A Canadian province is about to start trialling universal basic income

[cerebus]

It's good that these types of experiments are being carried out in isolated cities like Ontario, where we can study the effects and they can be reversed if they don't work. Of course, if they do work Arthur and Drunkard will be here dutifully explaining how Ontario's specific socioeconomic environment is completely unlike South Africa or anywhere else in the world and it definitely should not be exported.

Personally I'm all for it. The welfare system is so convoluted and exploitable that it must be simpler just to replace it all with a standard amount of basic income. Plus with so many jobs being taken over by robots, it's created huge wealth without any trickle down to the lower parts of society. When I was younger I could definitely have used a basic income to grant me more time to further my studies before jumping into the workforce.

 

[RanzB]

The evidence is Out There. If you're interested, you'll find it. But none of it will make the slightest diffs until the blinkers come off.

Hmmm.. Just like the evidence was 'out there' that there was some BS tradition about the Supreme Court Nomination, hey Arthur

Time to polish up some google skills, ghoti. I'm not gonna do it for you.

Where was that evidence again Arthur?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The evidence is Out There. If you're interested, you'll find it. But none of it will make the slightest diffs until the blinkers come off.

Thought so.

 

[ponder]

Personally I'm all for it.

When I was younger I could definitely have used a basic income to grant me more time to further my studies before jumping into the workforce.

I'm sure we could all have done with some money at some stage but in order to do so it means you have to take away from someone else. I don't see why you are entitled to other peoples money, what are your claims to the fruits of their labour? If said person refuses to give you money via the state he gets locked up for tax evasion, fair? Is it ok to run up to a guy in the street and take his money because you need it?

This whole entitlement thing is a load of crap, you are entitled to nothing.

 

[konfab]

Universal basic income is fine with me, if it replaces all other forms of social welfare. If you do it like this, you would probably save money as the welfare state could be privatised.

 

[cerebus]

I'm sure we could all have done with some money at some stage but in order to do so it means you have to take away from someone else. I don't see why you are entitled to other peoples money, what are your claims to the fruits of their labour? If said person refuses to give you money via the state he gets locked up for tax evasion, fair?

This whole entitlement thing is a load of crap, you are entitled to nothing.

I never said a word about being entitled to someone else's money. I said it would have helped. We all pay taxes and the goal of tax distribution is to improve the standard of living of the people. I doubt that the welfare system is really the most optimal way to accomplish that, and I do think a universal basic income would be an improvement.

I do remember as a young boy in Blackpool our family were quite poor, and the family assistance we got from the British government in those days - I think 10 pounds a month per child or something - made a big difference, as my parents used it to buy us good M&S clothing and it gave us a sense of dignity. I don't think we were 'entitled' to the fruits of someone else's labour, it was simply the way they distributed the tax income and it partially enabled my father to go back to university in his late 20s, get a BSC, and is now earning a very good salary.

 

[Arthur]

OK, let's start with Nobel-laureate Hayek, who provides some background on statism vs liberty:

Individualism and Economic Order (pdf)
Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (html)
Profits, Interest and Investments and Other Essays on The Theory of Industrial Fluctuations (pdf)
Prices and Production (pdf)
The Pure Theory of Capital (pdf)
The Counter Revolution of Science
Denationalization of Money (pdf)
Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (pdf)
Tiger By the Tail (pdf)
The Road to Serfdom, Collected Works , Vol. 2
The Trend of Economic Thinking, Collected Works, Vol. 3.
The Fortunes of Liberalism, Collected Works, Vol. 4.
Contra Keynes and Cambridge, Collected Works, Vol. 9.
Socialism and War, Collected Works, Vol 10.

There are dozens of other must-reads, from Milton Friedman to (African-American economist) Thomas Sowell to Robert Sirico.

 

[Arthur]

I'm sure we could all have done with some money at some stage but in order to do so it means you have to take away from someone else. I don't see why you are entitled to other peoples money, what are your claims to the fruits of their labour? If said person refuses to give you money via the state he gets locked up for tax evasion, fair? Is it ok to run up to a guy in the street and take his money because you need it?

This whole entitlement thing is a load of crap, you are entitled to nothing.

I'm with Ponder on this. He touches the real nub of the issue: justice and morality, rather than just economic outcomes.

State- and tax-driven redistributions are morally unjust long before they produce deleterious economic outcomes.

Even if you can show that economies can still survive and even grow when the state takes from some and gives to others (I have no doubt this is possible, because productive people can be very productive), it is still morally wrong.

And so we come straight back to the philosophical and anthropological assumptions that underlie redistributive policies. And that is where my fundamental quibble lies. It's plainly and manifestly immoral. Only very much later do we see it also doesn't work in the real world with real people.

Justice can't be argued on utilitarian grounds alone.

 

[Vrotappel]

So in the future we will have a two class system - those we own the robots (and indeed living in utopia) and those on basic that have no way to get out of it. I believe there must be a better solution.

 

[Arthur]

So in the future we will have a two class system - those we own the robots (and indeed living in utopia) and those on basic that have no way to get out of it. I believe there must be a better solution.

