Basic income guarantee - opinions&criticism welcome

[mobodick]

So what happens when you are unable to do work that pays enough to survive?

you become a burglar and rob people until someone puts you out of your misery with his hunting rifle. ancap takes care of its own 

Try breaking into a house in a wheelchair. 

[herzmeister]

Danke für den langen Post
For conditions being added over time - if you have a transparent state mechanism and popular participation through technologies (another of the Pirates' goals), chances are this will not happen. A bit idealistic, but hey, new technologies are a game changer, right?
I would be interested in looking into your concept if you want to share some info on that.

http://joinutopia.org/ - very early stage  

One thing that the Luddites did not reckon is the fact that Earth resources are close to being exhausted. If we continue to develop technologically, there might not be enough rare earth metals to build all those shiny spaceships.

Well, for spaceships, there'll be but enough rare moon metals and rare asteroid metals then. Plus, recycling technologies will be optimized. We'd probably not need our cars anymore.

Now to a practical concern of mine:
One thing which I acknowledge as a problem is the inflationary pressure on prices. If everyone suddenly got 1000 EUR richer, the rent for flats would increase accordingly, as well as goods prices. So then you either have to have the state regulate such things (not a good idea?) or somehow circumvent that. I'm still looking for a practical way to do that, suggestions are welcome

Valid concern that we unfortunately cannot test empirically. What we do know is that technological progress in a sufficiently functioning economy obviously does increase over-all wealth and thus mass purchasing power. The basic income might achieve a similar effect if it actually can raise the standard of living, as some hope it will, liberating resources to work on more interesting projects (like crypto-currencies), and opening new possibilities and markets by that.

[FreeMoney]

Make sure your plan details what happens to people who refuse (rape, murder and imprisonment generally get decent compliance rates). And don't forget to budget for that too, institutionalized rape costs a lot even if you do it in a bare concrete room and serve animal food with it.

People who refuse what? To take the money? Then they are free to not do it, and it can be donated to needy stand-up comedians on the Bitcoin Forum
Or perhaps you are talking about people who refuse to pay taxes - then they are free to move to another country, of course. One that has ghettos, higher infant mortality and low societal stability because of the income inequality.

You probably won't need to torture the recipients.

So it'll be like, "Please leave your house and other assets behind or we'll fight you to the death." or more like "Sorry you missed your chance to leave, locking/killing you to proceed immediately."

[mobodick]

So what happens when you are unable to do work that pays enough to survive?

I live in an area with very poor populations in terms of money, but rich in terms of heritage, culture, resources, and morality and work ethic.

If you need fruit, you harvest from the orchard. If you need veggies, you harvest from the garden. If you need meat, you harvest through hunting or livestock slaughtering. If you need anything else, you process your harvests into usable materials for trade and barter or monetary sales.

In other words, you produce or you die.

But don't you know that there is not enough room for everyone to have a personal (even communal) orchard?
Or that there is not enough game in the woods to feed humanity for one week?
Or that people started settling in cities where there are no orchards thousands of years ago?
Or that there would be no computers or internet if everyone lived only off their land?
And the part that produces all these nice technology for you is driven by cities with workers.
And the socio economic environment in cities is completely different from 'living off the land' and people can realy be dependant on someone providing work or even welfare.

[Bitware]

Yes but your already living outside the states income anyway and don't give much of a damn about the state services.

Really?

Then why am I paying for them under penalty of death and land confiscation should I resist?

Now picture living in a concrete jungle. Production of the basics is crazily efficient, some things like battery farms are just plain wrong but harvesters that drive themselves give 1 man the power to produce for thousands. Let folks sell quality and let them sell it without hindrance while the state looks after the basics and the infrastructure. If folks want better than the basics they work for it.

Remember where those basics are coming from?

The only people allowing the man to produce for 1000 are the 1000 who chose to buy from him. Sounds like an agreement to me.

You can sell quality all day long if there are buyers.

[Bitware]

But don't you know that there is not enough room for everyone to have a personal (even communal) orchard?
Or that there is not enough game in the woods to feed humanity for one week?
Or that people started settling in cities where there are no orchards thousands of years ago?
Or that there would be no computers or internet if everyone lived only off their land?
And the part that produces all these nice technology for you is driven by cities with workers.
And the socio economic environment in cities is completely different from 'living off the land' and people can realy be dependant on someone providing work or even welfare.

Show me your sources for these claims that there is not enough land for every community to have land to farm and raise livestock (with a communal orchard).

You are speaking about personal choice and personal responsibility. Go take a look at available land. Its plentiful.

