Universal basic income trial in the US

[jamil]

Well, that depends on who you ask.

The people that lived through the Depression were very happy with FDR (well, mostly). Things like the TVA certainly helped a great many people.

That benefit, though, came at a significant cost to the American experiment.

That's the problem with monkeying around with social programs. There's unintended consequences the more people try to muck with stuff they don't really understand. For one thing, for pensions to work, there has to be a minimum growth in monies taken in to pay for it. Can't count on wage increases because that cancels out on the other end. So meaningful growth has to be in the number of working people who contribute. But now, the trend of large families has ended. People think it's immoral to have large families. So first world nations who have such social programs must count on immigration for the population growth necessary to sustain the social programs. That has a lot of long term implications.

I think UBI would tend to have a similar problem. Plus, a negative tax system would reintroduce means testing which also reintroduces the accompanying fraud, which kinda is the whole idea behind just givng people a basic living. I don't really see that as much different from the welfare state we have, and many of the societal problems that causes. Would it unintentionally (or intentionally for the conspiracy minded people) incent women to crank out babies like big macs?

 

[Expat]

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

The more I learn about libertarians the less I think I understand libertarians...

 

[jamil]

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

The more I learn about libertarians the less I think I understand libertarians...

I like a lot of the libertarian ideas. I think the non-aggression principle makes a lot of sense at the individual level. And it's probably a good principle to base most laws on, with some practical exceptions.

Libertarians are probably some of the purest, most ideologically consistent people one can meet. Their ideas can be logically compelling, but they're incompatible with human behavior in a practical sense. But some of them just make you scratch your head. Like Johnson, for example, is bat-**** crazy. He's like how I would imagine the offspring of Ayn Rand mated Bernie Sanders would be. Mr Jarrell seemed to fit into more the social-justicy libertarian camp, for example.

 

[Fiddle]

Strip all that out. What does it cost to run the minimum government necessary to fulfil its mission.

And here in lies the crux of the matter. What is the minimum mission of the government!

 

[T.Lex]

And here in lies the crux of the matter. What is the minimum mission of the government!

To govern.

Heck, its in the name.

 

[Fiddle]

To govern.

Heck, its in the name.

Well there you have it. And all these years I had no idea

 

[Expat]

I like a lot of the libertarian ideas. I think the non-aggression principle makes a lot of sense at the individual level. And it's probably a good principle to base most laws on, with some practical exceptions.

Libertarians are probably some of the purest, most ideologically consistent people one can meet. Their ideas can be logically compelling, but they're incompatible with human behavior in a practical sense. But some of them just make you scratch your head. Like Johnson, for example, is bat-**** crazy. He's like how I would imagine the offspring of Ayn Rand mated Bernie Sanders would be. Mr Jarrell seemed to fit into more the social-justicy libertarian camp, for example.

I miss his pronouncements on who was and was not a "true libertarian"
He seemed to be the official arbiter.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I like a lot of the libertarian ideas. I think the non-aggression principle makes a lot of sense at the individual level. And it's probably a good principle to base most laws on, with some practical exceptions.

Libertarians are probably some of the purest, most ideologically consistent people one can meet. Their ideas can be logically compelling, but they're incompatible with human behavior in a practical sense. But some of them just make you scratch your head. Like Johnson, for example, is bat-**** crazy. He's like how I would imagine the offspring of Ayn Rand mated Bernie Sanders would be. Mr Jarrell seemed to fit into more the social-justicy libertarian camp, for example.

Don't you think that last paragraph conflicts with itself. You can't be the purest, most consistent people if some can argue for abortion while some argue against it, while some support say you should bake the cake while some say that violates property rights/freedom of association, some argue for UBI but others might argue if violates the NAP. The juxtaposition of Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen. One was a pretty reasonable libertarian the other was like you said.

About all many of them agreed on was legalize marijuana.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And here in lies the crux of the matter. What is the minimum mission of the government!

It's in the Constitution. It's not nearly as big a secret, as nebulous as we've grown to assume.

 

[Expat]

It's in the Constitution. It's not nearly as big a secret, as nebulous as we've grown to assume.

You mean live within the actual enumerated powers

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You mean live within the actual enumerated powers

Radical, I know....

 

[jamil]

And here in lies the crux of the matter. What is the minimum mission of the government!

Well, NOT wealth redistribution. I'd say providing a criminal and civil justice system, and a national defense to protect citizens from external enemies, foreign relations, trade, and really not much beyond that. And I'd say if people want a government beyond that, pony up. Put your own money where your mouth is.

