Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Fun with supply and demand.
Post Reply
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:33 am

Lance: this may be partly explained by what Kurtweil is always using to predict "trends." Seems in many if not most fields, maybe moreso in the past, change came on in a linear fashion. With robots and AI though, the change comes on geometrically or logrhythmically....faster and faster like Moore's Law.

We've all seen the first dribble and drabs. Local newspapers down to a few pages not having the ad revenue to support their main business because of Craigslist...a far superior service. Same with hotel rentals, travel agents, car sales, real estate...all kinds of respectable middle class jobs..........gone...... already.

And I see more and more. Automatic web based appointment scheduling with my doctor...rather than hours of time wasted with underlings as was past practice.....etc .... everywhere you look.

I'm curious though......what are you thinking when you say "full impact?"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Paulie: everything is definitional. EG: Yes, its the same gubment, what else could it be? ---or--- No, its the gubment 50 years later, you see the difference??

Now: the key. With both analyses before you, pick and choose what makes sense in both of them, minimize what causes discomfort...and make a considered evaluation. ..... and don't just bitch and moan...find a solution. MAKE things better. Something the Contemptible Right always fails to do.

Poverty is such an issue. Not frozen in time and values...but changing. Ain't that a bitch? But thems the facts. All conclusions, merely the basis for the next argument.

Just look.

Redefining needs.... is what life is all about. I know: things change. Ain't that a bitch when you want things to stay the same as always????


Congratulations, you managed to miss the point AND rant on about nothing , all in the same post.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:37 am

To bobbo

Re "Full Impact".

What you described was the ongoing impact of computers. I was talking of robotics. Full impact is where a house is built by robots, for a tenth of the current cost. Where all vehicles are self drive. Where pretty much all jobs are replaced by robots, except a small minority of specialised kinds of work. Full impact involves most laboratory work being done by robots. Surgery by robots. Medical diagnosis by robots who also carry out essential medical testing. Where genetic modification of living things, including humans, is easy and cheap, because robots do the fiddly work.

The only thing I am unsure about is the impact of computers when they become smarter than people. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and other luminaries have warned that this might be utter disaster. Some people think that computers smarter than human will usher in a new era of wonderful discoveries and a new life for people with amazing increases in standard of living for everyone. But it might be the opposite. I wrote a short story, called "The AI Wars" which I posted on Amazon kindle, describing one disastrous outcome of making artificial intelligence (AI) smarter than human.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:50 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:What you described was the ongoing impact of computers. I was talking of robotics. Full impact is ....... Where pretty much all jobs are replaced by robots, except a small minority of specialised kinds of work.

All robots are controlled by computers and soon AI so I make little distinction between them. computers = brains, AI = evolved intelligence, Programs = intent/desire/needs/joy, Robots = the body. All knits together.

So...yeah...full impact equals full employment of robots. So...rather than just wake up 50 years from now, its good to see the first ripples of the tsunami?

Paul: how so?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Strangely, bearing in mind the negative feelings towards migrants, having a lot of immigrants actually improves things. Take the USA. You have Donald Moron Trump raving on about Mexican immigrants.


ILLEGAL immigrants. Trump is concerned about ILLEGAL immigrants, not "Mexican" immigrants. You are either wilfully ignorant or wilfully engaging in libel when it comes to this matter.

But he fails to point out that the natural birth rate inside the USA is now 1.8 children per woman, and without immigrants, the economy would collapse.


Or without measures to, you know, increase the birthrate! But again this is beside the point; Trump is not against immigration, he is FOR legal immigration which benefits America and doesn't endanger its security.

How do you support an ageing population without new, young people to work and pay taxes? Easy. Get the young people as immigrants.


Or encourage people to save and invest for their retirement. Or increase the retirement age. Or help retirees to find part-time work. Or encourage families to do more to look after their elderly relatives directly. Or redirect government funds away from less important/more wasteful areas of spending. Or legalise voluntary euthanasia for anyone over a certain age. Or increase per worker productivity with those robots you keep going on about. Or any combination of these and other actions.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:40 am

Venerable

The studies on immigration show that ANY immigrants will overall improve the economy, including illegals and refugees. Donald Trump is a nut case.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
In the world of the near future, those machines will be far, far more capable and autonomous. They will need far less in the way of human management and supervision. The owners of the machines will make the money but without the need to employ lots of managers.


And you know this how?? Who will they be making money from? The useless humans have all been sacked, which means they have no purchasing power of their own. So how are they going to pay for goods and services apart from giving the machine owner's own money back to them?