A Man grows up and sets out to scratch and dig an existence out of this earth. Those who do this survive and thrive. Those who expect others to do it barely survives, certainly doesnt thrive, and usually dies... and rightfully so.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to live in a city, but dont expect us hard working, critical thinking, rugged individualists who dont even live near it nor benefit from it to pay for it.

[Bitware]

Yes but your already living outside the states income anyway and don't give much of a damn about the state services.

Really?

Then why am I paying for them under penalty of death and land confiscation should I resist?

Now picture living in a concrete jungle. Production of the basics is crazily efficient, some things like battery farms are just plain wrong but harvesters that drive themselves give 1 man the power to produce for thousands. Let folks sell quality and let them sell it without hindrance while the state looks after the basics and the infrastructure. If folks want better than the basics they work for it.

Remember where those basics are coming from?

The only people allowing the man to produce for 1000 are the 1000 who chose to buy from him. Sounds like an agreement to me.

You can sell quality all day long if there are buyers.

Look at the figures for welfare already paid in cities, Paris only has enough unskilled and semi skilled jobs for a quarter of its population, it pays out a basic minimum to the other three quarters and then there's pensioners, putting everyone else on the list of payouts isn't such a big step. Businesses contribute high taxes to the area they're in, what they produce for the state or for other businesses that contribute to the state they grants tax relief. Spin the whole money system on its head and just let the tax relief credits be the government money.

Thanks for the increased support of and for my position.

[mobodick]

But don't you know that there is not enough room for everyone to have a personal (even communal) orchard?
Or that there is not enough game in the woods to feed humanity for one week?
Or that people started settling in cities where there are no orchards thousands of years ago?
Or that there would be no computers or internet if everyone lived only off their land?
And the part that produces all these nice technology for you is driven by cities with workers.
And the socio economic environment in cities is completely different from 'living off the land' and people can realy be dependant on someone providing work or even welfare.

Show me your sources for these claims that there is not enough land for every community to have land to farm and raise livestock (with a communal orchard).

You are speaking about personal choice and personal responsibility. Go take a look at available land. Its plentiful.

Good land is pretty scarse.
It would barely be enough to give everyone a place to grow their own food, so no space for any other development.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land) there is about 48,836,976 km² of land where you can grow food on.
That means that there is 48836976 km² / 7000000000 people which comes down to 0.007 km² per person.
That is a patch of about 83 by 83 meters per person.
That's barely enough to support that and it's getting less.
So if you know a way for everyone to live off of 83 by 83 meters then please enlight us.
And i bet your own yard is bigger than this.

Also, if everyone would have to live off the land then there would be noone to create the technology you use right now.
Or did you think that newton or einstein farmed their own food?
Or that the guys at intel go out sowing their crops in the afternoon?

So it seems you are a bit misguided as to the real situation in the world and just blabber away from your priviledged position...

[mobodick]

But don't you know that there is not enough room for everyone to have a personal (even communal) orchard?
Or that there is not enough game in the woods to feed humanity for one week?
Or that people started settling in cities where there are no orchards thousands of years ago?
Or that there would be no computers or internet if everyone lived only off their land?
And the part that produces all these nice technology for you is driven by cities with workers.
And the socio economic environment in cities is completely different from 'living off the land' and people can realy be dependant on someone providing work or even welfare.

Show me your sources for these claims that there is not enough land for every community to have land to farm and raise livestock (with a communal orchard).

You are speaking about personal choice and personal responsibility. Go take a look at available land. Its plentiful.

A Man grows up and sets out to scratch and dig an existence out of this earth. Those who do this survive and thrive. Those who expect others to do it barely survives, certainly doesnt thrive, and usually dies... and rightfully so.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to live in a city, but dont expect us hard working, critical thinking, rugged individualists who dont even live near it nor benefit from it to pay for it.

Lol, your benefiting from it by using the internet and using a computer.
And cars and tractors etc.
All that would not have existed if it worked like you say.
So please shut off your computer and cancel your internet and your mobile because you can't have those things if everyone lived like you imagine they should.

[Bitware]

But don't you know that there is not enough room for everyone to have a personal (even communal) orchard?
Or that there is not enough game in the woods to feed humanity for one week?
Or that people started settling in cities where there are no orchards thousands of years ago?
Or that there would be no computers or internet if everyone lived only off their land?
And the part that produces all these nice technology for you is driven by cities with workers.
And the socio economic environment in cities is completely different from 'living off the land' and people can realy be dependant on someone providing work or even welfare.

Show me your sources for these claims that there is not enough land for every community to have land to farm and raise livestock (with a communal orchard).

You are speaking about personal choice and personal responsibility. Go take a look at available land. Its plentiful.

