Whole idea of basic income is like from communist manifesto. You need to exploit someone or some other nation in order to get money for your citizen who wants to have 'sustainable quality of life for free'. A) exploit rich people B) exploit immigrants and use them for cheap labor
both ways are historically verified
Then what is there left to work for? Also, I thought the job of a society was to protect it's citizens' negative rights (various freedoms from, freedom from want not being one).
I think this might turn out something like retirement, as people will have to work less: some people make very good use of their extra resources, but many will just sit and watch TV. This is a bit in an inherent bias in the HN crowd, because most of us tend to be more intellectually curious and would likely spend the time learning a new language, etc.
Perhaps to pass the time? You can’t just sit around and do nothing.
Mamy people find work fulfilling, or enjoy being challenged. There is charity work too, where you can work towards the benefit of others less fortunate than yourself.
Also, keep in mind that UBI is meant to be just that - a basic income; nobody is going to be living the life of Riley on UBI. People are human, and inevitably want better, or more - and working, or starting a business (which I expect we'd see more of) is a means to that end.
I thought that was the argument _against_ UBI?
I'm perplexed by the number of people who think that UBI means giving everyone so much money that they would never do anything to get more.
Some people think UBI should be enough for emergency rations only, similar to food stamps now. Some people think it should be enough for a very-low-income but working person's expenses now. Some people think it should be enough for a few basic treats as well.
For example, the Living Wage Foundation uses the Rowntree Foundation's Minimum Income Standard to set their 'living wage', which does include luxuries such as eating in restaurants and even an annual holiday (I struggle to afford that!), so what they think is 'minimum' clearly isn't literally just enough to just 'live' on.
People have the same attitude towards what UBI should be.
Would you set UBI to below what Rowntree thinks is the 'minimum to live on'?
Creating a death spiral because consumers buying things is the fuel which makes the entire economy run and grow, so when you fire them all and replace them with robots, your individual profit might temporarily rise but as we all do it, more and more fall out of the workplace and can no longer consume, hurting the economy based on consuming.
Basic income may come across as a luxury today, in a world where there can still be enough jobs for the number of people in the economy, but it very well may become a requirement to ensure that consumers exist to buy automatically produced and automatically served goods.
P.S. the taxes don't necessarily rise on the workers, but rather on the automators and producers. The amount of income and wealth in this country is not decreasing, rather, the amount of it going to workers and consumers is. Is it ideal to have the government redistribute it such that the engine stops running poorly and works well again? No, but the alternative is worse.
What advantage do we will then have? The only possible advantage I can see is that raising a human for 20 years + housing + food + other expenses and then employing him would be cheaper than replicating another AGI, but I cannot imagine this to be true.
I'd expect supercapable AGI to command higher wages than less-capable humans, so they wouldn't be pushing out service jobs.
This is more of a bridge solution to full automation. "We need doctors to control dumb surgical robots until we're advanced enough that surgical robots can operate without a human controlling them" etc
We're doing the "assist" thing already in all the places that we can't quite do the "machine only" thing.
Even self-driving cars mirror this: the goal is a vehicle that doesn't require an operator. The bridged reality, currently, is that the operator must remain alert and able to take over any time.
I will also point out that automation is currently starting to eat fields that were traditionally un-automatable due to either skill, labor price (or both), including everything from complex farm work done for cheap to surgical robots.
why use violence? why put in jail people who refuse to be robbed?
Let me approach your anarchy differently:
Why do we not have anarchy? Because not-anarchy is working and is the best system we've ever used.
Why don't we get rid of this to try anarchy? Well -- who's stopping you from creating your own Amish/Scientology/SoverignCitizen whatever lifestyle? Who's forcing you to live where you do? Is the tax man showing up at your door with guns drawn?
I think your contribution to our society is far more voluntary than you want to admit.
There are plenty of Americans who live 100-1000 miles away from a real government and largely never interact with it. Preppers in Alaska or in the wide expanses of the West.
Something tells me you choose not to live like they do, free from government regulation, not meaningfully paying taxes, etc, because you like the society and civilization that is built through Liberty (freedom with common sense restrictions) as opposed to Anarchy (freedom without restriction, period).