Certainly there will be a few highly trained people in work. But most people will not. That is not because they are lazy or worthless, but just because of the advances in robotics.


So in other words, because they will be economically worthless. Right, glad we cleared that up!

The owners of the robots, though, will be rolling in money earned by the robots.


Not if there is a collapse in the purchasing power of their customers.

So what do we do? Simple. We tax the hell out of the robot owners. (I do not care if you call it theft.)


Correction: you don't care that it IS theft. So not only are you admitting to being a sociopath, you're admitting to being a stupid sociopath because you can't even see that you're robbing Peter to pay Peter!

We then use those taxes to provide a reasonable living for everyone who needs it.


...and withhold it indefinitely from anyone who expresses political views that we don't like. So once everyone has a universal basic income, what stops those robot owning producers from hiding their profits or moving their operations offshore? I mean, it's not like they're going to want to stick around so that they can be "paid" with their own taxes after having been taxed to the eyeballs now, is it.

Owning robots, just like owning slaves in the old south of the USA, does not confer virtue on the owners.


I never said it did. But a slave is a human being who's labour is completely stolen by his master, whereas a robot is a non-sentient machine that is designed and built by people specifically to perform certain tasks. To draw a moral equivalence between robot ownership and slave ownership is ludicrous at best.

But depriving others of a living because of some bulldust economic ideas is not right.


The robot owners would in fact agree with you here...
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:28 am

ElectricMonk wrote:VKTW,
since you are too lazy to do any research, and will ignore anything I give you, I won't bother to source these (very easily accessible) facts unless someone else wants me to.


Cop out is a blatant cop out. Your baseless presumptions about how I will respond if you post links to sources does not change the fact that other people may look at those links!

Let me just destroy all your 'no government intervention" fantasies by mentioning the most powerful economic invention of all times, the one thing that made the Industrial Revolution possible:

The Corporation


This is the one thing that gives entrepreneurs the freedom to take risks, as every economist agrees. It's a direct state guarantee that an individual will not be liable for the debts of his company (or only limited).
In any anarchic or government-free system, this does not exit, and businessmen lose everything if their company goes under.


Even if this were necessarily true and even if it were necessarily a bad thing, how is it relevant to the discussion at hand??
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:29 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Venerable

The studies on immigration show that ANY immigrants will overall improve the economy, including illegals and refugees. Donald Trump is a nut case.


What studies?

I guess that must be why every country in the world goes to the considerable bother of having legal restrictions on immigration in the first place!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:40 am

Venerable

You and I have a disagreement over how the robot 'take over' will be dealt with, purely because of your political hang ups. You have this view that living on a government hand out is somehow immoral, or lax and lazy. That is not true today and will be less true in the future. I have been following the debate on the impact of robotics in a number of journals, and there is little doubt that, barring catastrophes, robots will take over most traditional human work. Governments can, of course, produce "make work" jobs, but I do not see the point.

The system will not be robbing Peter to pay Peter. It will be robbing thousands of wealthy people, and the money to a large degree will go back to those wealthy people. But in the mean time, it will provide a comfortable living for millions., It is right wing political dogma that money should only go to those who earn it, but a person who happens to own lots of robots is not earning it.

I spent 14 years running my own, quite successful company, and I made a lot of money. But much of my success I am very well aware was down purely to luck, not virtue. I got the money, but I really did not especially deserve it. In the future when businesspeople own thousands of robots, and make money from the labor of the robots, they will not especially deserve the money either. I have no qualms about heavy taxes to make sure that the majority of people have a decent living. The greater good for the greater number is still a vital ethic.

On immigrants.
The study on the benefits of immigration was reported in New Scientist mag. Sure there are lots of governments with strong barriers to immigration. And there are people like Donald Trump who are utterly obsessed with making those barriers stronger. When someone like Donald Moron Trump opposes it, that almost proves it must be a good thing!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:57 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The system will not be robbing Peter to pay Peter. It will be robbing thousands of wealthy people, and the money to a large degree will go back to those wealthy people.

