tokenizer

> I'd love your opinion on the merits of deporting unemployed Americans with $0 in savings to Liberia.

Don't import them and provide them with a basic income? I was just saying that while we'd actually have to review some other policies that would be affected, many of our policies are sub par at best, so I fail to see how either limiting immigration to X amount of people a year or simply paying them X a year is a fail for basic income.

> What is the harm of allowing an Indian to show up in NY with no money or job?

I'd rather look at MI as an actual citizen's benefit. Maybe a year wait from immigration? If our current policy is to bring people over who have no means of funds or help or work, and who require assistance, then IMO that's a bad policy.

Also, what would be the largest difference between our current system and one where everyone who's lived in our country for a year, and is currently living in our country, gets X amount yearly? If you ask me, the risk for this person remains the same, and our obligations only begin once the person has established themselves within society at large by way of working or find assistance from family or friends or loans.

> At what % do we draw the line on taxing the wealthy? 35% 40% 50%? These numbers would be outraging to any other section of the populace.

I'd prefer if we didn't at all TBH, but something that would pass would most likely only be modest.

> Scare quotes on inflation?

More like skepticism. The FED wants inflation[1]. I may not agree with them but I'm not the central planner with a printing press. I doubt we would see prices go higher, as some people would quit the workforce and live poorly living exclusively through MI. Some would stop working full-time (myself included) and figure out the best way to work less for the same amount of money. And most would simply use the money to combat their debt they've collected over the last 15+ years. It helps everyone, including the markets, due to velocity. I'd love to compete against a company who would dare raise prices. Press Releases condemning them, highlighting my lower prices, etc, etc.

> This is a heavy handed gamble, and one i would be unwilling to risk our fiscal futures on.

Well how about we test it before dismissing it[2]?

[1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/fed-s-lockhart-want... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Simple solution, have X amount of savings, or a job lined up. I'd love your opinion on the merits of anyone else being allowed into a country without X amount of savings, or a job lined up.

> Where you draw that line is a sliding scale of course

I disagree. As a libertarian-socialist, I think we can take care of ourselves while pursuing freedom in regards to economics.

In our current system, we judge people based on their employment, history, and need, and then select people to give benefits to. There are problems with this. Bureaucracy, favouritism, politicking, etc.

With a basic income, we can reduce spending by abolishing all social assistance, reduce the amount of government employees by firing the bureaucrats who used to deny/approve people for benefits, and simply guarantee everyone a minimum amount of support. This has the benefits of reducing bureaucracy, favouritism, and politicking.

A libertarian could be a minarchist, and anarchist, or simply someone who looks at our current governance architecture (state control focusing on finance and asset wealth growth) as counter intuitive.

> Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this goal, without worse repercussions?

The libertarian in my worries that a state would either abuse a system for the benefit of a small elite, or purposefully skew results in favor for their brand of narrative (didn't work, too expensive, just not possible, abolishing labour laws because it needs to be done!, etc...).

Personally it depends on the policy details to me. If this leads to the abolishment of all other forms of social assistance, and can reduce the amount of government employees who simply decided who got them in our older models, then sign me up. A system would also have to not discriminate, neither down nor up in regards to income.

That said if our choices are current social assistance, negative income tax based minimum income, or minimum income for all without deductions, then both NIT-MI and MI work for me.

As a libertarian-socialist, I'd love for us to collectively and indiscriminately provide everyone with a fair and appropriate basic minimum income. The only problem with this policy is how you pay for it.

You can abolish all other forms of social assistance -but only if you can adequately justify the elimination of the bureaucratic government jobs associated with them. For an all inclusive basic income, no bureaucracy would be needed.

You could tax the wealthy heavily -in effect making the basic income a negative income tax policy. This also seems like a worthy policy worth investigating.

You could borrow the money by way of government securities. The only problem with this scheme however is that already you have people like myself, who are extremely skeptical of the long term health of the current world financial make-up of West versus Rest, which is already changing quickly.

