Elon Musk Supports Universal Basic Income: A Needed Advancement

[mfb]

Furthermore, if there is a UBI, why do we need a minimum wage? Today if someone's work is not worth $15,000 a year, it's worth zero. This would allow this to change.

You can easily remove minimum wage with UBI.

 

[jack action]

Huh? Of course you can! In a free society you can live in a cardboard box under a bridge if you want! (And some people do!).

Where is that free society you're talking about?
http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2009/08/squatters_living_under_bridget.html:

Police will warn the squatters to no longer stay under the bridge, the police chief said, and offer them access to social services agencies in the area. If they return to the bridge after they are warned to stay away, police will cite them for trespassing.

http://www.cbc.ca/islandmorning/episodes/2011/07/26/the-bridge-dwellers/index.html:

On Tuesday, Charlottetown police put the run to a group of young bridge dwellers.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/florida-ordinance-makes-illegal-homeless-use-blankets/:

Florida Ordinance Makes It Illegal For Homeless To Use Blankets

So again: if you don't like "buying stuff", then don't. in a free society that is your right

That is the problem: You can only choose between «buying» or «not buying». In a free society you should be able to choose what you want to buy. Can you buy a tiny house or a Tata Nano in a Western society? Pretty difficult, if possible at all.

Back to the subject of this thread, I don't think the system used for welfare is what define the quality of the wealth distribution; It's the people. Either a fully private charity system or a fully communist system will work if everyone in the system is genuine and sincere. If nobody gives in the first system or if corruption and abuse gets into the second one, they will both fail equally.

I live in a socialist society that is not dysfunctional, but it does cost a lot. Mainly because people have a mentality of abuse and corruption. «Everybody does it», they say; «I deserve it», they say. I don't like it and I tend to prefer a non-socialist society. But a lot of people want more social programs and cite Scandinavian countries. At first, I was doubtful on the performance of these countries (In the manner presented by @russ_watters ), but they seem to work and I wondered how.

And this is when I found out that the Scandinavian people have a very special attitude towards their communities. They are very severe on official' spending; Not just the laws, but how citizens follow them closely. This french report shows it well; especially when the anti-corruption activist Eva Joly -who used to work in France before returning to Norway - tells about how the press came down on her because she was charging to the government a taxi fare to go back home from the airport after a mission abroad. Or even when she asked to be reimbursed for a 20% tip on an official restaurant meal (Loose translation of part of http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/eva-joly-pas-si-reine-en-norvege_941790.html):

A tip of 245 euros on taxpayer money

Also in 2005, former magistrate of the financial hub of Paris squarely falls from its pedestal when the magazine tabloid Se og Hor denounces her lifestyle on the front page. It notably reveals information that ridicules her. In 2004, the "Special Advisor" had organized a working lunch with fifteen employees. In addition of the 10,000 kroner (1,230 euros) of the invoice, she had royally added a tip of 2,000 kroner (245 euros). And settled everything with the credit card of the ministry. When they discover the invoice, the accounting of the Ministry of Justice block the due amount of the tip, extravagant in light of local customs. To Eva Joly to find a solution. Instead of paying the sum with her own money, she undertook the written representations to the restaurant to retrieve 245 euros. Regardless of the shortfall that would result for servers. The manager of the establishment refuses net. With this strong argument: What's given is given; taking back ... with his employer, the Ministry of Justice, Eva Joly justified herself in writing: "When I presented the bill, I left a tip comparable to what is given in Paris or in New York." This microscandale takes its flavor when readers learn the amount of the basic salary received by Eva Joly: about 10,000 euros monthly.

This low threshold from the Norwegian people for what is considered «abusing the system» is probably far more important than whatever economic system they have.

Even though, I still prefer a system based on private charities. That is, people who can give, give what they consider fair. On the plus side, the persons who give get the credit, as oppose to some government official in a socialist/communist society. Of course, people can become miser and judgmental in this type of society. But a system where everyone's money is put into a pile will almost always lead to corruption as the temptation is really big and it gives way too much power to the (few) people controlling the money. It only takes one to throw the confidence of everyone else in the system and then begins the spiral of «Better take what I can before there is none left». With private charities, if one rich person doesn't give enough, it tends to infuriate the others that will give more to compensate and isolate the «guilty» one.

 

[mheslep]

That's actually a big step forward. At least they're contemplating new ideas and solutions...

Something similar was considered in the US 50 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

He's more credible...

to some audiences, certainly, which was also true of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

 

[mheslep]

Or, to put it another way (and root this argument firmly in human rights), we should guarantee people’s unconditional right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”:

Those are indeed rights, rights that another may not willfully infringe, and especially not the government. They are not a voucher for stuff, granting one to go and take someone else's stuff and thereby violate their rights.

after all, people who are forced to do physically debilitating and mentally unstimulating jobs in order to survive are effectively denied the second and third of these rights.

A guarantee of pursuit does not make a pursuit into a guarantee. Nobody can have a human right that by its nature deprives others of theirs. More importantly, distorting the human rights enumerated in the American Declaration so that every preference becomes a right is to destroy the fundamental ones. That's insidious.

 

[CynicusRex]

to some audiences, certainly, which was also true of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

There's an astronomically big difference between a cult and SpaceX. If you think cult leaders have the same credibility to talk about the future as the CEO of an aerospace company, then I say no more.

Those are indeed rights, rights that another may not willfully infringe, and especially not the government. They are not a voucher for stuff, granting one to go and take someone else's stuff and thereby violate their rights.

You wouldn't say the same if you were born in a poor family in a poor country continuously invaded or sucked dry by western countries. Also, UBI doesn't take someone else's stuff, it wasn't your stuff in the first place. I guess you'd have argued the same if someone took away your slave 500 years ago. People were stuff back then.

More importantly, distorting the human rights enumerated in the American Declaration so that every preference becomes a right is to destroy the fundamental ones. That's insidious.

1. The American law isn't the best law.
2. Food, housing, and other basic necessities aren't preferences. If people asked for $500 more to buy nicer shoes or a big TV I'd agree.

Let me ask something else, do you ever dream or hope for a better future where all of humanity and animals can coexist in peace? Instead of shooting down every idea, try coming up with your own system. Or at least have constructive criticism. Comparing people to a sect or calling something insidious without any alternatives or nuance doesn't help anyone.

 

[Evo]

This thread has gotten nowhere in 4 pages, time to close it down. It's is just not realistic in the near/distant future in the US.