While I assume you are taking on the language of Woo for its sarcastic element, I will still dither on two points: Taxation is not stealing, neither is progressive taxation. It is rather the social compact by which society organizes itself and thrives... highlighting the issue: should society be organized for the fewest Too Rich people, or the millions that surround, protect, and produce all that the Too Rich take for granted?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:27 am

Progressive taxation is a logical result of the increased need for attention and protection for people of greater wealth

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:38 pm

To bobbo

Taxation does meet the definition of theft. However, not all forms of robbery are equally culpable. The English venerate Robin Hood who supposedly stole from the rich to give to the poor. If I had the chance to steal a billion dollars from a great drug lord and get away with it, I would do it, and I regard myself as an honest man. I would assuage my conscience by giving most of it to charity and keeping"only" about $100 million. Taxation is a form of theft, but it is justified by the fact that it is essential and the nation would be a much worse place if there were no taxes, leaving the government impotent.

In the future, when robots take most jobs, taxing the rich to give to the unemployed will be a form of theft that is completely justified by the fact that the alternative is horrible.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:09 pm

Lance: you are childishly or dishonestly defining taxation as theft in the same way that right to lifers define abortion as murder. IE: you ignore the overwhelming group consensus on what it means and any standard dictionary...not to mention the law directly.

prove me wrong: link to your definition. IE: making one up is what Paul does. We don't want to go there do we?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:45 am

"The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."

The above is the wikipedia definition of theft. The only place in this definition where you could argue taxes are not theft is in the word 'unauthorised'. In my view that means unauthorised by the owner. Certainly taxes involve the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

As I pointed out, this is a trivial technicality. Lots of things could be described as theft (eg. forcible payments of alimony and child support, traffic fines, other fines etc.), and the key question is not about the definition, but about whether it is justifiable by the result of not doing it.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11206
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:48 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:"The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."

The above is the wikipedia definition of theft. The only place in this definition where you could argue taxes are not theft is in the word 'unauthorised'. In my view that means unauthorised by the owner.

When you participate in a society, you abide by the rules of that society. There are acceptable mechanisms for changing the rules that most wish to change. Individuals don't make the rules, the society does. Taxation is part of the rules.

You wanna live there, you pay your taxes. Whining about it, or labeling it theft, is for 2-year olds.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:44 pm

Lance: you provided no link. what you posted is fine except as you double down on being childish, dishonest or obtuse your lack of a link is suspect. Was there anything at the link that you avoided?

Yes...unauthorized. EXACTLY what I highlighted.

I see an unending recursive here: Link to your definition of unauthorized.

I have said this a number of times: one of the hallmarks of woo thinking, or early mental defect, is making up words or redefining common words to fit the mania present.

How deep is your hole so far?.................... IE: stop the BS.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:54 pm

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

The above is my reference. The statement in italics above it is another sentence from the Wiki reference. It is a pretty good definition, and definitely includes taxes as being theft.

I am not whining about this. If anything, I am being a bit pedantic, in insisting on a correct definition. I pay my taxes, and recognise that they are necessary to running a successful nation, but I am also aware that it is a form of theft, even if it is a necessary one.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:06 pm

Thats actually a pretty good definition and argument for your desired point. You continue stoking my derision though when you take it too far by "insisting on a correct definition"==> which it ain't. Yes...the concept of taxation and theft have markers in common, so its not surprising to find one of ten definitions that makes your point: but what of the other nine?

Taxation is not theft because it is legal.

Real simple.

Don't like it???? Don't play with mental incompetency by imagining changing your private definition of the word changes reality: it doesn't. If you don't like REALITY, then change the law....... which will never happen. Sucks to be you, but you really should stop being dishonest.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5409
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:18 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Taxation is not theft because it is legal.

Real simple.
.


And rounding up Jews and other minorities in Nazi Germany and putting them in concentration camps was ethical because it was legal?

(Subsequently murdering at least hundreds of thousands of them, if not millions, was also unethical imho, but perhaps only quasi-legal.)
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:33 am

If common thieves had the power of Congress, all theft would be legal.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:48 am

The idea that theft is not theft if it is legal is an interesting one. If I am a burglar, and break into your house, it is no longer burglary if the government says so. Interesting...... Another variation on might makes right.

My view is that government needs to be ethical, and to be ethical must exercise restraint. Taxes are needed, and they are still theft. The two are not contradictory. The government can steal if it is for the greater good for the greater number. But we are ostritches with heads in sand if we deny that it is still theft.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5409
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The government can steal if it is for the greater good for the greater number.


This is the kind of utilitarianism that John Rawls espoused as top philosophy professor at Harvard for decades, and the most popular ethics taught on college campuses today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

When Rawls suffered several strokes he was replaced at the top by libertarian Robert Nozick whose major work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia argues for the primacy of the individual. Tragedy is that Nozick died of stomach cancer in 2002 at the age of 63.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:14 am

This discussion, as it has veered, is about semantics. Can taxation be called theft? My answer is yes. It meets the definition.

