Basic income: the world's simplest plan to end poverty, explained

[Space_Chief]

You're not getting it.

Consider this hypothetical :
You say private property exists. I say private property does not exist. You say that anyone who says private property does not exist is a threat to your existence and should be treated as such. I say that anyone who says private property exists is a threat to my existence. Everyone on the planet is convinced by one of us that we're speaking the truth. The two factions now proceed to kill each other because each faction is the moral anathema of the other anathema. All the people who believed property exist die and the war is won by the non-property group.

Of course private property exists. I've shown you how even Indians in pre-Colombian America fought over stuff such as access to their "tribal" read private, land. Also even the people who claim private property does not exist write such assertions on their privately owned macbooks.

Does the right to property still exist, or has it been destroyed? If everyone agrees that property does not exist, but their general interaction is such that everyone is happy and part of a single community, is their system moral or not? Can a system without the concept of property be moral if the concept or proprety is supposed to be moral?

There will always be property ownership. Like it or not. As animals have it to a primitive degree so do people across all cultures. My own bed is my own, as is my wife (and I am hers), and my children and the food I eat to satisfy my hunger is mine and there you have private property. As Arthur said, ones' body is also one's own property. Fark, little kids find stuff and keep it. I remember I once at the age of 3 or 4 stole a a little ball from some people we visited and proclaimed it mine. I had to return it afterwards but I had appropriated it as my own property. I considered it mine. That was at a time I fought that food and stuff was simply given away in shops to my parents.

At the end of the day, the concept of property is an attempt to solve potentially violent conflicts between people in a non-violent manner. But there's a million and one ways of going about trying to do that. Concepts such as property and indeed all moral concepts are simply abstractions that have zero inherent meaning. We create them in an attempt to communicate with one another and create harmony, but each abstraction is only as good as its description, and only as strong as its ability to resonate with human emotions; and I've got to be honest, in my opinion the concept of "property" is a ****ing ****ty idea as it currently stands.

So your PC is mine, too? Can I come to your place and use it whenever I want?

Wrong. You see it there because you want to see it there because you believe that is the justification by which you can discover righteous behaviour. It does not actually exist.

I showed you already. I see it because I know human nature. All people are basically the same. And the issue was not for moral justification but to rebut your assertion that hunter gatherers had no concept of private property - which is false. Even though they may not have written rules and regulations describing such, that dry meat that San hunter put in his mouth to satisfy his hunger pangs was in fact his property and not the property of some other dude a few miles away.

It is indeed a rebuttal. You are arguing that the concept of property fits in with natural law. The counter-argument to natural law has been the positivist law system and their founding principle in contradiction to the natural law system is indeed that every moral claim is arbitrary. I am entirely qualified to bring up the subjectivity argument because indeed it has always been the strongest logical counter-argument to the natural law system. Indeed, that's precisely why the posivitist system was embraced by those who rebelled against religion and religious legal interpretation.

Not arguing anything in terms of natural law. I'm just showing you how you bringing up ancient people does not help you.

My personal opinions are justified with a keen intuition for logical correctness. I would appreciate it if you'd take them seriously enough that I feel my time in trying to explain something to you is not actually being wasted. I don't neccessarily expect you to agree with me, I am merely enthusiastic about the opportunity to potentially change your mind.

Then stop calling others' statements "subjective".

 

[Xarog]

Of course private property exists. I've shown you how even Indians in pre-Colombian America fought over stuff such as access to their "tribal" read private, land. Also even the people who claim private property does not exist write such assertions on their privately owned macbooks.

I wrote that post before you added your information.

Also you have given one example of a human tribe that existed in history. That does not prove that the habits specific to one tribe is specific to all tribes. You claim to know human nature, so prove it. Explain to me exactly how and why with specific examples to other cultures exactly how every last one of them has the concept of private property. And yes, I do expect this to be a rather authoritative response given your boast.

There will always be property ownership. Like it or not.