Good land is pretty scarse.
It would barely be enough to give everyone a place to grow their own food, so no space for any other development.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land) there is about 48,836,976 km² of land where you can grow food on.
That means that there is 48836976 km² / 7000000000 people which comes down to 0.007 km² per person.
That is a patch of about 83 by 83 meters per person.
That's barely enough to support that and it's getting less.
So if you know a way for everyone to live off of 83 by 83 meters then please enlight us.
And i bet your own yard is bigger than this.

Also, if everyone would have to live off the land then there would be noone to create the technology you use right now.
Or did you think that newton or einstein farmed their own food?
Or that the guys at intel go out sowing their crops in the afternoon?

So it seems you are a bit misguided as to the real situation in the world and just blabber away from your priviledged position...

TL;DR - Nice strawman. To bad its not accurate when viewed within the context of REALITY.

There is exponentially more suitable land available for sale than buyers for land, otherwise there would be waiting lists for land. At any time I can go buy any amount of land I wish. Right now I can buy a rural AZ building lot for $2650, a $800k city townhouse, or a ranch for $18 million ... so long as I have WORKED and EARNED what is required to obtain it.

Quite obviously, many choose the stack-em and pack-em housing of our population centers. Great. For them. Let them stand on their own.

...but you dont want to work to earn anything, do you?

You want to deflect blame from yourself onto those of us who planned, prepared, and didnt waste our money of lifes frivolities, dont you?

Why else would there be the vitreole of accusing me of being from a "privilaged position"?

Privilaged position .... unreal.

Let me ask you a question ... do you have cell phones, vehicles, hdtvs, cable, internet, hobbies, a woman/man, eat out alot, games, consoles, computers, devices, or anything else you dont need to survive?

I had few of those before I WORKED and EARNED my property.

I didnt eat out. I made meals at home and made my work lunches.

I drank mostly water instead of costy premade beverages, except for special occasions and meals.

I worked multiple jobs and slept in between them.

I rolled my own cigarettes instead of buying them.

I reloaded my firearms casings and shells instead of buying new.

I preserved food.

I grew a small box garden in the back yard of the house I rented a room out of, then on the roof of the apartment building I rented before buying the property. Saved money and was fun.

I didnt waste money by laying in bars or clubs.

I didnt abuse drugs or alchohol.

I didnt "cruise around" wasting valuable production/sleep/eating time and gasoline costs.

I didnt go on vacation, except deer hunting, which decreases my external food dependencies and food costs, as well as being fun.

If you want land, go get it. EARN it and its yours.... earn your privilege.

[Bitware]

Lol, your benefiting from it by using the internet and using a computer.

And cars and tractors etc.
All that would not have existed if it worked like you say.
So please shut off your computer and cancel your internet and your mobile because you can't have those things if everyone lived like you imagine they should.

I benefit from the MONEY I PAY for the PRIVATE products and services, NOT the PUBLIC money stolen from me for the lazy and weak through proxy, under penalty of death should I resist the theft. It's called a contract. Same goes for my telephone service, cars, trucks, tractors, computers, etc.

Stop listening to the propaganda.

Your water and sewage payments pay for water and sewage infrastructure.

Your electric bill pays for electric grid infrastructure.

Your cable bill pays for tv, internet, and phone infrastructure.

Gas tax pays for roads. I get to select when I want to help improve thge roads by my choice to buy gas.

You pay for the things you need many times over.

[JoelKatz]

1) People are producing more than they need, and with the further development of technology even less people will be needed to produce even more. Since less people will be working to produce, society as a whole would earn less, and therefore the population will not be able to afford to purchase all the goods being produced, eventually leading to bigger and bigger problems.

This makes no sense. If society produces more, why would society earn less?

[FirstAscent]

There is only one basic income guarantee.... work.

Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.

Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.

No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.

I can think of many examples... take someone that relies on the state stealing my labor transfer under penalty of death should we resist this theft, in order to survive.

Society tells us that MY money is not as important as THEIR life, and they agree... right up to and until the time where someone elses life is more important that their ability to survive and thrive.

So what happens when you are unable to do work that pays enough to survive?

I live in an area with very poor populations in terms of money, but rich in terms of heritage, culture, resources, and morality and work ethic.

If you need fruit, you harvest from the orchard. If you need veggies, you harvest from the garden. If you need meat, you harvest through hunting or livestock slaughtering. If you need anything else, you process your harvests into usable materials for trade and barter or monetary sales.

In other words, you produce or you die.

By being employed by someone else, you are relying on that someone else for your survival. It comes down to personal responsibility. Youmade the choice. Live (or die) with it.