P.S. if you call taxation robbery but use public infrastructure, you're a completely entitled hypocrite who deserves no respect for your "I can take for free but how dare I have to pay" hottake. The only people who can criticize taxation are those who homestead far, far, far away from government and society, because they truly do not use any infrastructure or benefit, but, they largely do not pay taxation (and no government agency is going to Waco style attack to force them to, either).
On the contrary - there is actually 0 successful socialist states. So your statement is massively misleading.
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%...
This is outrageously charged and bigoted language is the sole result of radicalization.
That you use these ignorant and bigoted labels when discussing economics belies your total academic and functional ignorance on the subject, and betrays your true purpose: to mindlessly repeat the propaganda which convinced you into this tribalistic response.
"On the contrary - there is actually 0 successful socialist states. So your statement is massively misleading."
An extremely common "whataboutism" defense from a fully radicalized zealot. No one brought up socialism, but the Propaganda Script that you are rote-repeating and incapable of deviating from makes heavy use of this particularly ignorant "whatabout" trope, so of course, you have to just copy-paste this red herring in.
I truly hope you can wake up from the radicalization which has fully consumed you. Good luck, you really need it.
And I use public infrastructure - was raised 200 meters away from a transfer subway station - and I call taxation a robbery. But I am not a hypocrite, because on a free market I would have paid roughly 20 times less for it - what is also called a fair price.
Not surprised that a person who sees violence and robbery as a universal solution is acting like that. Shame I just got down to your disgustingly low level...
Using a government to regulate a market to provide a social safety net is not "socialism" outside of the radicalized anti-academic conservative sphere who use the red scare in every single post they make -- NO EXCEPTIONS (and you clearly fit the rule).
"Not surprised that a person who sees violence and robbery as a universal solution is acting like that. Shame I just got down to your disgustingly low level..."
At the end of the day, you are a fully radicalized zealot whose radical anti-civilization speech perfectly mirrors the alt-right terrorists who attack our civilization all across the globe. From the far-right radical sovereign citizens who resort to violence nearly every day, to the alt-right youth bigots who shoot up mosques/blackchurches/synagogues and drive into crowds, nearly all of them parrot exact same ideological script as you do.
If I had to pick the conservative terrorist that you remind me of, I'd say either the Bundy terrorists who violently attacked the government multiple times because it existed, or the Vegas Shooter who murdered all those people. Both are huge anti-government tax-is-theft "monopoly of violence" types, and they decided to end the "monopoly of violence" in their own ways.
I'm proud -- honored -- to hold myself to a dramatically higher, more academic and more rational standard than your policy of rote-repetition of terrorist propaganda. If you think my level is low, then I have succeeded, for it is the policy of your ideology to make rabid use of doublespeak. I am legitimately honored to be considered "low" by you as that is a rather significant testimony as to my high moral quality!
"Under a socialist system, everyone works for wealth that is in turn distributed to everyone. ... The government decides how wealth is distributed among the people" which is UBI.
I am really sorry, but you're very cheap fraud.
P.S. Also in our discussion the only person advocating violence was you, so don't you dare comparing me to terrorists. Don't you have at least a tiny bit of self-respect? And you have also called me a conspiracy theorist - this is funny now.
"When the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, everything seems to be a nail."
That violence doesn't apply to actors who implicitly accept the fiction of the social contract, and who follow the rules. Rather, it applies, as intended, to those who don't. And this remains true within the construct of a state as well as in anarchy.
The violence implicit in taxation is targeted against people who don't pay their taxes, taxation itself is not an act of violence. The social contract, implicit as it is, does require the needs of society to be met, and the cost of enjoying the rights and protections of law in a society is paid towards the collective welfare through taxation.
Many people will say that anarchy doesn't mean there aren't rules... and fair enough, but you can't have any degree of hierarchy or social interaction without coercion, or violence in the sense that the monopoly on violence describes. There will always be bad actors, charlatans, sociopaths and psychopaths, or simply those who can't afford the burden of debt entered into voluntarily and in good faith. As soon as a rule or a contract is enforced against someone's will, then you've just implemented an ad-hoc, poorly defined subset of a state.
Currently in Germany for example there are a lot of people on long-term unemployment that have enough children and low demand for their skills that if they worked they would earn less. This in principle is one of the advantages of UBI. That if everybody gets it, you don't have to take it away as soon as somebody earns money. So everything you earn, will be beneficial to you.
Of course if UBI is set too high it might not be attractive to work for only a little more, but right now you have people that would earn less if they worked.