You can say the same thing about murder. Or abstract art. I do not deny the existence of the concept, indeed I readily admit its existence. I simply refuse to agree with your notion of where it originates. It is an idea and it is the product of a human mind. No more, no less.

As animals have it to a primitive degree so do people across all cultures. My own bed is my own, as is my wife (and I am hers), and my children and the food I eat to satisfy my hunger is mine and there you have private property.

You think that to be true because that's how you verbalise your desires. It is the mechanism by which you communicate to others what your needs and desires are. But it is only one mechanism among potentially millions. There are other, better, mechanisms out there and no such mechanism has inherent value merely on the face of being such a mechanism.

As Arthur said, ones' body is also one's own property. Fark, little kids find stuff and keep it. I remember I once at the age of 3 or 4 stole a a little ball from some people we visited and proclaimed it mine. I had to return it afterwards but I had appropriated it as my own property. I considered it mine. That was at a time I fought that food and stuff was simply given away in shops to my parents.

You were also scolded for lying and had you been living in a different century you might well have been scolded for unknowingly doing things that were of the Devil. The prejudice against left handed people is not given legitimacy by its mere existence, and niether is the consequences of the concept of property as expressed by people who sincerely believe its existence to be true.

So your PC is mine, too? Can I come to your place and use it whenever I want?

Well, you can try to come take it I suppose. I suspect you might not like my reaction, but I promise that I feel fully confident of resolving the situation without having to say a word if I absolutely have to and I'm totally fine with that. But at the same time I honestly wish you no harm whatsoever.

I showed you already. I see it because I know human nature. All people are basically the same. And the issue was not for moral justification but to rebut your assertion that hunter gatherers had no concept of private property - which is false. Even though they may not have written rules and regulations describing such, that dry meat that San hunter put in his mouth to satisfy his hunger pangs was in fact his property and not the property of some other dude a few miles away.

You are arguing out of ignorance. Please read up the concept of natural law and the concept of positivist law and contrast the differences. I believe it will give you a better appreciation of the non-universalness of that which you claim to be universal.

Not arguing anything in terms of natural law. I'm just showing you how you bringing up ancient people does not help you.

Um, yes you did. You argued that the right of property could be discovered from the behaviour of animals. Don't believe me? Go look up natural law on wikipedia.

Then stop calling others' statements "subjective".

Your statements are inherently subjective. Everyone's statements are inherently subjective. Without a subject to create those ideas within his mind, those statements cannot exist. Thus the statement and its subjectivity are inherently related to each other, because the statement cannot be without subjectivity.

 

[Mila]

That pic is something of a strawman fallacy and is disproved by many real world examples.

Anyway, the Bolsa Familia in Brazil is the biggest such system in the world and it makes up 2.5% of total government expenditure.

Why do you think it'll devalue the currency? The money just moves hands, it's not an increase in the supply...

Examples please.
The money has to come from somewhere. And taxing people and companies more will only increase the value of basic necessities. Which will mean that the amount you get for free is not going to be worth much as everything will just cost more?
If are taxed more on income properties your renter will just pay more.

Where will the money come from?

 

[Space_Chief]

I wrote that post before you added your information.

Also you have given one example of a human tribe that existed in history. That does not prove that the habits specific to one tribe is specific to all tribes. You claim to know human nature, so prove it. Explain to me exactly how and why with specific examples to other cultures exactly how every last one of them has the concept of private property. And yes, I do expect this to be a rather authoritative response given your boast.

One tribe, you brought these people up. I just showed you more likely than not these people had private property. From the Incas, to the Mayas to the Cherokees they had something which would stand in for private property. Where one group controlled it at the very least and all foreigners were fought off.

You can say the same thing about murder. Or abstract art. I do not deny the existence of the concept, indeed I readily admit its existence. I simply refuse to agree with your notion of where it originates. It is an idea and it is the product of a human mind. No more, no less.

I never stated where it originates. I just rebutted your arguments that said it was some natural innate state of ancient hunter gatherers or pre-modern man or some such. We all have the concept from birth IMO. It's not taught to us. When I was small I simply appropriated this thing for myself. My toys were mine. EVen though I played with others, we had our own toys and at the end we went home with them. That was before I knew of a concept such as money in detail beyond - cool shiny coins or notes.

