Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

Social Security is an example of a welfare that has run fine without politicians making anyone dance and beg for it. I don't think a lot of other people are going to be fine living in permanent poverty and feudalism while seeing extravagant wealth nearby. A revolution is coming, Trump's promise of making America great again by kicking out Mexicans and restricting trade is just the first salvo in the revolution. It's not going to be pretty but it could have been different if the wealth had been redistributed fairly.

View on HN

Because Social Security is hard to attack, and easy to defend. The "moochers" attack has been ridiculed enough.

But if everyone receives UBI, soon you'll have mobs campaigning for: "felons shouldn't receive UBI", "rapists shouldn't receive it", etc.

A good question is: if asked, would 50+% of the US population support Richard Spencer receiving UBI? The "anti" argument is strong ("my tax dollars shouldn't fund bigotry") and the "pro" argument is very weak, since it's only based in ideological principles ("everyone should get it"), and most voters are not ideological and do not vote according to principles.

I think one thing America needs to re-learn is how to apply principles equally to everybody. I would support felons receiving UBI, because, like everybody else, if you are on hard times, the UBI is the best (and least discriminatory) opportunity to become a more productive member of society.

Felons shouldn't. This will provide a strong incentive to not commit crime. Or at least felons may get reduced BI. Think of it like a probation (maybe reduced for a period of time as it relates to the severity of the crime).

This is a carrot and stick approach to social order.

This will greatly increase the recidivism rate.

Why is that? Does probation also increase the recidivism rate?

Because it increases the chance that they'll need to resort to crime to survive. It's the same reason that the pervasive policies against hiring felons increase recidivism rate. Once they've paid their debt to society, we need to actually forgive them, or it's much harder for them to rehabilitate.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the concern around Universal Basic Income. Even to the point of dropping the Universal...

It doesn't even exist and it can still be used to divide society. The exact opposite of its intention.

I really don't understand that line of reasoning. Just because some people may want a different form of UBI is no argument against UBI itself. Any non-trivial policy in government is subject to multiple views - and that is insufficient reason to hold back from offering all policy changes.

Fine, everyone gets universal basic income -- felons are levied heavy fines which they will pay from.. their universal basic income. No one here is arguing against the existence of fines as a punitive measure in society, are they?

Your derision is unwarranted and unconstructive.

Congratulations! You have now improved the recidivism rate to 100%. Because seriously, what's an ex-convict going to do after leaving prison in that system? No UBI and no prospect of a job (look at employment rates for ex-cons today, do you think that's going to get better?) will very quickly lead people back to crime by necessity.

> Think of it like a probation (maybe reduced for a period of time as it relates to the severity of the crime).

Do people read the comments they respond to? I am spitballing here. It's not like we have firm numbers to critique. It seems reasonable to me that there be some punishment for bad behavior. Things like that already exist now. Or how about this: You don't deny basic income you just.. make them repay society by docking their basic income a %.

Felons should receive it. My reasoning is simple, everyone needs money and felons are more likely to hurt people when they don't have it.

It is not a matter of "deserving" or "earning" it, it is the simple fact that everyone is better when no one goes without basic.

Why should they get the full amount? Why not dock some as punitive?

And I am not saying a "deserve" from a moral point of view, but a "deserve" from a cost savings point of view to disincentive crime.

The sun shines on everyone equally.

Isn't prison enough of a disincentive? You now want to take away someone's dignity after they have served the sentence which has been deemed to be the punishment equal to the crime?

Deterrence has never worked on potential criminals.

It is simply a matter of results. Being punitive might hurt them, but it hurts society more.

When a percentage of a society might be lacking for basic needs they will act in bad ways for the society. A UBI doesn't remove all desires to commit crime, but it would remove everyone who would steal to eat or steal to house themselves.

It removes an entire class of threat to society. What does a punitive measure buy for society?

It certainly won't deter crime, because no society has ever been able to punish hard enough to deter crime and there have crime societies that killed petty thieves.

It won't reform the ex-cons. It will make doing things like buying a suit for a job interview more difficult. It will make them less likely to contribute by way of work. Money they might have spent on bettering themselves (books?) must now be spent on survival.

Again, do away with childish notions like "earn" and "deserve" they map poorly onto the solutions for the problems of the real world.

You're proving my point that UBI will become a deeply political and partisan issue, and not only won't just be for everyone, but also will have people endlessly quarreling about who should get it.

Carrot and stick approach doesn't work when it comes to people. Vicious/virtuous cycles are a much better model of human behavior than homeostasis. As another poster said, you'll increase recidivism. It also undermines the "justice" aspect, since even after you got your punishment, you're still not considered a first-class citizen. That's unjust.

UBI would only really work if it was inscribed in the Constitution, and deeply culturally held as something that must remain universal. Otherwise, say hi to more social instability. And what about whistleblowers? Government shouldn't have the power to discriminate when giving out UBI.

As responded elsewhere, fine. Felons just continue to receive heavy fines as part of their punishment, but guess what? Now the state has a means to enforce these judgments by docking their basic income. Surely you are not arguing against fines as a punitive measure for law breaking?

That's a great point, and only makes UBI look more workable. The prospect of UBI becoming a partisan target for bickering doesn't seem so likely when put like this.

Can't edit anymore so I'll reply to myself:

Apparently you meant the government would reduce the UBI that someone receives. I interpreted it as everybody receives the same UBI, but obviously some punishments are accompanies by fines, and the fine for certain crimes may be equal to the amount of the UBI. Everyone would still receive the same amount, but for some, it would be "taxed" before it's actually received. That's still suboptimal but wouldn't turn the UBI into a political crisis.

I think they should, because it's surprisingly easy to bias who becomes a felon. https://theintercept.com/2015/12/09/floridas-ex-felons-strug...

If you think that there aren't already enough disincentives to commit a felony you simply aren't looking.

Felons went to prison, they paid their debt to society. Why are you so insistent on them coming out into as shitty a situation as possible?

DO you like high recidivism?

Social Security has one of the most powerful lobbies in the country defending it. Politicians who eagerly take on the NRA won't even mention cutting SS.

It seems likely that basic income would have a similar lobby, once it's been around for a while.

That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.

> because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit.

If you really believe that, compare/contrast most dictatorships with the United States, Switzerland, and Israel.

Gun control is something that oppressive rulers always try to implement as soon as possible.

Gun control in Israel is pretty strict for civilians but you make a good point.

This logic is countered by the many peaceful, democratic nations with strong gun control laws - the majority of them, really.

No, I'm saying that weak gun control is not a complete bad. A lot of functional states have all sorts of gun control laws.

However, all (as far as I know) totalitarian states have strong gun control laws. I can't think of a single one which had a permissive attitude toward the civilian ownership of guns.

I'm speaking of course of de jure gun control laws, not the de facto possession of guns by the population.

I for one am glad we have not gone down the path of the hellhole that is Australia.

It also hasn't stopped being universal or basic or perverted with exceptions.

If you step back and take a look at the history of wealth distribution & revolutions, maybe your outlook will be more optimistic. Today's inequality is troubling, but doesn't nearly compare to situations in the past. Revolution will enter the discussion once the masses are struggling for food.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com