Basic income guarantee - opinions&criticism welcome

[myrkul]

If the majority of people decided that slavery was OK again, would that make it OK to enslave the minority they picked?

Why does a government founded on a logical fallacy seem like a good idea to you?

You have constitution, safeguarding basic rights. You could possibly try and change the constitution, but for that you need an overwhelming majority, which just doesn't happen in a democracy. Even landslide victories are like 60%.

Check the exceptions on the wikipedia page you linked to. Income redistribution falls withing the lines of social convention and safety, therefore the fallacy does not apply here.

The constitution was in effect when slavery was happening.  Myrkul you have failed to address the point that was made.

You sure that was me? It looks more like miln40 failed to address the point. Slavery was not only not abolished by the constitution, it was written into it. So much for "basic rights." Check the other names for the fallacy. "Democracy" is included in the list.

[1714057749]

1714057749

[1714057749]

1714057749

[miln40]

If the majority of people decided that slavery was OK again, would that make it OK to enslave the minority they picked?

Why does a government founded on a logical fallacy seem like a good idea to you?

You have constitution, safeguarding basic rights. You could possibly try and change the constitution, but for that you need an overwhelming majority, which just doesn't happen in a democracy. Even landslide victories are like 60%.

Check the exceptions on the wikipedia page you linked to. Income redistribution falls withing the lines of social convention and safety, therefore the fallacy does not apply here.

The constitution was in effect when slavery was happening.  Myrkul you have failed to address the point that was made.

You sure that was me? It looks more like miln40 failed to address the point. Slavery was not only not abolished by the constitution, it was written into it. So much for "basic rights." Check the other names for the fallacy. "Democracy" is included in the list.

Yeah, I also think he meant me =D . Slavery was made illegal with the 13th amendment, I believe. So the constitution was modified after the majority of people decided to oppose slavery. Well, there was also this civil war, but it might have been pure coincidence.

[myrkul]

Slavery was made illegal with the 13th amendment, I believe. So the constitution was modified after the majority of people decided to oppose slavery. Well, there was also this civil war, but it might have been pure coincidence.

But you've still not answered the question. If the majority decided that it was OK again, would that make it OK to enslave the minority they picked? What if that minority includes you?

[grondilu]

Income distribution can be seen as a discussion on what is "proper" or "safe" in a society.

I hope you realize this is a very subjective interpretation.  You could make the same reasoning with abortion, death penalty or anything.  I'll get a godwin point if I say it, but German people at some point in history considered it was "proper" and "safe" to ostracize jews.

To you it's "proper" and "safe" to redistribute income.  To me it is just theft.  And theft has nothing to do with hygiene (or whatever you mean by "proper") or safety.

If and when a majority thinks that it would be right thing to do, then it becomes a social convention by definition and the Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy would not apply to it.

A social convention is NOT what the majority thinks.  The "Argumentum ad populum" article does not define it this way.  You need much more than the majority.  Otherwise polemic topics such as abortion could be considered as social conventions, which they are obviously not.

If you say that an idea is true because a majority of people think it is true, you do not say it is true because it is a social convention, you just say it is true because a majority of people think it is true.  That's all.  And this is precisely a Argumentum ad populum.

[Jutarul]

To you it's "proper" and "safe" to redistribute income.  To me it is just theft.  And theft has nothing to do with hygiene (or whatever you mean by "proper") or safety.

In the end, all discussion about social standards and policies is a discuss about rights and justice. There are philosophical tools for that: veil of ignorance and the original position.

Usually socialists favor a high degree of collective cooperation, while libertarians favor mutual beneficial cooperation. The problem with the former is to establish consensus about what is acceptable and what not, while the later opens up the door for exploitation, since two partner never have the same bargaining position.

With respect to tax this means that libertarians perceive the state as a third party which doesn't contribute to any two-party agreement. Thus the state is not entitled to benefits.

The reason why socialist societies exists, is that pure libertarianism usually leads to very unjust societies, with powerful individuals and a lot of exploitation.

[grondilu]

In the end, all discussion about social standards and policies is a discuss about rights and justice. There are philosophical tools for that: veil of ignorance and the original position.

Usually socialists favor a high degree of collective cooperation, while libertarians favor mutual beneficial cooperation. The problem with the former is to establish consensus about what is acceptable and what not, while the later opens up the door for exploitation, since two partner never have the same bargaining position.

In any case, there is no such thing as a social convention on this topic.  Social conventions, as mentioned on the article on agumentum ad populum are about rather trivial things such as etiquette and polite manners.  Taxation has nothing to do with polite manners.  That was my point.

The reason why socialist societies exists, is that pure libertarianism usually leads to a very unjust societies, with powerful individuals and a lot of exploitation.

Because socialist societies are a model of justice, maybe?  You're either naïve or oversimplifying.

[myrkul]

The reason why socialist societies exists, is that pure libertarianism usually leads to a very unjust societies, with powerful individuals and a lot of exploitation.