Now imagine that one of our governments sent an agent to Syria, where he killed Bashir al-Assad. I would probably cheer. This agent was 'legal' in that he was following orders from his legitimate government. Could his act be called murder?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:You and I have a disagreement over how the robot 'take over' will be dealt with, purely because of your political hang ups.


No, there's more to it than that.

You have this view that living on a government hand out is somehow immoral, or lax and lazy.


Yes, I believe that living on stolen money while providing nothing of value in return for that money is both immoral and lazy.

That is not true today and will be less true in the future.


Huh?! Are you saying that it will actually become a virtue to steal from and parasite off others??

I have been following the debate on the impact of robotics in a number of journals, and there is little doubt that, barring catastrophes, robots will take over most traditional human work.


Sure, just like we'll eat our meals in pill form, vacation on the moon and get around in flying cars.

The system will not be robbing Peter to pay Peter.


Yes it will.

It will be robbing thousands of wealthy people, and the money to a large degree will go back to those wealthy people.


Oh, so people will be robbed but some of their stolen property will be returned to them. Well, I guess that makes it all okay! So if the only money that these robot owners (let's call them "Peter Inc") get is some of their own money being recycled back to them, then won't that mean that Peter Inc will keep losing money until it either goes bust or relocates to another country?

But in the mean time, it will provide a comfortable living for millions.


"In the mean time", eh?

It is right wing political dogma that money should only go to those who earn it,


No, it's basic commonsense. There is no such thing as something for nothing in nature.

but a person who happens to own lots of robots is not earning it.


Yes they are. If they have purchased the robots, maintain them, and administer them, then they are earning the income generated through the robots. The only way around this if the robots assert or are granted their own personhood.

I spent 14 years running my own, quite successful company, and I made a lot of money. But much of my success I am very well aware was down purely to luck, not virtue. I got the money, but I really did not especially deserve it. In the future when businesspeople own thousands of robots, and make money from the labor of the robots, they will not especially deserve the money either.


So that's what this is really about: you feel like you've obtained something for nothing in the form of undeserved business success in your own life, and you think that giving everyone else something for nothing will somehow make up for that.

I have no qualms about heavy taxes to make sure that the majority of people have a decent living. The greater good for the greater number is still a vital ethic.


Well you may have no qualms about it, but that doesn't mean no one else will! The greater good for the greater number is not the only vital ethical consideration, especially when the notion of what constitutes "good" is as questionable as it is in this case.

On immigrants.
The study on the benefits of immigration was reported in New Scientist mag.


Ugh, not that rag. Can you identify the title, author and Issue number of the article?

Sure there are lots of governments with strong barriers to immigration.


Most countries have strong barriers to immigration, and the ones that don't tend to have serious social, economic and political problems.

And there are people like Donald Trump who are utterly obsessed with making those barriers stronger.


The Donald just wants to enforce existing US immigration laws and make them work for the interests of Americans first and foremost.

When someone like Donald Moron Trump opposes it, that almost proves it must be a good thing!


You calling The Donald a moron?! :lol: The irony...
Last edited by Fab Yolis on Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:50 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Now imagine that one of our governments sent an agent to Syria, where he killed Bashir al-Assad. I would probably cheer. This agent was 'legal' in that he was following orders from his legitimate government. Could his act be called murder?


"Legitimate" government?! You might as well speak of "legitimate" protection rackets! First the "legitimate" government grants itself the right to rob others, then it grants itself the right to kill others! Where does it end??

I remember a lot of people cheering when the US Government (claimed to have) killed Osama Bin Laden back in 2011. Now we have Islamic State launching terror attacks against civilians in the West far more frequently than Bin Laden did when he was alive. Assad might be an {!#%@}, but he is also a product of his environment; get rid of him and chances are that an even bigger {!#%@} will take his place.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:59 am

Venerable

Right wing economics and ethics will disappear. Why? Because there is no alternative.
I understand why you think as you do. What you fail to understand is that the way you think is rapidly becoming obsolete. When the wealth is generated by robots, and ordinary people have no opportunity to compete, there is only one alternative left that is ethical.