You think that to be true because that's how you verbalise your desires. It is the mechanism by which you communicate to others what your needs and desires are. But it is only one mechanism among potentially millions. There are other, better, mechanisms out there and no such mechanism has inherent value merely on the face of being such a mechanism.

Well no. It's my bed, that's how I feel about it. People have a sense inside of intimacy and each wanting their own little spot. EVeryone also has private thoughts they keep to themselves. Kids keep diaries they guard jealously. It's just in us.

You were also scolded for lying and had you been living in a different century you might well have been scolded for unknowingly doing things that were of the Devil. The prejudice against left handed people is not given legitimacy by its mere existence, and niether is the consequences of the concept of property as expressed by people who sincerely believe its existence to be true.

I wasn't scolded for lying. I was just told we have to return this item, as it's not ours. Point is that even as child I had a concept or a need to own stuff. People have that need and it won't go away. You could say nobody has a right to such a need but that's not the same as denying such a need. And the point was to say that simple, primitive man does this, as do the most advanced people. Even Marx had his own private property.

Well, you can try to come take it I suppose. I suspect you might not like my reaction, but I promise that I feel fully confident of resolving the situation without having to say a word if I absolutely have to and I'm totally fine with that. But at the same time I honestly wish you no harm whatsoever.

What harm? We're just talking.

You are arguing out of ignorance. Please read up the concept of natural law and the concept of positivist law and contrast the differences. I believe it will give you a better appreciation of the non-universalness of that which you claim to be universal.

Maybe I am, I have read up a bit about natural law from an Aristotle-Thomistic perspective. Property rights don't really interest me. But what you say here is easily rebutted.

Um, yes you did. You argued that the right of property could be discovered from the behaviour of animals. Don't believe me? Go look up natural law on wikipedia.

I argued that private property exists based on this. I did not say right to private property. You asserted that private property has no basis, but animals and even primitive man do consider private property as existing. You can argue why they are wrong but that's still not what you're doing here. You're just asserting.

Your statements are inherently subjective. Everyone's statements are inherently subjective. Without a subject to create those ideas within his mind, those statements cannot exist. Thus the statement and its subjectivity are inherently related to each other, because the statement cannot be without subjectivity.

Bollocks. It's not subjective to say ancient native Americans fought over the right to use land. That's an objective fact.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Examples please.
The money has to come from somewhere. And taxing people and companies more will only increase the value of basic necessities. Which will mean that the amount you get for free is not going to be worth much as everything will just cost more?
If are taxed more on income properties your renter will just pay more.

Where will the money come from?

The budget, where else? Who said anything about taxing people more? There are already welfare programmes in place that are funded. The idea is that this basic income replaces those welfare programmes. It's cheaper to have, too, because you don't have any of the bureaucracy that costs money to administer.

 

[Nanfeishen]

If poverty could be eliminated thus, we'd have examples of it in practice, in history. We don't have such.

If it is possible, please show in history where such occurred on an extended and sustainable basis.

Everything in history had to begin somewhere, there had to be a first attempt.

Do we dismiss something new because there is no historical precedent ?
Or do we attempt it and see where it may lead through trial error ?

Humanity is at a point in development where a concept such as this may work , or fail, doesnt mean we should dismiss it because it doesnt exist historically.

 

[Mila]

The budget, where else? Who said anything about taxing people more? There are already welfare programmes in place that are funded. The idea is that this basic income replaces those welfare programmes. It's cheaper to have, too, because you don't have any of the bureaucracy that costs money to administer.

Ok, I understand. Thank you.

 

[Viva]

Xarog, you've spent so much time making the same obvious point, and frankly, steering the discussion in an unproductive direction.

Most reasonable people would readily admit that a concept like private property has no inherent foundation. It's a social convention which has validity as long as the majority of people agree to follow the convention. You've made this point numerous times, and I'm not quite sure why.