Personally I dismiss all arguments regarding a basic income harming poor people in the form of "inflation". We're currently in a deflationary crisis according to the big banks, and the social and political benefits to these policy changes would make it extremely hard to simply get rid of due to "bubbles and pops" as we have that plenty as it is.

Can someone try to explain why something like this isn't possible? What if we increased taxes in the top most income bracket, abolished all forms of current social assistance, and took on more debt, hoping this can pay for itself (or to simply continue down the trajectory of more debt every year).

Can someone try to explain why something like this could be more simple than I'm guessing?

And I'm sure innovation in general is even harder to monitor.

Well I still stand by my observation that the top rated countries are on average more monocultural and collectivistic (which would lead to better safety nets I'd hope).

> If diversity in language diminishes a little bit, while humankind enjoys better health, longer lifespans,[1] and other benefits of increasing worldwide prosperity, I will feel wistful about that, because I am curious about all world languages, but people should be at liberty to decide what languages they use, and when.

And who's to say that having less languages in the world is a bad thing? I mean, from a cursory view it seems like people are equating the diminishing of multiple languages as a bad thing. Is it? Do we weep for Latin, or do we just celebrate the variety of cultures that had spawned from its ashes?

It's easy to be initially emotional about the potentiality of having some languages lost in time, but it's just a tool with history. It will eventually be completely wiped out by a new language, or evolve into one that barely resembles it. I personally don't think this is sad. I think it's just the reality of space and time.

Thanks for the context. These statistics favor monocultural societies and collectivist societies over individualist ones. Your point on innovation is but one overlooked factor that these stats don't account for.

I'd love to get some global statistics on educational knowledge of 18 year olds in all of these countries, and also get statistics on the per capita numbers on new businesses opening up by this age group in these countries as well. Just a thought that IMO may not skew these stats so much towards monocultural/collectivist societies so much.

> Sweeping away all of this and replacing it with a relatively simple "Does this person exist? Are the eligible for the universal income?" would save so much money, and time, and stress. It would free people to do voluntary work, or small informal projects.

Exactly. Some people just can't wrap their heads around what people want. Decent wages and free time.

To give people a certain minimum amount of wealth, we can just acknowledge that the best way to do social welfare is by utilizing efficient taxes and spreading that wealth equally amongst all, not because everybody needs it, but because it's ethical.

I'm in favour of the idea that it would still factor into your tax bracket. So making a UMI of $15,000 itself is meaningless at tax time, but working a part-time job and escalating that into the $40,000's should place you in that income.

This could mean that it ignores the wealthiest of us on a per year basis if we make more than $100,000 of so.

With the savings from those individuals and the elimination of our bureaucratic social system now, I truly think it should be attempted.

The real problem is the government firing those workers and saving that money. They would not like that.

> The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case.

What do you think the purchasing power of welfare money is? Furthermore, can you really separate the purchasing power of the money utilized in the minimum income and the income from working?

I am also not an economist, but I'd like to frame your Austrian/Keynesian comparison with another one:

Underinvestment (Austrian): There is less investment due to risk being less preferable to steady savings. Example: I won't risk 1 million dollars today on a risky investment if my 1 million dollars next year will be worth more.

Overinvestment (Keynesian): These is over investment due to inflation outpacing savings. People are forced to invest in risky ventures, as at least there is a chance you can earn money as opposed to losing money over time. Example: I risk my 1 million dollars today on a risky (subjective, I'm referring to -10% to 10% gains) investment and if not, will definitely lose 5 percent of that money.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Personally, I see strengths in both styles of economic policy, but believe that in our current economical climate, we are overinvesting and through central planning, mis-investing by stimulating the top echelon of investors who simply buy property (real estate asset prices go up), businesses (mergers & acquisitions), and commodities that hold their value. Look at the rise in value of fine art over the last 6 years. These to me, are signs of a bubble.

Thank you very much for your response.

Furthering your point on neither deflation nor inflation driving economic growth but rather productivity increases, does that mean what the FED is doing through monetary policy zero sum?