Human beings have a mind and a will that no machine can supplant. In a free society, the quintessential human attributes can only be abdicated, not expropriated. In a society ruled by compulsion (as the statist want), power and force is the decider. That is why I defend liberty and oppose statism in all it forms. Socialism is merely one isotope of statism.

 

[cerebus]

I'm with Ponder on this. He touches the real nub of the issue: justice and morality, rather than just economic outcomes.

State- and tax-driven redistributions are morally unjust long before they produce deleterious economic outcomes.

Even if you can show that economies can still survive and even grow when the state takes from some and gives to others (I have no doubt this is possible, because productive people can be very productive), it is still morally wrong.

And so we come straight back to the philosophical and anthropological assumptions that underlie redistributive policies. And that is where my fundamental quibble lies. It's plainly and manifestly immoral. Only very much later do we see it also doesn't work in the real world with real people.

Justice can't be argued on utilitarian grounds alone.

Where are you deriving this particular morality from? The Bible? I would love to see chapter and verse on the immorality of wealth distribution, if you'd be so kind.

Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’

Heb 13:16
Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God

.

Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

Proverbs 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

etc

 

[ponder]

Where are you deriving this particular morality from? The Bible? I would love to see chapter and verse on the immorality of wealth distribution, if you'd be so kind.

There is a big difference in the state taking from someone under duress and an individual giving willingly to charities etc.

 

[cerebus]

There is a big difference in the state taking from someone under duress and an individual giving willingly to charities etc.

There is some distinction, but what we're talking about is the immorality of wealth distribution, per se - whether from the government or voluntarily, I would still like to know the basis of Arthur's morality argument. Anyway, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. If anything, Arthur's ethics most resemble those of Ayn Rand.

Edit Sorry to bring the Bible into this, but as Arthur is making an ethics argument here I'm faintly amused and very curious as to exactly which ethics he is talking about.

 

[Arthur]

Where are you deriving this particular morality from? The Bible? I would love to see chapter and verse on the immorality of wealth distribution, if you'd be so kind.

etc

Of course. I subscribe to that 100%. And I try to live it out in my own life as best I can. Freely. Voluntarily. Charitably and generously.

What modern statism seeks to do is make is compulsory. That compulsion fundamentally alters the moral character of these deeds.

There is no fault and also no virtue in acts done under compulsion, especially not the compulsion of the sword, which is the power the state wields. Police power. Gun power. Force.

Your argument says the ends justify the means. The Christian faith rejects that completely. Means are themselves subject to the moral law.

 

[ponder]

There is some distinction, but what we're talking about is the immorality of wealth distribution, per se - whether from the government or voluntarily, I would still like to know the basis of Arthur's morality argument. Anyway, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. If anything, Arthur's ethics most resemble those of Ayn Rand, an ardent atheist.

Fortunately I don't subscribe to religion so I couldn't give a toss what some old book says, others will have to answer for themselves.

 

[cerebus]

Of course. I subscribe to that 100%. And I try to live it out in my own life as best I can. Freely. Voluntarily. Charitably and generously.

What modern statism seek to do is make is compulsory. That compulsion fundamentally alters the moral character of these deeds.

There is no fault and also no virtue in acts done under compulsion. especially not the compulsion of the sword, which is the power the state wields. Police power. Gun power. Force.

It sounds as though you're arguing against taxation and welfare altogether, since we are all living beneficiaries of a system of compulsory wealth extraction. But fine, let's say it isn't the same thing. There is still really no objective moral basis for your argument, apart from your own opinion - or if there is, you've failed to provide it.

 

[RanzB]

It sounds as though you're arguing against taxation and welfare altogether, since we are all living beneficiaries of a system of compulsory wealth extraction. But fine, let's say it isn't the same thing. There is still really no objective moral basis for your argument, apart from your own opinion - or if there is, you've failed to provide it.

Wait for him to bring up rendering unto Caesar. He loves to bring up rendering unto Caesar.

 

[cerebus]

Your argument says the ends justify the means. The Christian faith rejects that completely. Means are themselves subject to the moral law.

No, my argument says that the Bible, overall, is very much pro-wealth redistribution. Acts 2:44-45:

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need

You're the one who made this point that charitable giving should only be voluntary, but when it's managed in the form of state taxes it changes the moral character from charity to force - but you haven't provided me with any Biblical basis for the argument, so I can only view it as a deranged sort of loophole.

 

[Neoprod]

Wait for him to bring up rendering unto Caesar. He loves to bring up rendering unto Caesar.

Moss, is that you?

 

[Nick333]

It sounds as though you're arguing against taxation and welfare altogether, since we are all living beneficiaries of a system of compulsory wealth extraction. But fine, let's say it isn't the same thing. There is still really no objective moral basis for your argument, apart from your own opinion - or if there is, you've failed to provide it.

Of course there is an objective argument against compulsory taxation: it's wrong to take what's mine without my consent. Simple. Except of course that we live in these things called democratic societies where we agree to elect people to decide who will be taxed, how much we will be taxed and for what we will be taxed on our behalf. Therefore if you choose to participate in a democratic society you are effectively "stealing" from yourself.
You can make arguments against specific taxes, property and wealth tax for instance, but taxes on income derived from participation in an economy are perfectly moral. If you don't like them, go live on your own land and become self-sufficient.