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

David van Deijk davidd at piratenpartij.nl
Tue Jul 16 17:03:26 CEST 2013

Somebody made the excellent point that the population does not support 
basic income. And it is reflected in which people are outspoken. In most 
groups of people to defeat the points of basic income requires only half 
a sentence: "It's Communism/Socialism".

To argue the point in detail is something that basic income supporters 
just have plenty more practise at. In my personal experience people in 
the dutch pirateparty are basically split 50-50 on the subject of basic 

The fact that one opinion is more articulated does not make it right.

It's not fair to request complex calculations of someone (antonio) to 
disproof your point when you have not shown evidence of calculations 
that support your view.

Opinions on how the economy is going to hell in a hand basket are not 
reserved to only be held by economics professors that can proof such 
statements. Common people can make good observations as well.

Jack Allnutt schreef op 16.07.2013 16:50:
>  Hash: SHA1
>  On 16/07/2013 14:46, Antonio Garcia 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.
>  Anybody claiming that a a basic income is a panacea is evidently
> wrong. Yes, it's a simple concept and the outcomes are probably
> overstated. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that it's
> implemented without deep research into the mechanics and effects both
> good and bad.
>  > IBI is like the banking bailout... it creates an unavoidable
> obligation for the nation to cough up cash...
>  The same can be said, to a greater or lesser degree, for *any*
> welfare system, to be honest. Of course the system needs to be costed
> properly before introduction.
>  > 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.
>  I don't think this is much different from currently implemented
> welfare systems.
>  One benefit of the basic income, in my opinion, is that it's easier
> to identify what the cost will be - it's a function of population.
> Contrasted with current welfare systems which are means-tested, they
> depend on things like the level of unemployment, and other economic
> factors, and have administrative overheads. The UBI is a simpler
> system.
>  > The strangest bedfellow IBI may find are corporations.
>  I don't think this is a good argument at all, if the policy is based
> on evidence and achieves its aims it doesn't matter who else supports
> the policy.
>  Right-wing, left wing, corporations or labour unions. I don't care
> who supports our policies.
>  > 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.
>  I also don't buy this argument (although if you can provide evidence
> to support it, I may change my mind).
>  Yes, a UBI would be a profound change to the economy, and the market
> will change as a result but what you're stating is that if people 
> have
> money is that they will "waste" it because the evil corporations will
> be able to sell shiny things to them. That sounds like a very
> judgemental position to take.
>  Some people - including rich conservative politicians - have
> stigmatised people who receive benefits in the UK for spending money
> on things that their detractors consider improper. Tobacco, alcohol,
> gambling, fast food etc. People who aren't on benefits spend their
> money on these things as well, including the very rich. The hypocrisy
> is disgusting IMHO.
>  If one wants to reduce the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, fast 
> food
> and gambling, especially amongst the low-paid and those on benefits,
> there are other, better and less hypocritical and class-war based
> methods to do it.
>  I'm not denying that the consumer culture is a problem, but you're
> targeting the wrong place to combat it.
>  > Who will end up playing animated furniture for a living in the
> Soylent Green we will all have been begging for?
>  >
>  > Fools.
>  I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with this one (I
> haven't watched Soylent Green).
>  > 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.
>  An unconditional basic income doesn't remove the incentive to work.
> It just means you don't have to work *to survive*. Obviously it would
> need to be set at a level that ensures that there is sufficient 
> supply
> to match demand in the labour market.
>  > 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.
>  Like I said at the top, UBI is not a panacea. It won't (and doesn't
> try to) completely solve the problem of uneven distribution. It's
> human nature that people are greedy and envious of others. No 
> economic
> policy in the world will change that.
>  > 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.
>  Part of the problem is that we don't have the resources to do
> in-depth research behind most of our policies. Thankfully, Pirates
> don't exist in a vacuum and we're not the only people investigating
> policies such as this.
>  > 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.
>  One of the core planks of Pirate policies is that we believe in
> evidence-based policy. If our policies do not stand up to the body of
> the evidence then we should *welcome* the fact that they won't be
> implemented.
>  >
>  > Useful idiots anyone?
>  >
>  > Yes, too many :( .
>  it's easy to be a cynic :)
>  We all fall in to that trap at some point or another.
>  - -- Jack
>  Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
>  Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ [1]
>  mwoi0L1kuOR9xah2TwgiJAYrlAr8u0r6yt583fzQnHT4NKmJ8J2PffnZ8qfv4ArC
>  b8X8wjvEhO4e4nHp5rS9GAXLZGdUcdAb4jGESNkoXUcUkFKQsOrWov1cJMbXCVUu
>  xvBRiXaaIXPBFRKzNrnuLAxBp0fi67iFOC1JyFxW/KzPs89fNqcqQunttqS4MobR
>  RwJHSRfy0DF8Ksb9CV98M/Pz9WuzXmtdhZNhHVsraolVWM0W12UEtFB1+YFast92
>  HQZrs5T+A6IcsySQbyMZpj682RkhV5yIcmn3CKktXxZ1oHU7zh07ys2wLaUn1yph
>  vZ4Rzn/4F8OFUaIMhAl5cBjqaR/bTOdullgaf5LH+Xf5olXNlTSdTCg0QOgxh7Vq
>  cvDSKw+YMii9T7GA0bcLGUGXwUI5iN7C0ZbO3IOp9b0m9mZjNuMgojHWt4Io5TyW
>  FnWboMF/MKBE8LI0YLLRmf3bXR+z7DZkPwxYI/s43xlXolw9667/efiVR6Y6Sx86
>  kmvZZdZTJ2+OTwV8BdkrP+xpXnnhfaN+6Ytvtq7h40MbA4xIBVmMiSRR53w0UMi5
>  lM002MwEH+FuV2ZXWceV7wFN29fFPmpawilvD1U4dSHGlsQJSoaRPdkFCxhmndNq
>  U5CilCG+g00gILL/SZSH
>  =MjY3
>  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.enigmail.net/

Met vriendelijke groeten,
David van Deijk.
Kandidaat Tweede Kamer 2012,
Ledenraadslid 2013-
Piratenpartij Nederland
David.van.Deijk at piratenpartij.nl

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list