Hacker News Reader

You're not alone in thinking that. It works[1], and it's cheaper than the current revolving door of policies and support systems. The problem seems to be that people have a strong negative reaction to "undeserving others" getting things "for free".

[1] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...

It's sickening to me that most US citizens seem to prefer watching people die on the street than give them things they "do not deserve".

I have good news for you. US citizens don't actually like watching people die on the street, not even the ones on the right.

Right, they close their doors and avert their gaze

That's very easy to say on your very comfortable chair.

Arguments on both sides here are about what people "like to do" - with hyperbole in both directions. But the fundamental problem is with what people actually do - and given the scale of the problem, and apparent lack of solution, it doesn't seem unfair to say that not enough is being done. Quite a large chunk of the non-homeless population in the US is living in a relatively precarious situation[1], which leaves them both practically unable to help and presumably also afraid of ending up on the street themselves. Hence it's not unreasonable to expect the response to come from governments, like Utah's did.

1: https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-...

bourgeois ideology is contagious, sadly.

And why?

Well, it is important to avoid creating a culture of dependence. We've seen how that can backfire on us in Africa. So it's not totally irrational.

Maybe some of us prefer not deincentivizing work and creating an even larger subpopulation which is entirely dependent on government and won't be employable for generations?

We live in a reality where resources still require effort and capital to extract from the environment. A society can only support so many through welfare before it collapses.

The subject is a little more nuanced than watching people die out of some kind of jealousy.

And an economy can only be so rapacious of honest hard-working citizens before it collapses.

I always thought that experiment was in some senses actually kind of damning. On the one hand it's a success, 91% reduction in chronic homelessness, that's good. On the other hand, how was it not a 100% reduction!? I think it really does validate some of the reservations & criticisms. 9% of the homeless population remained homeless even when everything was provided. That is striking.

Me included - which is why I would provide the bare minimum, and would provide it directly as services rather than dish out benefits for people to spend in the economy. One of the most depressing things on TV here in the UK is a genre of poor people documentary porn which show benefits recipients who commonly have a Sky TV subscription, massive flat screens TVs, latest consoles and phones, plenty of money for ciggies and booze etc, and that appear deeply averse to work but are not so averse to intellectual effort that they aren't able to understand the intricate details of the benefits system necessary to keep their benefits flowing in. Unfortunately I think the only way to discourage this dependency culture is to make working aspirational - and how do we do that? Attitude change yes, but I would argue also making life on benefits less attractive, whilst still remaining humane.

This is the idea behind basic income. Basic income eschews the oversight of traditional welfare programs so people are free to spend their money on food and drugs with less pressure to pick one over the other

Right, the solution is to give addicts more money to buy drugs. I suppose that'll solve the problem when they inevitably OD and we can stop wasting our money on them.

I'm not speaking from an ivory tower either, like many UBI supporters seem to do. I grew up with friends who were addicts. Ive known people who died of overdose. Plenty of kids are more than happy to throw away their lives smoking weed and shooting up, especially if they're getting their shit for free.

For the record, I support responsible drug use. But UBI is not the answer for the problems in our society, because it will hurt many if not most of the people it should protect.

I don't see why we couldn't directly provide pure pharmaceutical grade narcotics to addicts for them to consume in safety, as part of a compulsory programme to attempt to cure the addiction. Eventually I hope we will come up with a drug to reset the brain, but in the meantime I wish we could have an outbreak of maturity and recognise and treat the addiction in a sensible way, rather than contiuining with the obviously failed war on drugs and all the bad things that flow from it. Imagine if we destroyed a massive part of global organised crime's income at stroke.

> a drug to reset the brain

Ibogaine.

The US classifies all hallucinogens and psychedelics at Schedule I, so obviously no researcher that values their academic career can study the use of psychedelics for the purpose of curing addiction. But anecdotal reports suggest that a heroin addict may be cured of opioid addiction by using kratom to alleviate the physical symptoms of withdrawal, and ibogaine to "reset the brain" to no longer desire heroin.

Politically, people would prefer to believe that rehab centers actually work. Using illegal drugs classified as "the worst, most dangerous drugs in existence" to cure addictions to other illegal drugs with a lesser classification may be perceived as... a bit hypocritical.

Giving addicts money to buy drugs will simply push up the price of drugs.

UBI would instead need to give everyone above the drinking age something like a monthly ration of 2 ounces cannabis, 2 psychedelic doses of a regionally appropriate entheogen, and 750 mL neutral grain spirits, all from local production facilities. If they want more, or better quality stuff, they'll just have to spend their pocket money on it, or get a QA job in the industry.

Also, giving the actual drugs out can influence the market, such that people may be encouraged to use drugs that are more socially manageable--in contrast to opioids. Honestly, I'd rather hand out free weed than free alcohol, but you just know the agricultural lobby will heavily influence the composition of the UBI goods ration. If they can make your fuel 10% ethanol, they can certainly convince the government to distribute some of that distilled corn alcohol for human consumption.

I think maybe the thing to do would be to give away treatment.

You also pick really weird amounts. A casual drinker can kill a fifth in a weekend without really disrupting their life, while they range in price from ~$5 (after taxes!) to $25 (Smirnoff is $14 here).

Almost no one would use 2 ounces of marijuana in a few days and it has a street price in the hundreds of dollars.

I reasoned that someone might use 1/4 ounce in a month. But I also thought that the stuff the government would pass out would probably be grown in less than ideal conditions, and inattentively processed, making the ration weak, with lots of stems and seeds. So you would have to give out 8x as much (and thereby also encourage recipients to learn how to do organic extractions). I didn't give much consideration to the cost, because they don't call it "weed" for nothing, and much of the current expense is due to prohibition.

750 mL works out to about 17 shots of 1.5 oz. each, but I also figured it would probably taste like it was made from stale tortilla chips in most of the US, and would therefore mostly go into mixers, averaging 4 drinks per week. The people who really enjoy their alcohol would be springing for commercial vodka, and there would also be plenty of people who would be getting that ration and not drinking all of it. Many drinkers would probably be relying on a beer or wine ration, but I don't really consider those to be "drugs" below a certain %abv, and UBI beer would probably be around 2.5%abv, with the wine around 4%abv. The beer would taste like a business handshake between Bud and Miller, and the wine like Welch's made out with Manischewitz on their friend's couch.

And for the peyote buttons, mushrooms, DMT or whatever, I thought two trips in a month might have been pushing it, especially for people that were still trying to have normal jobs with their UBI. Good for two of your four weekends, with maybe a couple sketchy Mondays when the machine elves follow you to work.

Basic income just makes rents go up. Better to provide basic guaranteed room and board, with some basic pocket money for bus fares.

I'm thinking the solution needs to be multi-pronged:

UBI, an employer of last resort capable of enforcing a minimum living wage, specific support for those who cannot manage their own affairs or be addressed solely through additional money, and a land tax to put a cap on housing appreciation and costs, as well as to spur denser development. Oh, and jettisoning anti-density zoning and building codes.

I'm not sure that's sufficient, but I think it covers a broader set of issues than approaches of the past 40-50 years have managed.

Is it really so tricky to just accept this and pay to look after them?

People don't want to do that. But one day we may be able to effectively make the argument that we are paying to look after them one way or the other, and we are currently looking after them with the most expensive possible resources, e.g. first responders, penitentiary, etc.

If the argument can be made effectively I think we can get there, but that's the key. You can get people to vote against their ethics & beliefs, but only if you really prove to them that even if it's counterintuitive, you're saving them money.