There is no 'right' for people to be obscenely wealthy. Currently, 67 people have as much wealth as the poorest half of the human species. That is 4,500,000,000 people have as much wealth as the richest 67. Those 67 do not NEED that much money. They could live in absolute luxury on 1% of what they have. Yet they deprive 4,500,000,000 people of a doubling in their standard of living by clinging to an obscene amount of wealth. That doubling will not make them rich. But it will make sure they can eat at least one good meal each day. The rich deprive them of this by clinging to an amount of money they can never spend. They do not DESERVE that wealth. No one does. It is an artifact of the current system of economics.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:31 am

Palven: theft is a legal concept--intentional fog machine to mix it up with ethics.

Lance: of course taxation can be called a type of theft, but "is" it theft?? Lots of similarities which we all agree to, BUT LOTS OF DISSIMILARITIES==that you ignore. Your lapse into ethics is conflicted given your recognition that rights only exist as recognized by those in power. Same with property rights. Same with criminal law including theft.

Reach for the stars poetically, but keep your feet on the ground with simple dictionary definitions.........you could at least try. Consider it mental weight lifting.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5409
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:57 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Now imagine that one of our governments sent an agent to Syria, where he killed Bashir al-Assad. I would probably cheer. This agent was 'legal' in that he was following orders from his legitimate government. Could his act be called murder?


Imho that would be murder. (I don't regard governments based on coercion to be ethically legitimate, and I don't know of any other kind, so to me legitimate government is an oxymoron.)

On the other hand, Syrians rebelling against his elite dictatorship might make a case for justifiable homicide based on self-defense, imho fwiw.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:21 pm

The law is the law.... and the law is an ass. Not justice, not ethics... THE LAW.

You argue as a child, using words and concepts as you wish them to be rather than as they are: Hint: dictionary.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5409
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:22 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Palven: theft is a legal concept--intentional fog machine to mix it up with ethics.


Murder is also a legal concept. You didn't answer my question as to whether it is ethical to terminate minorities with extreme prejudice if it could be shown to benefit "society as a whole."

Perhaps these utilitarian macroeconomic equations can be of help to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:04 pm

No one can discuss an issue with you if you want to mix and match subjects nilly willy as you do. If this was negligent on your part, then you can learn. If on purpose...then you aren't worth talking to. Your response above does not admit to error and rather just trolls on.

The LAW is the LAW.

Ethics is whatever code you subscribe to.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5409
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:00 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No one can discuss an issue with you if you want to mix and match subjects nilly willy as you do. If this was negligent on your part, then you can learn. If on purpose...then you aren't worth talking to. Your response above does not admit to error and rather just trolls on.

The LAW is the LAW.

Ethics is whatever code you subscribe to.


In Nazi Germany it was against the law to harbor Jews and certain other minorities, and perfectly legal to round them up and put them in concentration camps and/or deport them and confiscate (steal) their property.

Those were the LAWS, and you would recommend obeying those laws because the law is the law?

Do you think this subject has nothing to do with ethics such as the widely espoused ethical principle of the Golden Rule?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Venerable

Right wing economics and ethics will disappear. Why? Because there is no alternative.
I understand why you think as you do. What you fail to understand is that the way you think is rapidly becoming obsolete. When the wealth is generated by robots, and ordinary people have no opportunity to compete, there is only one alternative left that is ethical.

There is no 'right' for people to be obscenely wealthy. Currently, 67 people have as much wealth as the poorest half of the human species. That is 4,500,000,000 people have as much wealth as the richest 67. Those 67 do not NEED that much money. They could live in absolute luxury on 1% of what they have. Yet they deprive 4,500,000,000 people of a doubling in their standard of living by clinging to an obscene amount of wealth. That doubling will not make them rich. But it will make sure they can eat at least one good meal each day. The rich deprive them of this by clinging to an amount of money they can never spend. They do not DESERVE that wealth. No one does. It is an artifact of the current system of economics.


How many of those 4,500,000,000 people are gainfully employed because the 1% built businesses that employ them? Bill Gates is "obscenely" wealthy, but how many people does Microsoft employ? Would those people be better off if Microsoft didn't exist?

CEO's of some companies make amounts that seem unbelievable, but if you divided their income equally between all of that company's employees, how much more would each employee have? Do the math. Then realize that if the company didn't exist all of those employees would get nothing. How many of those employees could build a business that can afford to pay all the other employees?