It is my belief that anyone making the claim they cant survive hasnt done whats required TO survive in the first place, and they should die, unless someone else VOLUNTARILY helps them. We are no different than an insect, mammal, or fish in this regard. We just THINK we are.

It is my belief that people are being intellectually dishonest about this, especially when they claim poverty through no fault of their own while trying to pick the pockets of the rest of us, all after previously spending money on cell phones, cosmetics, hdtvs, games, consoles, computer, fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, fancy clothes, gambling, and/or thousands of other useless items or services that do nothing to help them survive. They do not deserve ANY of my time, blood, sweat, and tears when they have done absolutely nothing to help themselves first.

Aren't you the Global Warming denier? Anyway, your theories are a few cards short of a full deck. From your point of view, it all works the way you see it. In truth, the dynamics work a little bit differently. Assuming everyone was equal in ability, knowledge and tools, it still doesn't work the way you think it does.

Each additional person on this planet requires more land than the last.

Think about that. Think very hard about that.

Each parcel of land on this planet has a maximum productivity level. Those parcels with the most potential productivity typically get used first. The next parcel of land needs to be slightly larger than the last to equal the productivity of the last. And so on. True, you can be silly and point to specific examples, but that hardly changes the scenario in aggregate. Anyway, after you confessed your views on Global Warming, I realized you don't look at facts, but rather propaganda which fits how you think the world should operate. Nature doesn't need to agree with your ideology, nor does it.

[Bitware]

There is only one basic income guarantee.... work.

Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.

Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.

No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.

I can think of many examples... take someone that relies on the state stealing my labor transfer under penalty of death should we resist this theft, in order to survive.

Society tells us that MY money is not as important as THEIR life, and they agree... right up to and until the time where someone elses life is more important that their ability to survive and thrive.

So what happens when you are unable to do work that pays enough to survive?

I live in an area with very poor populations in terms of money, but rich in terms of heritage, culture, resources, and morality and work ethic.

If you need fruit, you harvest from the orchard. If you need veggies, you harvest from the garden. If you need meat, you harvest through hunting or livestock slaughtering. If you need anything else, you process your harvests into usable materials for trade and barter or monetary sales.

In other words, you produce or you die.

By being employed by someone else, you are relying on that someone else for your survival. It comes down to personal responsibility. Youmade the choice. Live (or die) with it.

It is my belief that anyone making the claim they cant survive hasnt done whats required TO survive in the first place, and they should die, unless someone else VOLUNTARILY helps them. We are no different than an insect, mammal, or fish in this regard. We just THINK we are.

It is my belief that people are being intellectually dishonest about this, especially when they claim poverty through no fault of their own while trying to pick the pockets of the rest of us, all after previously spending money on cell phones, cosmetics, hdtvs, games, consoles, computer, fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, fancy clothes, gambling, and/or thousands of other useless items or services that do nothing to help them survive. They do not deserve ANY of my time, blood, sweat, and tears when they have done absolutely nothing to help themselves first.

Aren't you the Global Warming denier? Anyway, your theories are a few cards short of a full deck. From your point of view, it all works the way you see it. In truth, the dynamics work a little bit differently. Assuming everyone was equal in ability, knowledge and tools, it still doesn't work the way you think it does.

Each additional person on this planet requires more land than the last.

Think about that. Think very hard about that.

Each parcel of land on this planet has a maximum productivity level. Those parcels with the most potential productivity typically get used first. The next parcel of land needs to be slightly larger than the last to equal the productivity of the last. And so on. True, you can be silly and point to specific examples, but that hardly changes the scenario in aggregate. Anyway, after you confessed your views on Global Warming, I realized you don't look at facts, but rather propaganda which fits how you think the world should operate. Nature doesn't need to agree with your ideology, nor does it.

I will not deny there may come a time that land will be to expensive to own, but there will always be a need to harvest its resources. I consider myself an early adopter in this regard.

I do not deny global warming. I deny Man having anything at all to do with it. If I have ever spoken differently it was by mistake.

The earth has had constant temp and co2 fluctuations since its beginning, and certainly so before humans ever existed, at much higher rates and degrees than exist now. That is science. That is fact.

[phelix]

[...]
I welcome it in a very pragmatic sense for drastically reducing bureaucracy of our social system (only in theory though... we're in Germany after all  ). I furthermore welcome the idea of eliminating existential fears, which I'm confident will create a better and more human standard of living with more care and happiness, and I do believe (unlike most libertarians) that a society with insufficient equality can not realize its full potential.
[...]

this

Bureaucracy is growing like cancer in Germany and is already suffocating the country. Like many things the welfare system is just too bureaucratic. There does not have to be a difference in the financial result for anyone compared to the current situation, basic income would just make things much easier and probably also have some positive psychological side effects.

