RE: Debate Forum - Week 8 - Guaranteed Income
I support universal basic income with one specific catch.
Why I support it:
1 UBI provides "Escape" from traumatic living situations
Example: abusive spouse who pays the bills.
2 It provides social safety net to people who have disabilities that go unrecognized/supported
Example Ptsd, childhood survivors of trauma, alcoholics, addicts who are having difficulties adjusting to “Normal Society”
3 Discourages desperation crime - If you are in an extreme situation you may do extreme things
Hungry/sick kids will drive people to extreme actions. Addiction too
4 Efficient use of natural-resource rents
The rents earned from the extraction of natural resources taxation should be redirected to the people as they bear the costs of extraction
5 Decreasing bureaucratic red tape/power
The bureaucrats don’t get to decide who is “worthy”
My only condition is that to claim the UBI must be slight pain in the ass. This makes people who want to claim it expend some energy in claiming it. This discourages high income earners from claiming it.
I have lived in the UK and South Africa. The Uk with a social security net that although problematic is amazing compared to the way South Africa Dumps its poor in squatter camps. The costs of extreme situations/poverty are larger than the costs of UBI
I am 100% for the smallest possible government but I do believe those of us who are “able” should help those in difficulty.
Thoughts?
I like your points, but my argument is why do we need to have the government organize this for us? Why not independently pool our resources, since we are doing that through tax anyways, and the people in the government are obviously able to organize it anyways as well, and then we can gift what is needed to survive and live a decent life without any strings atttatched?
I think also that making it difficult for people to get this income might pose problems for people who need it to get it. For example, what if someone has no ID and does not pay taxes? Must they prove that they are poor in order to recieve what they need to live? Especially if it requires time and technology, because someone who is hungry is going to steal something to eat instead of waiting in line or trying to find a phone or computer to sign up with.
Great questions - here is my attempt at answering:
I think we need a central authority that has the scale to put forward a professional defensive army. Areas that are easy to defend (Switzerland or Austria) could have small populations and an army to protect them. I think areas that are near impossible to defend (Poland or Ukraine) would need many to band together for security when many band together you would need a larger coordinating authority (government) I would assume.
UBI is available to all that claim it it is not based on if you are rich or poor.
I would assume you would need to prove who you are somehow to claim it to prevent people double claiming.
If you independently pool resources and one community has a dispute with another who would uphold the "law" or would the stronger dominate the weak?
And yes some people will continue to steal, its certainly not a perfect system
at this point I would hope that people would be self governing and peaceful enough not to try and strongarm each other. That might not be reality anytime incredibly soon though. Also, if they are pooling resources to provide for the poor, they are basically charities. I am not really sure what there would be to argue about when you are giving, of course there would be boundaries and rules. Just no strings attatched.
Id like to see how this basic income takes form from the government.
So does your response mean that you are in favour of coercion, force and violence in order to make your system work? Democracy is essentially mob rule, where the majority governs all, including those who disagree (minority). So this central authority then has the wisdom to make decisions for all?
I am new to this subject so I am sure my logic is off in plenty of places.
I think we need an independent body that can judge between 2 disputing parties with an effective punishment system. It needs to punishes the party who harms others rights as defined by that society (big or small)
Without an effective / trusted body to pass judgement and an acceptable punishment. Many disputes would increase to societal violence/vigilantism.
Example - Someone kills someone I love and I know who did it. Without independent punishment I would seek to punish this person myself. Conflicts such as this can erupt into family on family violence.
Bullies of society will prey on the weak. That is the nature of a bully. If we group together make it more difficult for them.
For the record I think imprisonment is a completely incompetent way of punishing/rehabilitating anyone
I have a confusion here My Friend @tony10
What do you mean by the smallest possible governmnet
Also share your thoughts upon; Which form of the Govt. do you think is suitable to help those who are in difficulty?
I think the main role of government is to stop people infringing on other peoples rights as defined by that society. Government has far over stepped this in my opinion
I think a democracy that protects the rights of the individual whilst spreading the costs to run a society over those who are able to pay is the right direction.
Land taxes to pay for basic services such as police, health workers, fire brigade and a DEFENSIVE army/militia ect.
Natural resources taxes for Universal basic income. (In a country with no natural resources UBI is more problematic due to the need for taxation taking from the productive)
Off topic but I think it should also be illegal for religion to enter politics or be funded by politics- Religions will always try to bring moral arguments to disagreements and always fight for "their team".
Thank you for arguing the other side. The debate was very one sided until you joined. Perhaps you can look through some of the other posts and rebut some of their arguments.