Re FW Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
So Brad, I disagree, it is not the perks of the office meeting or a businessman's lunch that keeps capitalism going, it is the perverting of life to a language that defines reality as a competition which of course is reinforced with sciences current love affair with evolution. Let me ask you a question? Why do humans have bad teeth? If evolution was all it is cracked up to be, surely we could have evolved out of tooth decay. If you have no teeth, it is pretty hard to chew grain or a hunk of meat. I had only time to glance through, but this caught my eye, as I cannot understand the gist of it. What's your problem with evolution? Before you knock it, read up on it, you seem to have the time... The few thousand of years since human lifespan started to be longer is bagatelle in evolutionary timescales. People used to die by the time their teeth decayed. Besides, evolution is basically a random process, there is no "ultimate reason" for all the bits and pieces we have, if something not hindering survival, it may stay if it is related with an otherwise important gene. I haven't read up on it, but this is my impression. Science has no "love affair" with anything; if the theory works, it is kept, if it found wanting and one found approximating reality better, it is chucked. This is not a postmodernist crap of "changing paradigm" as the new theory often contains but updates the old one. Eva Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re FW Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
This is in reply to Brad McCormick's posting in which he argues that "a more nuanced sociological inequity" is the real or more real reason that capitalism exists. It's an interesting thought. Yes, and what about the "mob" and "pirates", perhaps it would be better to just label them "illegal entrepreneurs", but then of course so are wage earners in a sense entrepreneurs. Why would someone study for 5 years of apprenticeship to have the privilege of unstopping plugged toilets except they perceive that activity will give them the best rate of return on their learning investment. So it comes down in the end that all who work or engage others to work are in an entrepreneurial system to get the most "profit" from their particular circumstances. If it happens to have some perks, like deductible lunches or writing off your car expenses - hey just another little reward (profit) to be gotten out of the system. I concur that "If profits per se were the real final objective (solution?), then, in a way somewhat analogous to a Laplacian universe, language would cease to have any logical force (being reduced, everywhere and always, to a market penetration tool), which I believe it is because almost any discussion sooner or later leads to a monetization evaluation. The degree to which we have come to view the world and the activities that humans can do in the world has been reduced to the Cartesian and Rouseaean concepts of logic, number and eventually to money to such a degree and has so perverted language that discussions of any activity become impossible without a monetized evaluation. One of the advantages that attracts me to the concept of a Basic Income as a "right" for every citizen of every country is that I perceive it to be the sword that can cut through the unreality of numeracy and logic and the resultant of that line of thinking which leads to monetization. It would seem to me, that any advanced society would make it a basic right to provide the economic assistance that would assure the daily survival of every member of the race. Of course, we cannot have discussions of "rights" in this society without the argument of costs and benefits and who pays and who receives, all language which destroys morality, fairness, sharing, consideration, affection, respect of others and many of the other words that we as humans use in our interactions with each other but are negated by a capitalistic system. Like horses, we have been born to pull the plow. For what? Survival isn't the problem, distribution of goods and services is the problem. Even with our inflated world population, effective redistribution of wealth, products, food and services, most if not all could live a comfortable life. It may not be the life of the energy pigs in the Western world but a life of food and shelter and community and access to learning and occupation and family is possible through the concept of sharing. It is not possible, in my opinion through the concept of profit. So Brad, I disagree, it is not the perks of the office meeting or a businessman's lunch that keeps capitalism going, it is the perverting of life to a language that defines reality as a competition which of course is reinforced with sciences current love affair with evolution. Let me ask you a question? Why do humans have bad teeth? If evolution was all it is cracked up to be, surely we could have evolved out of tooth decay. If you have no teeth, it is pretty hard to chew grain or a hunk of meat. You stated, "I think "competition" serves more as a kind of social glue for the persons involved." If by social glue, you mean sucking up so that you can take advantage, I concur. We existed for a long time with cooperative models of human association and our basic biological model of the family is the ultimate cooperative model. We have left that behind to move to the concept of the wolverine - get together to mate and the rest of life is looking out for number one and by the way, don't forget to negotiate a good pension. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Fw Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
My suggestion of starting the Basic Income with the 18-25 year old was hinting at a possible point of departure. Let them (our youth) do with it the way they see fit. I'm sure it couldn't be worst. Who knows, true "educators" might just emerge from such a crowd of liberated (financially) youths. That reminds me of a cute tagline we used to include with our FIDO posts : "Hire a teenager, while he still knows everything". At 11:39 98-02-27 -0500, Arthur Cordell wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thomas Lunde wrote: snip, snip, snip. I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation. How does this happen? The re-educators have to have legitimacy. Where do they 'teach', how are they paid, why will anyone listen to them. The change needed is profound. So profound that I have trouble finding a place to start (this especially now when children are being taught computer skills in kindergarten so they can become part of the new 'educated' workforce.) arthur cordell "The end of labor is to gain leisure." Aristotle. -- ARG d'Ottawa ON Canada. Futuriste-au-loisir maintenant. --