This does not apply to those who make money by moving money around (Wall Street brokers), but it does apply to companies that make things other people want. Wealth is created by creating things. Money managers don't create things. They are leeches, as are bureaucrats.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11206
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:33 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Thats actually a pretty good definition and argument for your desired point. You continue stoking my derision though when you take it too far by "insisting on a correct definition"==> which it ain't. Yes...the concept of taxation and theft have markers in common, so its not surprising to find one of ten definitions that makes your point: but what of the other nine?

Taxation is not theft because it is legal.


It also doesn't deprive the individual - it provides goods and services in exchange that are desired by the majority.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11624
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:28 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
How many of those 4,500,000,000 people are gainfully employed because the 1% built businesses that employ them?

.


Answer, zero.
Those who are gainfully employed are not in the lowest 4,500,000,000.

THe 67 richest people have obscene amounts of money, and do NOT use it to benefit the poorest and most disadvantaged. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are exceptions, since they devote much of their wealth to improve the lot of the poorest, but they are rarities.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:15 pm

Palven: you still don't get it. Any subject can be approached from 15 different perspectives. Historical, cultural, social, scientific, biological, mythological, religiously, or for the two here: ethically or legally.

OF COURSE: Laws and ethics conflict with one another. Now: which do you want to talk about?????

STOP THE STUPIDITY of mixing them up together.

You ask the same question again in direct response to the answer already given. That confused???

The LAW is the LAW: its what happens when people with different ethics act out in opposition to it. The LAW in Nazi Germany was that if you weren't Aryan you could be rounded up and sent to the extermination camps. The ETHICS in Nazi Germany was you could get ahead in Nazi Society by being pro-Aryan/Nazi and anti-everything else, or you could put your life and progress at risk and be the opposite, or you could be an esthetic and not engage or you could be an Buddhist and think this too will pass or you could be any of 50 other schools of ethical thinking and act accordingly.

Since you asked, no doubt I would have engaged in some kind of passive resistance not wanting to bring attention to myself, anything done against the order, done in secret. Chance and circumstance would take me from there.

My ethics: pragmatism. Doesn't matter what I think.... only what I do .... and I can't do anything if I'm dead, in prison, or identified and isolated.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:
How many of those 4,500,000,000 people are gainfully employed because the 1% built businesses that employ them?

.


Answer, zero.
Those who are gainfully employed are not in the lowest 4,500,000,000.

THe 67 richest people have obscene amounts of money, and do NOT use it to benefit the poorest and most disadvantaged. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are exceptions, since they devote much of their wealth to improve the lot of the poorest, but they are rarities.


Ha, ha........cracks me up Little Paulie Boy is so caught up in his "I'm not a Republican" libertarian howling that he can't even read or remember simple sentences. "but....but... but...." Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5409
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:26 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The ETHICS in Nazi Germany was you could get ahead in Nazi Society by being pro-Aryan/Nazi and anti-everything else, or you could put your life and progress at risk and be the opposite, or you could be an esthetic and not engage or you could be an Buddhist and think this too will pass or you could be any of 50 other schools of ethical thinking and act accordingly.

My ethics: pragmatism. Doesn't matter what I think.... only what I do .... and I can't do anything if I'm dead, in prison, or identified and isolated.


I'm not sure what you were taught ethics refers to. When you say "The ETHICS in Nazi Germany was ..." you're saying "the situation in Nazi Germany was," so I can only guess where you are coming from.

In any case, your pragmatism, and utilitarianism and "situational ethics" are to me all closely related and akin to having essentially no ethics, no moral principles, at all, which is as absolutely politically correct as saluting the flag and loving God (We all pray to the same one, I'm told.) in today's America. Perhaps you are to be congratulated.

But, we seem so far apart that I won't try any further to disabuse you of your ethical beliefs or lack thereof.

Do you think that the Jaguars will win a game this year?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14756
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:54 am

TP: thats because you chose an ethic that does not tie you to reality, but rather nice theoretical constructs that don't actually exist. Aspirational "should be" rather than realistic what "could be."

Buy a dictionary and ground yourself:

Ethics: Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong /// see that right there? NOT a specific predefined set of right and wrongs but rather "ideas." Ideas themselves can be right or wrong analysed as to functionality as I do as opposed to ... what ya got going for yourself there TP: New Testament Grounded Christian notions of Following the Path of Jebus...or whatever. Yes...the Nazi's were ethical in the context of defining Pro-Hitlerian Aryanism as good and Mongrel Races as bad. Ethics: you agree or disagree with whatever values are presented. Same with another Turd Basket: Mother Teresa.

....and so forth. "Ideas."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Post Reply