comparable to me declaring that I'll just shoot you in the kneecaps and take your money if I ever come across you, just because I want the money, so fuck you and fuck your well-being.
So that's perfectly alright if it results in a "good outcome", as defined by.. who? Me? -Obviously, you don't have a say because you're the one being robbed to achieve whatever good outcome I might have set my sights on.
Do you see why I talked about the end not justifying the means? Your way of thinking is like Stalin's or Mao's. They had lots of good outcomes in mind when slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people. In other words, your way of thinking is, in fact, fucked up.
Don't talk about good or better "outcomes", that's a misguided, mass-coercion-rationalizing attitude. You don't know "the correct outcome" for a society - there is no such thing, and above all, you can't arrange for it to happen through coercion.
What people could do, is follow the golden rule - do unto others as you'd have done to yourself. That way we'd actually reach the best possible "outcome" for everyone, which is something you'll understand if you accept Austrian economics.
.. speaking of which:
> I reject Austrian school economics because they reject empiricism
Oh this again. Boo-hoo, it's not a "real science". Well so fucking what? Does people's behaviour work like mathematics, or.. is it perhaps, unpredictable?
Austrian economics is based on observations on how people actually behave, in reality. Since economies consist of millions of people making exchanges, that's the best possible basis for a school of economic thought. It doesn't take much to understand this once you stop insisting on clinging on to your preconceived notions of what economics should be like.
> collectively demanding that the rights of everyone be respected is how we keep government in check
Really now? How's that working out so far? Does it work in the burgeoning police state of the US? What about North-Korea? Did it work in Mao's China?
Please wake up. There is no way to keep a government in check - it wields absolute power over a geographical area, until the masses stop believing that someone else has the right to rule them, that is.
> But we collectively decide what those rights must be, and should pick them so as to most prevent excess consolidation of power (in government or elsewhere) where that power might be used to inappropriately (... which is pretty much anywhere)
No, the only version of the idea of rights that works and is tenable, is one that is based on sound reasoning. If 100 people "collectively decide" that you don't have the right to own a spleen, I'm sure you'd agree that's not a particularly good way of defining rights. Sure, a spleen is an extreme example, but it could be anything really. Any collective decision where you're harmed without you harming anyone is obviously wrong. Taxation is not a collective decision, especially when neither of us was ever asked, nor were our parents. In fact, ordinary people have never been asked if they'd like to be extorted. That's kind of like, not how extortion works, after all.
> I have to laugh a bit here at how stereotypical the above reads of fundamentalist whack-job or conspiracy nut.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yuC... .. it's just that it's "the official conspiracy theory". That's exactly what governments would have us believe. Does it sound believable?
> You can also choose to leave the country, if another country will give you citizenship, give up your US citizenship, and pay taxes to the other country - slaves cannot choose their master
Being able to switch from Prison A to Prison B doesn't mean you're free though. Again, the most productive slave is one that thinks he's free, and that's why we're not outright slaves. Here's more on that: http://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/the_handbook_of_...
> Making individuals responsible for enforcing their own property rights against one another leads to violence between individuals (and, ultimately, gangs).
Government doesn't change that you know. If someone decides to rob you, a police officer won't materialize between you and him to prevent it. If someone wants to hurt you, he'll evaluate the risks vs the "reward", and make a decision based on that. Luckily, the vast majority of people won't hurt you with or without a government.
> You don't see Jim Beam doing drive-bys of Seagrams distributors - but you did during prohibition.
Prohibition is something the government did. You're just helping my case by bringing it up.
> Any technology can be misused, and government is no different.
So now government is a "technology", as if it's something we, the people, "use" to our benefit? :P Nice going there.
> A pile of disasters, from which we've learned some (though, I agree, not enough), by no means demonstrates impossibility of avoiding them
Well, now you're saying we need "better government", but that's like asking for "better enslavement". Once again, governments are. not. responsible. to. anyone. for. their. actions. Please let that sink in. Do you get that because there is no higher power than government, there is nothing to keep them in check? Do you get that because of that, there's nothing governments can't do to us individuals?
It takes a massive uprising to topple a government, and then it's always just replaced with another. Oh, and along the way, lots of innocent people are beaten, tased, killed, and tortured by the government, just like in the Ukraine or Venezuela these days. Wake up? The solution to a group of sociopaths in power hurting everyone is not to replace it with another. The only solution is for the masses to stop believing that they need to have a group of sociopaths rule over them. That belief is the belief in political authority.