Obviously, what this discussion is actually about is which economic organization and social conventions are most beneficial to society as a whole. As far as I've seen, you've said little about why you think private property is detrimental to society as a whole. You've said little about why you think basic income has a good chance of being a long term solution to poverty.

When you say "private property does not exist", you mean to say "private property does not have to exist". Of course, that is correct. I want to know why you favour a world without private property. Why are you convinced it will work out better for everyone?

 

[Nanfeishen]

I know human nature. Native Americans are basically East Asians. Here is an example of one of their own speaking out recently:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120305114328AAJkiGC

So land = property or at least something one would control exclusively.

Selective posted quote about land which is essentially wrong.

When a tribes would encroach on the land of another, fights would ensue. Among many Indian Nations it is a far greater insult to let your enemy know you could have killed them......and didn't....then actually doing it. It is a shameful thing that could haunt a warrior for the rest of his life. Raids to steal from another Nation could have amounted to not much more than a game.......to show them that you could sneek in and steal from them, slip out unnoticed. Then they try to do it to you.

Many people hear the word warrior and assume it means someone proficient in warfare. Not so. Warriors were/are the protectors of the community. They hunt for those who are too old/sick to do so for themselves. They take on another man's family when he dies. They take care of the homes of those who can't do so for themselves.

It wasnt about land as in property and ownership, nor conquest of land for ownership.

Research show the majority of fights that took place were over traditional hunting grounds and even these were often shared by more than one tribe.
Note the communal nature and shared "wealth" of a large part of the lifestyle.

Warfare was carried out by small, independent raiding parties rather than by large, organized armies. The motivation for war was personal gain, not tribal nationalism. Through participation in war an individual gained prestige, honor, and even wealth. Since wealth among the Indian nations of the Northern Plains was measured in horses, warriors could increase their wealth by capturing horses from other tribes.
.........................
Warfare, according to Sioux writer Dr. Charles Eastman was about personal courage and honor:

“It was held to develop the quality of manliness and its motive was chivalric or patriotic, but never the desire for territorial aggrandizement or the overthrow of a brother nation.”

Wealth:

In addition to the acquisition of honor and prestige, war was about gaining personal wealth. An individual who had many horses could gain a great deal of prestige, particularly if he also gave away many horses. Wealth was something that was shared, it was not hoarded nor was it passed down to family members. Wealth had to be earned as it could not be inherited.

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1441

So both personal wealth concepts existed along with shared community wealth.

An age old concept for a modern world.

 

[Xarog]

Xarog, you've spent so much time making the same obvious point, and frankly, steering the discussion in an unproductive direction.

Most reasonable people would readily admit that a concept like private property has no inherent foundation. It's a social convention which has validity as long as the majority of people agree to follow the convention. You've made this point numerous times, and I'm not quite sure why.

Obviously, what this discussion is actually about is which economic organization and social conventions are most beneficial to society as a whole. As far as I've seen, you've said little about why you think private property is detrimental to society as a whole. You've said little about why you think basic income has a good chance of being a long term solution to poverty.

When you say "private property does not exist", you mean to say "private property does not have to exist". Of course, that is correct. I want to know why you favour a world without private property. Why are you convinced it will work out better for everyone?

That's because you don't realise how fundamental the concept of private property is to many philosophical attempts to solve the morality problem objectively, and thus you don't appreciate Arthur's objection to the income grant idea by bringing up the notion of private property. But if you truly wish to understand this, I suggest you ask Arthur to explain his beliefs to you, as I think it will ultimately prove to be more instructive than any attempt I could muster.

 

[Xarog]

Selective posted quote about land which is essentially wrong.



It wasnt about land as in property and ownership, nor conquest of land for ownership.

Research show the majority of fights that took place were over traditional hunting grounds and even these were often shared by more than one tribe.
Note the communal nature and shared "wealth" of a large part of the lifestyle.


http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1441

So both personal wealth concepts existed along with shared community wealth.

An age old concept for a modern world.