Hmm. No. Read The Production of Security, by Gustave de Molinari. The reason socialist societies exist is because monopoly leads to unjust societies, with powerful individuals and a lot of exploitation.

The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.

[Jutarul]

The reason why socialist societies exists, is that pure libertarianism usually leads to a very unjust societies, with powerful individuals and a lot of exploitation.

Because socialist societies are a model of justice, maybe?  You're either naïve or oversimplifying.

With justice I mean the agreed price for cooperation.
In a libertarian environment the price for cooperation is determined similar to the free market, supply and demand. However there is no limit on what two parties can agree upon. And if one party achieves monopoly on a certain cooperation item it can exploit its bargaining position (and usually does). This is a self-enforcing loop: a powerful entity becomes more powerful with time.
In socialists environments the price of cooperation is usually determined or enforced through different means, or at least capped. But the problem is that there is no better tool than the free market for price discovery, even for the price of cooperation. That's why any price determined by socialists usually leads to inefficiency.

I find the tax system we have represents a compromise: You need free market mechanisms to implement price discovery for cooperation (products, jobs, etc...) but at the same time you want to prevent the formation of monopolies and extreme bargaining powers.

[Jutarul]

The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.

So you are in favor of labour unions?

[grondilu]

I find the tax system we have represents a compromise: You need free market mechanisms to implement price discovery for cooperation (products, jobs, etc...) but at the same time you want to prevent the formation of monopolies and extreme bargain powers.

Do you really think that the State prevents monopolies?

Also, if the only purpose of taxation is to prevent monopolies, why do I have to pay taxes??  I do not have any monopole on anything whatsoever.

Besides, there is nothing wrong in having power, per se.   If people are free, that means that they can have power.  If a company is large enough and offers such a good service that people goes only to this company, a "monopole" appears, but it was deserved.  It was honnestly gained.   Think Google or Apple as examples.

Of course, this comes with some power in negotiations.  This power is just an acknowledgment of the weight of the actor in the market.  No big deal, really.

A guy who sells 10000 a day is more respected in the market than a guy who sells 10.  Is that really so unfair??

[Jutarul]

I find the tax system we have represents a compromise: You need free market mechanisms to implement price discovery for cooperation (products, jobs, etc...) but at the same time you want to prevent the formation of monopolies and extreme bargain powers.

Do you really think that the State prevents monopolies?

Also, if the only purpose of taxation is to prevent monopolies, why do I have to pay taxes??  I do not have any monopole on anything whatsoever.

No. And the reason for that is that all the ideals which come out of philosophical discussions eventually stand corrected by reality:
After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

[grondilu]

After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

[myrkul]

The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.

So you are in favor of labour unions?

Why would I not be? Labor unions provide the individual worker with the bargaining power of the whole group. It's a great way to make sure the workers get fair treatment. As long as this doesn't get out of hand.

Trade unions are an example of it getting out of hand. When a union can restrict entry into a profession, or controls the entire market for that profession, then it has gained too much power, and the end result is the workers in that union start exploiting those who pay their salaries.

You can see this in action by looking at the medical profession and the automotive industry in the US. The UAW damn near strangled Detroit. The AMA is driving healthcare costs through the roof. (There are many other factors, but they're not helping .)

[Jutarul]

The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.

So you are in favor of labour unions?

Why would I not be? Labor unions provide the individual worker with the bargaining power of the whole group. It's a great way to make sure the workers get fair treatment. As long as this doesn't get out of hand.

I see. So any practical suggestions for establishing a balance of power for bargaining positions?

[Jutarul]

After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

Unfortunately they don't make it optional. Voting yes , taxes no.

[grondilu]

Unfortunately they don't make it optional. Voting yes , taxes no.

You have a lack of imagination.

[Jutarul]

Unfortunately they don't make it optional. Voting yes , taxes no.

You have a lack of imagination.

Ok. How do you weasel your way out of income tax if you're employed by a public institute (university)?

[grondilu]

Ok. How do you weasel your way out of income tax if you're employed by a public institute (university)?

Well, that would be a weird idea, since your wage comes precisely from taxation  ()

[myrkul]

The answer, of course, is free markets. Yes, some businessmen are going to have more individual power than their workers. That's what collective bargaining is for.

So you are in favor of labour unions?

Why would I not be? Labor unions provide the individual worker with the bargaining power of the whole group. It's a great way to make sure the workers get fair treatment. As long as this doesn't get out of hand.

I see. So any practical suggestions for establishing a balance of power for bargaining positions?

The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.

The UAW's control over the entire US automotive industry nearly killed it. It wasn't until foreign companies started opening factories in non-union states that the industry started getting back on it's feet. And, I might add, revitalized the economies in those areas. Scabs (non-union workers), in other words, provide a much needed counter-pressure, to keep the unions from controlling the whole labor market.

[Jutarul]

Ok. How do you weasel your way out of income tax if you're employed by a public institute (university)?

Well, that would be a weird idea, since your wage comes precisely from taxation  ()

A lot of research funds come from private entities. But are funneled through the institute.