[pp.int.general] Basic income - how does that fit into the pirate ideology?

[Zbigniew Łukasiak]

Antonio - if you believe we are so logic and math impaired why do you
stick to us and not find some more intelligent people to discuss with?
 I have the feeling that you are losing time with us - I don't see
anyone convinced by your boasting of your superior math and logic
skills.

Unconditional Basic Income can come in many variants and in particular
it can also be a partial Basic Income and that does not have any lower
limit.  It does not have to replace social welfare - but it can for
example just re-balance the already paid taxes.  When you say that:

> A scheme that would pay unconditionally will end up paying more in total
> than present social welfare, and if income for the state diminishes, its
> debt will skyrocket even more.

you are not showing superior math - you are showing that you are
making assumptions that we did not.

There are some readily available estimations - if you believe they did
not do the math correctly then show the mistake there.  But I guess
this is too much work for you.

Cheers,
Zbigniew


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Inconditional basic income is the prima facie simplistic solution to make
> everybody equal without too much effort, a way highly appreciated by way too
> many. It is easy to be in favour of the pretended results of IBI, if one
> does not bother to do the math and social engineering. Anyone a little more
> preoccupied by the mere logic and really thinking about the benefit for the
> whole of humanity should be way more reserved about it.
>
> Otherwise, one should start thinking a little bit more when one finds
> himself with some strange bedfellows when campaigning for that idea.
>
> IBI is like the banking bailout... it creates an unavoidable obligation for
> the nation to cough up cash... without too much of an idea about how it is
> going to pay for it. Most people suggest the same money that is used to
> provide social welfare now be used for it, without checking if that same
> money would eventually keep being available for social welfare in the near
> future.
>
> A scheme that would pay unconditionally will end up paying more in total
> than present social welfare, and if income for the state diminishes, its
> debt will skyrocket even more.
>
> The strangest bedfellow IBI may find are corporations.
>
> Why? Because easy get, easy go... people would spend way less responsibly,
> and specific businesses would tap the constant flood of unconditional money
> providing psychologically attractive rubbish with the highest possible
> benefit margin. Say hi to homo ludicus. Remember what the best example of a
> possible outcome would be... The battery cocoons of Matrix? Full of
> sensation junkies?
>
> Nations lacking income to pay decent amounts will be paying less and less,
> while corporations providing emotional junk to fill peoples dead time will
> mercilessly fight the competition... piracy :( to cope all the market for
> bored time paid for by the unconditional income while it lasts. Corporations
> wont pay when they take over governing from the state, they will only cash
> in.
>
> Who will end up playing animated furniture for a living in the Soylent Green
> we will all have been begging for?
>
> Fools.
>
> There is no simple alternative for the compensation for effort scheme. If
> nobody makes an effort, nobody gets compensation. If only some make an
> effort, there is not enough to compensate all.
>
> If the problem is way too uneven distribution, the solution is not to simply
> mandate even distribution... the effort has to be done to analyse why some
> insist in accumulating way beyond what at first sight should constitute a
> fair share. Try to look at it some other way, and those will go on
> accumulating under whatever new circumstances you create, even thanking you
> for making it way easier for them to have a guaranteed stream of steady
> income.
>
> What links way too many of those subjects is that the deep thinking about
> them that we do nears ZERO, as always the easy way to think about things.
>
> Too much of what we want or try is too simplistic and too effortless... it
> may be fun to want it, but it is hardly realistic to believe you are going
> to get it... unless it benefits somebody else who will be doing efforts to
> get it behind the scene.
>
> Useful idiots anyone?
>
> Yes, too many :( .
>
>
> Antonio.
>
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:56:43 +0200
>> From: zzbbyy at gmail.com
>
>> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Basic income - how does that fit into the
>> pirate ideology?
>>
>> Most of the voices here were in favour of Basic Income. The general
>> public is probably much more reserved about it.
>>
>> We are a group selected for our attitude towards copyright, patents
>> and privacy reforms - now we see that we share more than that. Why is
>> that? What is the thing that links these subjects?
>>
>> Z.
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>



--
Zbigniew Lukasiak
http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/