RE: Property rights and Basic Income - A viable solution is possible
Instead of a basic income, I would suggest that societies give out the basic of survival.
- Minimum housing (a tiny house/apt for each person in the society)
- Minimum food (a cafeteria like, casserole meal for every person that shows up)
- Minimum clothing (something that is durable and inexpensive. Something like a green jumpsuit for anyone who asks)
The reason for this is that money really does not fix these problems.
Having dealt with man poor, I find that most have no clue about money or budgeting, so if you give them enough money to eat all month, they will blow it all in the first couple days and eat out of trash cans the rest of the month.
People at the low end of the totem pole are also hell on housing. Every section 8 house I have had to repair... oh, the horror stories. What is needed is a small room with a door that locks on the inside. Radiant floor heating and bullet proof walls. And building 300 million of these little rooms would cost less than a 1/10th of what we currently spend on subsidized housing.
Why do we desire to give out money, when what is really needed is food, clothing and shelter? We can provide these at a fraction of the price.
I think you may find this interesting: http://boingboing.net/2015/05/26/poverty-is-a-tax-on-cognition.html
Yes, thanks. Looking at it now.
Another apropos piece written here today: https://steemit.com/health/@mindhunter/poverty-and-wealth-is-there-a-mind-connection-involved
The problem is the definition of Minimum is all relative. It is also centrally planned and inflexible.
Those among us who are unable to budget for 30 days at a time can receive daily payouts.
This is why I said "community" and not govern-cement. This doesn't work well as a centrally planned thing. But each community building a sets of minimum-condos is some of the cheapest social work that could be done. A heated room that is about the size of two beds is all anyone needs. (That they can go out and make money and buy/rent something better is also essential)
Community equals tiny houses. Govern-cement equals jail cells.
I don't know how to put this nicely. You haven't worked with homeless.
Giving money out doesn't work. Many don't even know how to keep track of it. A bank account is foreign concept that you will never be able to adequately explain. It really doesn't work.
And, payouts just ignore a huge problem with people. Like the elderly homeless couple that gets a social security check once a month, and gets beaten up once a month for that check.
Yes, it is so much easier to throw money at the situation. But, as a community, solving this problem really requires supplying the basics.
Your 300 millions little rooms compare to what we currently spend on subsidized housing was very stimulating intellectually as well as the daily meal.
I do agree with Dan when he talks about daily payouts. I think something like a hardware Bitshares wallet could be handed out and daily payout could be made through it. This would ensure only a set amount of daily meal is distributed.
I used Bitshares as currency due to to its ability to create crypto assets.
I agree that providing cheap or free basics is good way, but you can easily solve "money blow" problem by giving or even better refiling money every day (is easy to do so with cryptocurrencies) so every morning everyone have $100 for example, which they can't transfer to anyone, but can use to buy/rent basic stuff for himself.
Yes, crypto-currencies easily solve that part of the problem. But, you left out everything below it. Like:
(If every vendor accepts bit-payment. Then all you need to do is have a front that sells something, then your goons, take your machine and go shake down some undefended oldies for their daily bit-transfer)
This model makes everyone dependent on the state and increases the low self-worth that is already the cause of people not being able to look after themselves or be productive in the first place.
UBI makes everyone dependent on the state, so the argument is a non-starter.
Read my most recent article on "Better Than UBI" for my thoughts on solving this conundrum.
Sorry, I should clarify. If we were dependent on the state for housing and if we don't toe-the-line as it were, that housing will soon disappear. A Universal credit scheme (i.e. providing homes, food, etc. for people) would easily encourage fascist policies.
UBI works on the premise that everyone is given an income, regardless of who they are, what they believe, where they work etc. Recipients can actually afford to live and pay rent on (which might depend on where one lives to cover rent prices).
If your house is taken away from you, even by mistake, computer error or fascist state, you and your family is pretty much ruined. If your income was taken, that would be another matter..