I agree with the rest of your points, but not necessarily with this one. Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that.
If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.
You claimed people pay taxes voluntarily, but that is incorrect. Even if some people don't mind paying them now, they can't stop either. Your willingness to pay them is separate from whether you have a choice.
Not necessarily. Money can be printed out of thin air. It is printed out of thin air right now, mostly by private banks (I know they're not technically printing money, but Fractional Reserve Banking and other shenanigans have the same practical effects).
Of course, once you're explicit about printing money, you need to be careful about inflation. But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour.
But in this era of massive unemployment, it looks like labour isn't the bottleneck.
This is the crux right here.
The government no longer providers you money as BI. It provides you with the right to housing (build up), the right to energy (one person can only use so many KwHs/day), the right to worldwide communications (I think we can all agree the price of moving bits is going to continue to fall), the right to food, and the right to transportation (electric self-driving vehicles).
With enough wind, solar, nuclear power, with self driving cars, with automated manufacturing and farming, you don't need money. You simply provide for your citizens their basic essentials. The people who want to work, will. The people who don't aren't a burden, because robots don't resent.
(1) Automation is on its way, and will continue to eat jobs. It won't be possible to create as much jobs as technology is taking away. Take self driving cars for instance: soon there will be no bus driver, no truck driver, no taxi driver. Some of them will work in control centres and "supervise" 50 vehicles at once, but that still means many people who will need another job. People will have free time, whether they want it or not.
(2) This is a cultural problem. I guess much of it will go away once we solve (3)
(3) is less costly than it sounds. We just need to be rational about crop management (which is currently insane, thanks to globalization), the use of technology, urbanisation… It's a huge problem, but not an unsolvable one. We will need the political will to do it though, and that won't happen until western countries become democracies[1].
[1]: Current western countries are not run by the people. They are run by elected elites, which happen to represent the interests of the businesses —the only special interest that is not called such. Therefore, current western countries are not democracies. They're plutocracies. Now, I think this is most true in the US, and less true in some European countries.
(2) Yes, of course, people will start giving away their possessions really soon now. As soon as there will be communism, which is right around the corner. I'll believe it when somebody gifts me a yacht and a beachfront house somewhere in Mediterranean. BTW, how exactly you would have your magic robots make everybody their own beachfront house in the Mediterranean?
(3) Yeah right. We just need a set of magic technologies which would do something that was never done and nobody has any remotest idea how to do it, and every attempt in the past to do it ended up in spectacular and very bloody disaster. Technology is not magic, it can do a lot but it can not change human nature and it can not produce everything out of nothing for free.
(4) Businesses are people. You're just trying to dehumanize them because these people stand in line of your agenda. While you are glad to describe how people would gift you their possessions and work for you for free, you still realize fat chance they will. So you just say - well, those not true people, those are "elites" and "businesses" and "special interests" (as if anybody but people can have interests!) and as soon as we disenfranchise them and take power to the real people - abundance and happiness will ensue. Too bad this all was already tried a hundred years ago. With exactly the same words and exactly the same promises. The result was and always will be - blood, hunger, suffering, misery and death.
> But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour.
Money is a representation of value - you've had to earn it somehow (unless you're the government ofc). In other words, money represents labour/resources/services etc, and those are scarce even if our fiat currencies can be created out of thin air seemingly without any limit.
The point here is, again, that you can't get something from nothing. If a government wants to implement UBI, it can't just distribute grains of sand to everyone - it has to be something valuable and useable as a means of exchange, and that places limits on what the government can feasibly do.
I'm open-minded but not convinced that printing money for UBI is an awful idea.
Printing money and sharing it out equally results in inflation, very likely, which affects people with existing wealth/savings more. The result is that money is very effectively redistributed, in a way which the existing income-based taxation system is unable to. Isn't that exactly the goal?
Also, I wasn't only advocating printing money by the state. I was also suggesting we stop banks from printing money as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-reserve_banking Monetary policy is too important to let private special interests control it.
Also, the current way of dealing with money, even for a state, is to think in terms of budget, deficits… while it should instead think in terms of money supply. The state would then increase the money supply through various spending, and decrease through taxes. Deficit would be zero by definition. Only inflation would remain. (My guess: inflation should probably be kept between 3% and 10% per year. It should definitely not be null.)
Monetary policy influences all other policies, because you do need a budget to do anything. (A budget in resources and manpower, but money is too convenient to do away with.)
My point is, money is too important to let a few powerful, not-even-elected entities control it.