[pp.int.general] Why a basic income is not so socialistic

[carlo von lynX]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 07:56:28AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think the basic income might be a good thing -- I just don't think
> it matters whether we consider it socialistic or not.

Actually, that wording is inappropriate since "socialistic"
implies that everyone gets to have a job and thus that
there continues to be economic growth on planet earth as it
has been all the time since mankind started trading. Both
is unrealistic for the future and any political party that
is defined on this basis has no long-term relevance (that
is pretty much all).

Maybe "social-libertarian" is more appropriate, since BIG
gives you freedom to work how you think is right, takes care
of your well-being and stops human society to grow itself to
self destruction.

It can also be "liberal," but that depends A LOT on the
details of the implementation and there is a serious risk
of it losing its social aspects if too much attention is
given to the liberal ones.

Some examples:

- The Gotz Werner model sucks IMHO as it redistributes
  wealth from middle class to lower class, leaving the
  0.01% who own Planet Earth safe from lower class
  uproar - at least until 99% of the population is
  lower class and the system falls apart.

- A model that finances itself out of a Robin-Hood-Tax
  redistributes from the 1% of wealthiest people and
  companies to the 99% of humanity. This to me seems
  to be a good model of what we currently need in order
  to achieve economic stability and regain some justice.

    In updated simulation models developed by the authors of
    "The Limits To Growth" they came to the conclusion that
    only in models where a solid redistribution of wealth
    was considered, humanity reached a condition of sustain-
    ability.

- A model that also increases taxes on all kinds of
  behaviours, resources and productions that aren't
  ecologically and economically sustainable helps
  stabilize humanity. A good example is heavy fuel oil:
  It is artificially keeping globalization afloat while
  polluting the environment irreparably. By increasing
  taxes on it we limit international shipping to only
  cargo that actually deserves worldwide shipment.

    From the point of view of an "honest liberal," the
    market is unbalanced because it doesn't take ecology into
    account - so it desperately needs ecological taxing to
    function.

- The short-term side effects of BIG can also be
  appetizing to liberal thinking: cost of labour going
  down, competitivity of the country that introduces BIG
  going massively up. This gives an economic advantage
  to the early adopters and forces surrounding economies
  to follow suit.

But as the Friedman/Werner models show, there are plenty
of ways to get the BIG completely wrong, therefore WE
MUST AT ALL COSTS ensure that it is reasonable people
that will work out the details of the deal. It is not
sufficient to just ask for "some kind of BIG" and then
let the parliaments work out the details. It is quite
likely a recipe for failure.

The "Pirate New Deal" must come from ourselves, fully
detailed and mathematically solid.