A Canadian province is about to start trialling universal basic income

[Nicodeamus]

Lack of regulation leads to monopolies, which are self-interested and tend to be self-perpetuating.
Over-regulation may stifle competition, but also prevents monopolies from forming.

The latter is the lesser of two evils.

There are only two examples historically where lack of regulation lead to monopolies, one being the de beers diamond industry (which has always been shady given that since its debut it was involved with dirty political market) the second being the new york stock exchange up to the great depression.

The issue is also defining what a monopoly exactly is. Apply has a monopoly on apple products, sure smart phones exist, the newspaper stand on the street corner has a monopoly on the newspaper market from that corner. There are very few companies (except nationalised industries) that have a full monopoly.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Bad example. MultiChoice's monopoly was erected by the government. All competition was banned by force of law. For years. Later, once entrenched, the government 'deregulated'.

Not to mention that for some reason I need to buy a broadcasting licence if I want to start my own TV shows.

 

[Arthur]

Not exactly "free market" though, with a centralized regulator being the only authority that can hand out broadcasting licences that was certainly motivated back in the day to limit any competition for the SABC the situation gave MNET a significant opportunity to build over the years without direct competition until the barriers to entry just became insanely high.

If an eTV was launched at the exact same time as MNET and OpenView at the same time as DSTV for example things might look very different today, regulatory interference meant that could not happen. Similar situation exists with Telkom vs Neotel.

+1

It was bad enough living in a police state. We were also in a Post Office State.

 

[cerebus]

Why are we talking about competition vs regulation now?

 

[Arthur]

Why are we talking about competition vs regulation now?

Competition v Regulation is a subset of State Patronage. Ontario pols see their state as The Great Patron. Which is just another euphemism for Master and Slave, with the State as the Great Father. Legally entrenched paternalism, where everything is ultimately Caesar's to dispose of as he wills. I reject that.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Why are we talking about competition vs regulation now?

A bit off on a tangent, but to bring it back to the thread, governments generally do not improve things when they actively try to. Basic income may have good intentions, but will yield unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits imo.

Just like government interference in the free market has unintended consequences.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

A bit off on a tangent, but to bring it back to the thread, governments generally do not improve things when they actively try to. Basic income may have good intentions, but will yield unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits imo.

How do you know that? Look at the previously posted studies about trials in other countries, it didn't.

Just like government interference in the free market has unintended consequences.

Can have unintended consequences is more accurate.

It can also have very positive consequences.

 

[Arthur]

Anyone remember "From each according to his ability to each according to his need"? A mid-19th C French socialist's phrase often retailed by that bearded German malcontent living in London.

Ontario's proposal is another step to Marx in praxis.

 

[Vrotappel]

Why are we talking about competition vs regulation now?

This is why.

Like net neutrality, for the market to be free in any meaningful sense, it needs regulation to keep it that way. Counter-intuitive as it may sound at first.

 

[cerebus]

A bit off on a tangent, but to bring it back to the thread, governments generally do not improve things when they actively try to.

Basic income may have good intentions, but will yield unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits imo.

Just like government interference in the free market has unintended consequences.

Governments don't improve the things they interfere in without really understanding the technical intricacies of. But without government there would be no public welfare, state healthcare, roads, infrastructure, police force or any other public good that the government provides. They have already been providing many forms of welfare for decades. Should we scrap all of them?

Anyway, basic income is actually a simplification of the welfare system. At present there are multiple, highly bureaucratic departments with their own rules and costs. If you are in favour of reducing governmental interference, you should also be in favour of something like the universal basic income.

 

[Arthur]

I have never argued for Anarchism. I deeply hold for a strong and indeed invincible government - no aggressors should ever be able to overcome the very institution we establish to protect and vindicate our rights.

The real argument is that we conceive the role of government in society very differently, particularly the role of government in the ownership and disposition of economic res (goods and services). My view is that only a government that is uninvolved in commercial economic activity can be a fair arbiter in disputes between citizens. We are very, very far from that.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Governments don't improve the things they interfere in without really understanding the technical intricacies of. But without government there would be no public welfare, state healthcare, roads, infrastructure, police force or any other public good that the government provides. They have already been providing many forms of welfare for decades. Should we scrap all of them?

Anyway, basic income is actually a simplification of the welfare system. At present there are multiple, highly bureaucratic departments with their own rules and costs. If you are in favour of reducing governmental interference, you should also be in favour of something like the universal basic income.

There are actually a number of Libertarians that support the idea of a basic income.

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income: Guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare, Zwolinski argues. And it can be justified by libertarian principles.

A Universal Basic Income Is The Bipartisan Solution To Poverty We've Been Waiting For

 

[Nanfeishen]

Anyone remember "From each according to his ability to each according to his need"? A mid-19th C French socialist's phrase often retailed by that bearded German malcontent living in London.

Ontario's proposal is another step to Marx in praxis.

Its bit older than that :

Acts 4:32-37
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

 

[Arthur]

There are actually a number of Libertarians that support the idea of a basic income

Sure there are. But it's not an argument, as of course you know.

It all depends whether one is libertarian or socialist or fascist or communist or nazi or whatever for reasons of principle or for pragmatics.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Its bit older than that :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

Hahaha.

 

[Arthur]

Its bit older than that :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

You gloss over the primary distinction between sharing by choice and sharing by compulsion. I am against initiating force to manage human relations. In my view, force may only be used in defence of a right. It may never be initiated.

 

[cerebus]

My view is that only a government that is uninvolved in commercial economic activity can be a fair arbiter in disputes between citizens. We are very, very far from that.

You mean, if government would just stop taking our taxes they could make laws?

 

[ponder]

You guys opposing secularism now with all this justification from an old religious book....

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You mean, if government would just stop taking our taxes they could make laws?

Nah, he means government should have no say in anything commercially related. Pity the poor people that die from lead poisoning.

But they should be in charge of the courts, the police and the army. Given the hatred for taxes (it's theft, don'tchaknow) one can only presume it'll be paid for by charitable donations.

Who knows, though. Maybe he's one of those fruitcakes that thinks courts, the police and the army should also be privatised.

 

[Arthur]

You mean, if government would just stop taking our taxes they could make laws?

No. That is not what I mean.

Taxes may legitimately be raised to fund the bureaucratic apparatus required to protect and vindicate peoples' right to life and property. Courts, police, prisons, and a defence force. Ordinary rational justice requires that every human be free to sell their labour to whom they wish, at a price freely agreed, without let or interference by anyone else least of all the State.

The State's natural right to raise taxes does not extend to the State itself becoming an economic player or the arbiter of ideas. The State has no business whatsoever providing employment, housing, education, medical services, dental services, broadcasting services, entertainment, sports, telecommunications, food subsidies, fuel subsidies, postal services, etc, etc, etc, etc. Especially not free income to others, as Ontario proposes. The State has nothing except what it takes from others. These functions are best performed by free citizens in association with others, without State involvement. Raising taxes to provide these economic goods and services is immoral, in my view.

You and I as free citizens should shoulder our personal and social responsibility to care for the marginalised and dispossessed and those who have fallen on hard times through not fault of their own. By choosing to use the State as the instrument to do so, we concentrate too much power in the hands of mere mortals -- the State naturally and rightly wields the power of the sword (ie it is the sole legal user of force in society). To also give it economic power is to fundamentally distort the ordinary relations between citizens, because it shifts the game from the free and impartial competition of ideas and actions to currying the favour of Caesar. History is largely the story of that distortion.