Bloodsports always did hold a morbid attraction for anyone trying to prove their martial prowess.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Oh you mean like the food I want to fill my hungry stomach... I can't do it because a stronger dude will say - hand it over. Cool.



You mean they shared wives, treated their children the same as other children, shared clothes, shared their last bit of water, shared hunting grounds and resources with everyone... really? Even animals don't share mates and scarce resources = prey/water/grazing/nesting sites/etc.



Dude, everything can be said to be subjective.



If it is possible, please show in history where such occurred on an extended and sustainable basis.

Not that I want to get involved but the Inuit still operate very much like this even today BECAUSE of their lack of resources and hard climate they live in.

Maybe we can't see it as a solution because we've never really had a lack of resources (personally) to really speak from experience?

 

[w1z4rd]

Point 4 doesn't address how the scheme would actually be paid for. The UK can barely afford their dole system, and that's around £60 per person per week and limited to 'jobseekers'.

You do understand that the alternative to not giving those people money is worse for the economy and your security?

I personally like the OPs idea. Countries that tax more and have higher levels of social spending tend to be safer, more educated, less inequality, etc than places that tax less and do less social spending (obviously mismanagement can mess this up). A very basic income for all people is a good idea. Will help reduce crime, will produce more educated (read tax payers) people. Its all round a good idea.

 

[Freshy-ZN]

There's a recent TED talk about this that I saw. I amazed myself by ending up thinking it was actually a good idea. The speaker did a much better job of explaining it so I'm not going to even try.

 

[Bryn]

There's a recent TED talk about this that I saw. I amazed myself by ending up thinking it was actually a good idea. The speaker did a much better job of explaining it so I'm not going to even try.

You could always link the video though.

[video=youtube;aIL_Y9g7Tg0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIL_Y9g7Tg0[/video]

 

[Viva]

That's because you don't realise how fundamental the concept of private property is to many philosophical attempts to solve the morality problem objectively, and thus you don't appreciate Arthur's objection to the income grant idea by bringing up the notion of private property. But if you truly wish to understand this, I suggest you ask Arthur to explain his beliefs to you, as I think it will ultimately prove to be more instructive than any attempt I could muster.

Why don't you respond to the questions I asked? I don't see how your reply relates to my first post.

 

[Nod]

This might work if a substantial percentage of the population pay tax. But, in SA this will simply not work, even if the government suddenly stopped wasting tax money like they do.

 

[Xarog]

Why don't you respond to the questions I asked? I don't see how your reply relates to my first post.

Orbital dawn proposes an idea. Arthur says it's a bad idea and response that this is so because of the concept of property. I believe all responses follow pretty self-evidently from that and all my posts have been responses to people who agree with Arthur with respect to the concept or property. Therefore it is to be expected that my posts will seem pre-occupied with the concept of property to the degree which Arthur and company are similarly pre-occupied by the idea, even though I do not consider the concept itselt particularly useful to this particular discussion (which is actually the whole damn point).

Clear now?

 

[Mike43110]

This might work if a substantial percentage of the population pay tax. But, in SA this will simply not work, even if the government suddenly stopped wasting tax money like they do.

TL;DR of a massive post.
Let all lower-middle class citizens actually pay some form of tax instead of gaining benefits.
Poorer people would actually need housing.
Some of this fund goes to a medical fund for the country.
Children would get the income too.
-Only a portion for food as the rest goes to a schooling fund.
-1 or 2 children max per parent to gain benefits from a non tax-paying parent.
--This is to limit fathers with 3 wives and 10 children as best as possible without being too draconian

Less pressure on the poor means that low paying jobs will be less in need. Automation will need to be scaled up where financially feasible. This creates a smaller portion of jobs available which will be higher paid. Less pressure will also give those who want an education more opportunities as they will not be required to work as soon as possible.

I would be very interested in seeing how this would play out in a 1st world country. It could work very well. It may just end up ailing dismally.

Taking a city or two and testing this out over 10 years could be a fascinating study!

 

[Garson007]

Basic income in my lifetime. I will see it happen.