I subscribe to a camp that believes that what the FED is doing through quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates, is actually harming the economy by sacrificing quality of life of persons without wealth (investments, property, assets) for gains for those that do (real estate bubble, stock market gains since 2008). Can this be true? Or am I looking at the situation too simplistically?

Regarding the topic at hand, do you believe that bitcoin's low cost of transmission and features such as escrow and consignment lend the commodity-currency true value (like gold's value being that you can wear it, use it for electrical equipment)? Or do you look at the protocol as having no intrinsic value (pure fiat)? -And do you think that that matters as a currency?

Many skeptics claim that a crypto currency backed by a mineral would be ideal, and that bitcoin's only value is in it's perceived worth. They also believe that this means it could be a big tulip party waiting to crash.

I'm not sure what to believe regarding bitcoin's future, as gold has had 4000+ years to earn it's place in the world. Thank you for your time.

What's your opinion on inflation as an economic driver? I'm also a fan of deflation (as I want to save my money) but the Federal Reserve and other central banks (Japan being a notable example) are advocating for higher inflation, which begs another question:

Are they right and both deflation and inflation can supply economic growth? If so, does that mean another factor is the main proponent for growth?

I'd go even farther than you are.

By claiming "if you're a nerd", they're creating a class distinction where one group can and does ascertain truth, while the "others" cannot and will not.

So not only is it the future of dance music, but you'll only know if your privilege and knowledge can allow you to. A modern day hermetics of sorts.

But you know, thats just, my opinion man...

> I think "libertarian socialism" is a worse than worthless contradiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Exactly. If the goal of bitcoin is to be a great buy/sell commodity, then it's definitely looking like a fun rollercoaster ride!

However if it truly wants to be considered a currency, the developments it needs are more ATMs (like the one Vancouver), more merchants accepting bitcoin, and more adoption in terms of velocity.

I'm just critical of power and it's obligations. At many points in history, with enough power people can be made unaccountable. With less power, comes more accountability.

This is why personally I think it would be better if we released medicines and simply had "FDA approved" status post release/post approved by the institution, which would give people the choice to only use FDA approved products, but also give me the choice of utilizing other drugs I can research and make decisions about on my own.

I definitely agree with you. I subscribe to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism.

That said, many, many, people believe that most people are not competent, and need to be taken care of/controlled/limited.

Arguments I usually have to fight against are: What to do about crime. What to do about "evil" people. What to do about property rights. What to do about control in decisions.

This is a great idea. With the saturation the top 1 million websites have on regular search engines, I could see myself using this for more deepnet searches. Thanks!

That saying leaves out one important piece of information from an ealier saying that it was influenced by:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but __don't rule out malice__"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor#Similar_quotatio...

I'm just saying that powerful roles with attract power hungry people. Most regulation positions in banking and telecommunications are generally seated by previous company execs... So what's the difference in this particular regulatory body? I would definitely not make the blanket statement that MD's are always good people. I'm sure some can be pretty devious or ignorant to their (powerful) decisions.

Not at all. You're the one who stated that people are inherently bad and that they need to be controlled. I don't agree with Ayn Rand at all.

I just believe in freedom and liberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism.

Agreed. We can definitly have unrestricted free markets with community owned syndicates and still be able to create tailored products and respond to demans.

IMO, we need to start talking about workplace democracy if we're going to continue to entertain the idea of corporate controlled society, so that the common person can at least get their vote back (indirectly, by choosing who leads the company which bribes officials...).

Doesn't this make the issue of this information being used against politicians and other public officials by ANYONE immediately oblivious?

My question, is that why should we collect this much intelligence, if it's simply just going to be a disadvantage to our democracy? Surely this has already happened, only with a competing government making the demands opposed to a whistleblower using the information as a shield?

What rates? The 20th Century was the most brutal period of war in our entire history. More than 40,000,000 people died in world war 2 alone. That's a low estimate... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_...