Of course there needs to be something (majority vote?? ??) to keep the basic income from ever increasing.

In case you think I am exaggerating: I took this picture last Saturday evening.

[grondilu]

Receiving money doing nothing??  Sure, what's not to like?    

Actually I've been doing it for some time now.  I use something amazing:  it's called "shares" or "stocks".  Basically it's a part of a company and when you have some, you can get a portion of the profit of the company, even if you don't actually work in this company.  Ain't that cool?  

Go buy some and join the club!

[mobodick]

But don't you know that there is not enough room for everyone to have a personal (even communal) orchard?
Or that there is not enough game in the woods to feed humanity for one week?
Or that people started settling in cities where there are no orchards thousands of years ago?
Or that there would be no computers or internet if everyone lived only off their land?
And the part that produces all these nice technology for you is driven by cities with workers.
And the socio economic environment in cities is completely different from 'living off the land' and people can realy be dependant on someone providing work or even welfare.

Show me your sources for these claims that there is not enough land for every community to have land to farm and raise livestock (with a communal orchard).

You are speaking about personal choice and personal responsibility. Go take a look at available land. Its plentiful.

Good land is pretty scarse.
It would barely be enough to give everyone a place to grow their own food, so no space for any other development.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land) there is about 48,836,976 km² of land where you can grow food on.
That means that there is 48836976 km² / 7000000000 people which comes down to 0.007 km² per person.
That is a patch of about 83 by 83 meters per person.
That's barely enough to support that and it's getting less.
So if you know a way for everyone to live off of 83 by 83 meters then please enlight us.
And i bet your own yard is bigger than this.

Also, if everyone would have to live off the land then there would be noone to create the technology you use right now.
Or did you think that newton or einstein farmed their own food?
Or that the guys at intel go out sowing their crops in the afternoon?

So it seems you are a bit misguided as to the real situation in the world and just blabber away from your priviledged position...

TL;DR - Nice strawman. To bad its not accurate when viewed within the context of REALITY.

Dude, again, turn off your computer and go away because you're using the output of these people that you don't want.
You can't have it both ways and be serious about it.
Nothing you say will NOT make you look as an incredible hypocrite with double standards.
Go live in your farm with your orchad but stay the hell away from modern society because you have denounced thousands of years of development.
Show some character.

[alexanderanon]

I once purchased a 99 cent zine at an "anarchist" cafe in north carolina that was entitled "Peer to Peer Theory" (something like that), by a fellow named Michel Bauwens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Bauwens .

I remember being fairly interested as I read through its insights, which generally mirrored many insights discussed on this forum, until I got to the end where a similar "subsistence wage" was proposed as a way to finance a new post-corporate paradigm of open source programming and development. For all the problems America has, its interesting that the mainland European intelligentsia is still hung up on these old statist vocabularies and ideals that continue to plague their economies and policymaking. What more evidence does one need, what more of an argument as to the power and impetus of purely free market conformity to Nature, and to the artificiality and systemic weakness of central planning, than the incredible success of Bitcoin so far, amidst aborted alternatives, all semi-statist and laughably ill conceived?

The European academic elite need to extinguish their queasiness for the notion of natural, spontaneous order, action through inaction, wu-wei, and all the other articulations of this fundamental principle. I think it may reduce to a general fear of the ethical foundations for such a system, where actors achieve harmony by helping themselves. But really this is not the case. Any proper understanding of modern day hacker/open-source development culture, for example, will show that these people don't act directly for their own benefit, or for the benefit of others, but rather for the fulfillment of a creative objective, of which all actors benefit indirectly.

[commonancestor]

Now, this is definitely a big state solution and I suppose that the multi-headed libertarian hydra on this forum will not like it, but I am ready to defend it

It seems like a lots of money, who is going pay for it? (taxpayers? banks? you tax bad language? you print money? ...)
Libertarian hydra still approves it - as a replacement of the current overly complicated social system.

[miln40]

It seems like a lots of money, who is going pay for it? (taxpayers? banks? you tax bad language? you print money? ...)
Libertarian hydra still approves it - as a replacement of the current overly complicated social system.

To quote myself from the OP:  "the unemployment subsidies + underlying bureaucracy in Germany can be redistributed among the 80 million Germans at the rate of about 12.5k EUR per year. So 1000k EUR of basic income guarantee per month is realistic. This can be further expanded with several different approaches to taxation." I have to declare that I lifted this quote from a politician's mouth, so its veracity is not certain. But I'm sure there's at least a grain of truth in it.
Other ideas are to have a larger income tax, or a larger VAT tax.