It's fair to say that this is all theory, considering UBI hasn't been used yet (on a large scale). You do make good points, thanks for the discussion. If you have any good articles relating to the matter would you mind sending them my way?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hey sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I've been sick all week, Migraine, insomnia, and now the flu...
Anyways: I'm glad to see that you're open minded towards this idea, and not an ideologue. To be honest: I'm not really the 'article' type of person, I tend to go straight to the source, b/c I find writers tend to distort... everything. So I usually read economists and philosophers. A good run over of the main benefits and drawbacks, although rather superficial is this:
Also skimming over the wiki article, it represents all the arguments for it quite well... as well as the arguments against it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a blind follower of this idea. I think the theory's sound, even brilliant, but if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. The real life trials are so far working phenominally, but if at some point it proves unworkable, I'm not going to keep pushing it.
You're not wrong to think that it could be manipulated by the globalists, and you're not wrong to think that it could be manipulated by the banks. We need to get them in check too. But at the same time, there's almost no system that they can't corrupt so it's hardly an argument against UBI.
I may be a liberal, but I'm also a libertarian. I believe in small government. Check out the arguments for small government, the wiki article lists some. You're afraid of corruption, which isn't unwise, I don't think it's a problem, but UBI addresses it significantly. Since it flattens the benefits system it makes it way harder to misappropriate funds. The system is transparent to everyone, and no corporations can exploit it to anywhere near the degree that they exploit current welfare. Add onto this the fact that the current welfare system doesn't even help everyone. So it's a win win win.
One interesting thought is that mining fees from a blockchain that supports our banking system in the future could be automatically distributed to the public. I do now see UBI could have value, but the only issue is that its policy and functionality shouldn't be controlled by any group of people, it should just be a "dividend" if you will.
'...it should just be a "dividend" if you will.'
I just said the EXACT same thing on Youtube in the comments. Yes I entirely agree. Also on your first point too.
Yeah I think a dividend would work better than setting a predetermined amount based on a subjective view of a standard of living.
I'm open to that idea, although I was more thinking of small government most of the time. That is: bare means of living. Not like, struggling to survive, but the 'American dream' style of living.
But the idea of dividending societal progress could have some significant merit to it. But at the same time: I'm afraid of the risk that it could make globalism run amok. If you start cutting the people in on Empire, aren't you incentivising empire? I'm not convinced that that's the natural conclusion, but I believe in considering all risks.
Oh, and another thing to bear in mind: UBI isn't a leftwing policy, it's a right wing, libertarian policy from the Heritage foundation. The key goals of it are to minimise government, and to harness capitalism's inherent strengths/purpose.
I'd like to point out that what you said about being forced to participate in the market makes it not capitalism is false. You have to participate in the real life market, no man is an island, as it were.
Also I'm not saying there's no risk corruption in this system. I think there's far less than there is in the current capitalist and welfare systems, since UBI is designed to kill it, but we still must be vigilant.