You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Comment: Dan Larimer's Basic Income Vs Unconditional Basic Income (Reply to @teamSteem)
There are schemes being talked about that would give free housing/food etc but for me this would be akin to being like caged slaves who are allowed to move about for work/leisure.
UBI would make society psychologically and even financially (if one makes extra income from work) less dependent on state than it already is. Unlike this scheme, it can enable a far larger number of people to better reach their full potential wherever and however they pleases. It actually promotes a lot of freedom to develop and contribute value to society.
I for one would voluntarily pay to enable fellow society members to be freer and happier.
I would voluntarily pay for that too. As soon as it is forced then I'm against it.
First I just want to say Dan has had a huge influence in my life. I disagree with him on some points but nonetheless his writings and actions have inspired me a lot. As I understand him he want to help everyone equally. Here's one of his quotes that illustrate this.
Dan's model is a bit tricky. I won't try to describe it. Many people misunderstood it at first and many people called him out because UBI is a form of taxation and Dan is against any taxation because he stands against any violence and taxation is forced on people.
How is UBI forced taxation and why should we avoid forcing people to do anything unless they are or they're action is a threat to us?
I'm Canadian. Let's say we implement UBI in Canada and every single Canadien begins to receive 100$ a week from a UBI program then the price of living will increase by around 100$ a week. This will solve nothing obviously. Money or more precisely fiat money is not a resource.
Now if we begin to distribute 100$ a week only to some Canadien, the net result will be inflation and thus the purchasing power of the canadien dollar will go down. This decreasing purchasing power will be at the cost of everyone who doesn't receive the 100$ and to the benefit of everyone who receive 100$ a week.
This is a form of taxation or in other words some people are getting rob of their labor. A robbery is violence against someone who is not violent. Violence can occurs whether or not there is physical violence involve. Psychological violence or the threat of violence are 2 examples.
Nothing good comes out of force of violence except self-defense. You can't force someone to be compassionate or force someone to be generous.
To better understand some of Dan's view I highly recommend reading my post linked below. It's very enlightening. I don't think could recommend something more powerful to read than this.
https://steemit.com/liberty/@teamsteem/thank-you-dan-larimer-you-are-a-great-mentor
Debt
Dan's article
Under UBI, people are psychologically free to take a break when they need to. Under Dan's idea, we're not, because healing or "time off" is considered an expense. Under UBI, individuals are trusted to naturally create and want to work once healed. Of course work is naturally encouraged by healers once an individual is ready. Under Dan's idea, no one is trusted and you have to effectively a pay a tax from your "account" and go "in debt" in order not be automatically judged as lazy.
For those who think UBI will be spent on "hookers or blow" -- look at the results of UBI trials that disprove this, just as they disprove the idea that people will become lazy.
The life with the simplest requirement or the lowest maintenance is sleep and eating. Some people might not have the ability to feed themselves. They might be too disabled to pick the fruits themselves or unable to operate the machine that could feed thousands of people.
We don't have to force anyone to feed and care for those people. If some people are too lazy to feed the disabled and these lazy people aren't threatening anyone we shouldn't force the lazy person. Forcing the lazy won't make things better. Violence against people people doesn't make things better.
Give me a food forest and I'll feed dozens of disabled. Add to this some robots and I'll feed tens of thousands. (We can produce more than at any point in history. The problem isn't a lack of production of anything be it, food, housing or anthing.)
If the lazy are a threat, then they are a threat and must be taken care of, not because they are lazy but simply because they are a threat.
Again, we can't force people to be good. Let's be good and generous and feed the disabled and if someone is forcing their will on us let's recognized this for what it is:violence.
We can't force people to exercise their freewill. This is an oxymoron.
It's a cruel system if the basis of a system is that all human beings basically require are sleep and eating. People afford that to slaves and prisoners. Most people sleep and eat now but is society happy?
A free society is one that allows everyone to reach their highest potential, whatever it is. Even the people you might judge "permanently lazy"
There is enough food for everyone in the world now without need for increased production or robots. Using sustainable, ecologically friendly agriculture will produce even more.
What you call "lazy people" aren't the cause of the problems.
Also, who's labor are you going to use to create those robot? You have to put something in to get something out of it.
It seems that many are brainwashed to think the problems are with certain subsections of society, rather the psychological burdens (and blindness) of society being exploited by those with power. The latter are also interested in hoarding resources through the centuries due to their own psychological burdens. Both greed and laziness are symptoms of parasitic mindsets that Dan's basic income idea will only perpetuate not tackle. I feel UBI is the only systems so far that is going to put these issues at the forefront and address the root cause. When people are given the freedom not to work, those with trauma will have the space to address them... for example, it's easy to judge another's "deadbeat" nature than it is to actually see this person is an veteran who's been traumatized or an addict who couldn't afford rehab or been heard/respected.
If you don't address this things, you're ignoring the roots of violence in the world and people being "forced" to do things. You will react to every show of force and immediately are triggered to react against it -- and be controlled/manipulated potentially.
It's clear people like Dan and you genuinely care about the world. But how much better would your systems be if you would explore and incorporate the basis behind human trauma, addictions, laziness, violence etc.
By saying remove taxation because it is violence and not addressing the roots of that violence, all you do is perpetuate and increase violence in other areas (obvious to see when you take a systems based approach).