 

[T.Lex]

All (good) governing requires "wealth redistribution" at some level.

Providing for the common defense requires wealth redistribution. Taking from the citizens, giving it to other citizens (or non-citizens, depending on the specifics).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

All (good) governing requires "wealth redistribution" at some level.

Providing for the common defense requires wealth redistribution. Taking from the citizens, giving it to other citizens (or non-citizens, depending on the specifics).

Now who's getting sloppy with the language?

 

[jamil]

All (good) governing requires "wealth redistribution" at some level.

Providing for the common defense requires wealth redistribution. Taking from the citizens, giving it to other citizens (or non-citizens, depending on the specifics).

Indirectly you could say that. Tax payers fund national security, or police protection, or justice systems, and the government distributes the services to all, even those who don't have a tax burden. But it's a feature of providing the legitimate service of government, not the feature itself.

But taking money away from some people to give directly to other people is a direct level of redistribution of wealth. Giving people other people's money isn't really a legitimate government function. But, under my tax plan, if that's what you want to do with your money, you just go ahead and write that check. But it seems to me that it'd be more efficient to cut out the middle man and just give to people in need directly.

 

[jedi]

its not the ubi that we have to worry about it the robotic ai that will be our downfall. when the robots become self-aware we are f...! think matrix and terminator.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Indirectly you could say that. Tax payers fund national security, or police protection, or justice systems, and the government distributes the services to all, even those who don't have a tax burden. But it's a feature of providing the legitimate service of government, not the feature itself.

But taking money away from some people to give directly to other people is a direct level of redistribution of wealth. Giving people other people's money isn't really a legitimate government function. But, under my tax plan, if that's what you want to do with your money, you just go ahead and write that check. But it seems to me that it'd be more efficient to cut out the middle man and just give to people in need directly.

I love this plan.

It won't work of course. SOCIALISM can't work without coercion.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

its not the ubi that we have to worry about it the robotic ai that will be our downfall. when the robots become self-aware we are f...! think matrix and terminator.

They can make all the AI robots they want. But the smartest robot in the world can't operate without power. And a 30-06 into the side of the building's transformers will fix that smarty-pants robot.

 

[GrinderCB]

The U.S. already has Universal Basic Income. It's called "Prison."

Food. Clothing. Housing. Medical care. Exercise. Depending on the state they might even have a better cable deal than I do.

 

[Libertarian01]

Regarding Libertarians I have found that there are generally two (2) basic camps. There are many more of course, I am using a broad brush here. But in general...

The first camp is very utopian. They sit around for hours and discuss philosophy, government, law & order, history and so on. They do all of this under the general idea of pushing and promoting a "Libertarian" philosophy of how things could work, if only.... The problem is that this is ALL they do.

The second camp lives in the real world. The second camp tries to seize power by running for office. This camp accepts the reality that they won't get everything they want, nor will their children, nor their grandchildren. As a matter of fact we will never ever ever get the world we want. Our only hope is to try to move in the right direction. To stop moving toward bigger government, or if we can't stop to slow it down. The second group is realistic, but more importantly tries to actually run for office and use the same force that every other political camp does.

If you can't tell I'm generally in the second camp. Would I like to see a universal shift toward much less government, greater protection of freedom, and a massive cut in taxation AND spending? You betcha! But knowing that not everyone agrees with this let's just try to move the needle a bit that way.

As far as UBI goes, I said it upstream: IF and only IF it would replace all other safety nets would I support it. It moves the needle in the direction of less government spending, and thus greater fiscal responsibility. Does this mean I love the idea of UBI? Answer = no.

I am generally opposed to almost any welfare. Today, more than ever, can we help a needy person through crowd funding. Wouldn't it be FAR better for us to find a person who cannot, for whatever reason, support themselves tell their story on the internet. To set up a private trust for them that would be funded solely by individual, voluntary contributions. That they could live off of the interest of that trust until the day they die THEN have all of that money returned to the donors or heirs of the donors with some interest? That way the donors could look at the reason(s) for their need and judge whether or not the person was worthy of help. Those that scam would be denied, those that truly need help through no fault of their own would get the help. Eventually all monies could be returned to those who paid, unlike with any current or proposed government model.

But my idea will never go anywhere. It will never catch on. So, I would support an idea that could replace the massive waste and duplication of services - UBI. This doesn't mean I love it, but as it could be better than what we have, I'm game.

Regards,

Doug

PS - This means not letter "perfect" stand in the way of "pretty good."