But you would think it's more important that we have a lower per 1000 rate would you? Personally, every death to me is a shame, and 40,000,000 in WW2 alone, and us having continual war since 2001 creates an outlook of more war in the future. Don't fool yourself into thinking we couldn't beat that record...

But the 100% innovation would fix that instantly... You broke my horrible if or else argument!

I took it more as being 100% responsible for your actions. But also yielding 100% control of those decisions/creations.

But your point stands. Both options yield death. One instant and real, the other grey and indifferent.

How are things improving? I'm guessing you live in some bubble land where everyone has a great life. San Francisco?

War, Poverty, Oppression, and Moral Decay are more of a problem than ever. Don't mix up my points with social progress, which is an awesome achievement of our society. My moral decay lies more in trust in general and in the institutions we have to trust to function effectively.

War is continuous, with constant tension to this day. Iran and US peace deal for 6 months? Well, looks like Saudia Arabia and Isreal have teamed up to change that? Eastern European Rocket Grid for Rogue States in the area, justification Iran not needed says "Putin"? Fuck you says US/American Narrative of not liking Russians. Chinese and Japanese conflict over islands? Better not attack Japan China, The US has a defensive treaty with them. That would not be a good thing for anyone.

Poverty is continuous. Personally, I find it despicable that some people can live as billionaires with some thousands of children dying needlessly from diarrhea and malnutrition. Sure donating helps, but surely a system that allows such disparity surely something like this isn't shocking... Not to mention the increasing amount of individuals in the US who rely on food assistance (which may be cut by this improving system)...

Oppression need not even be mentioned. Surveillance, Propaganda, the Prison Industrial Complex... You may have heard about the innocent man being forcefully given cavity searches / colonoscopy surgery / etc without probably cause in the US this past month? If not, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWg_JyJJqaU. System is definitely improving. Who needs the 4th amendment...

And lastly, again, moral decay. I'll modify my point to be less nonsensical for you. The fact that this all happens, and people like you say things are improving, given what we see as innovation everyday? That sounds like a decent amount of cognitive dissonance to me! The first step to a non philosophical based moral ground, that can justify/defend a horrifically immoral system, because fuck everyone else, it's comfortable here where I live. To bring up a popular meme, you should check your privilege.

> Are regulators not people

No. They are robots. Robots that know better. How dare you ask such good questions! You now owe us 40$ for violating my authority citizen!

> Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation

Again, would the OP rather live in a world with 100% risk, 100% innovation, or 0% risk, 0% innovation. I know what I'd choose. There's a pretty common theme in some sci-fis that living without risk isn't even life. Something to think about...

> Moral Decay is far too vague and subjective to be usefully compared, but since it is often used as an excuse for Oppression, I feel confident in saying that it's an excellent thing if it is continuing unabated.

I meant the decay of the family during child rearing. The skyrocketing divorce rates since the 2nd world war. The increasingly consumerist yet more alienated individual. Our society that tells our children that women are sex objects, and that ALL men are perverts or rapists. A society that cares more about celebdom than the starvation and suffering within it's borders. A society that disdains racism/intolerance, yet still disenfranchises millions of Native Americans and black African Americans.

I'm not trying to say you subscribe to those things. Just clarifying my point that our competitive/psychopathic society has consequences. As someone who cares about morals (not an American republican, but rather a Canadian Leftist) I think this will only carry our system forward.

Trust me I don't really care if we're lead as a society by authoritarianism, it's just that I'd rather we utilise that system of government's speciality (efficiency) and attempt to use the current resources we have to develop space technology that can mine efficiently. If not, then let's just live freer happier lives while we can?

I'm not disagreeing with governance, just federalism/nationalism/globalism. Let's just run cities? More of a say, more of an impact, and no one else to blame but your own community. Besides, I know that where I live, towns nearby won't raid us. In fact, we'd probably form some confederacy, and share some- dammit! I created a federal government again...

I don't have the answers. But there's plenty of problems (the first step is admitting it!). If you can't see a bleaker future than our grandparents did, than you're not seeing what I see in the next 40 years.