Re: Fw Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Excuse me if this is a reposting. -- Jim Dator wrote: But my concern is for those, who for whatever reason, do not want to be, or are unable to be, 'knowledge' workers. Will there be a place for them in our future economy? Sure, you can retrain many workers, but we need decent jobs even for those who do not fit in to the ideal of the 21st century worker. These two paragraphs indicate how strong our current paradigm is that self worth comes from worthwhile employment. I would argue that we need decent incomes for all rather than decent jobs for all. We have accepted as a culture that not to work is to be not worthy. Yet others have posted and I agree with them that in one way or the other everyone works. The Budda did not have a job and yet to say his contribution to thought and philosophy was worthless could be strongly argued. The idea behind this thread is to accept the concept that there may not be monetized jobs for everyone - that will, perhaps be, the "fact' of the 21st century. The question then becomes, do we provide decent incomes for all or do we marginalize a minority which if automation continues may become a majority. So the issue is not just automation. It is finding a place in our economy for everyone that rewards knowledge, effort and ability. Again, I would argue that an economy is a device that we have invented. Like any technology, it is subject to improvement. Perhaps we may find that we require a way to invent an ecomomy in which something else is monetized instead of labour. If we cannot find such a place, we will not have a sustainable economy, or a sustainable social system. Again I might argue that our current concept of an economy is not demonstrating either of your two criteria. If sustainability is the goal, capitalism may not be the method or at least capitalism as is now pracitised. If the industrialists will not learn this message, I hope that the public will elect politicians who do! I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation. Dennis Paull, Los Altos, CA Note! I am a well paid automation engineer. Note I am not a well paid welfare recipient
Re: Fw Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thomas Lunde wrote: snip, snip, snip. I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation. How does this happen? The re-educators have to have legitimacy. Where do they 'teach', how are they paid, why will anyone listen to them. The change needed is profound. So profound that I have trouble finding a place to start (this especially now when children are being taught computer skills in kindergarten so they can become part of the new 'educated' workforce.) arthur cordell
Re: Fw Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation. How does this happen? The re-educators have to have legitimacy. Where do they 'teach', how are they paid, why will anyone listen to them. What implied - if time runs out - is the force of circumstance and experience, the best educators. When there will be no other choice and people take over their workplaces, they will notice that they can manage them without the "legitimacy" of shareholders. What legitimacy do you mean? Eva The change needed is profound. So profound that I have trouble finding a place to start (this especially now when children are being taught computer skills in kindergarten so they can become part of the new 'educated' workforce.) arthur cordell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Arthur Cordell wrote, The change needed is profound. So profound that I have trouble finding a place to start (this especially now when children are being taught computer skills in kindergarten so they can become part of the new 'educated' workforce.) Actually, my four-year old is quite comfortable turning on the computer and booting up the programs he wants to play with. He types his name with much greater ease than he writes (he's only learned to write five or six letters, but he can type them all). I went to two events at Simon Fraser University this week that bring home how profound the education problem is. The first was a president's lecture on the topic of economic fundamentalism. The second was a teach-in organized by students and counter-culture youth. The contrast between the two events was vivid but the common element was a sense of paralysis. Although both events expressed criticism of the MAI in particular and the general drift of neo-liberal policy in general, there was no overlap between the participants (other than myself). In fact, it was almost inconceivable how there could have been a meeting of the minds between the two groups. The images of procrastination and narcissism occur to me to describe the contrast. This is going to sound paradoxical, but what both sets of "teachers" need to do is heighten their sense of identification with the social order they are presumably criticizing. Both the critical academics and the alienated youth seem to have adopted stances outside of authority and responsibility. This affect of powerlessness is particularly ironic for the academics because it mirrors the warrant of powerlessness claimed by, say, U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (and made famous by Madame Thatcher's TINA, "there is no alternative.") There is an alternative. It is printed on an 81/2 x 11 piece of paper I've been carrying around in my briefcase for the past couple of days. It's not perfected yet, but the machine can be assembled with three cuts of an x-acto knife and five folds. The machine induces either alpha or beta brain waves depending on how it's being deployed. I guess you could call it virtual brain surgery. I'm kidding, of course. Or am I? Who really wants to know? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Fw Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Durant wrote: I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation. How does this happen? The re-educators have to have legitimacy. Where do they 'teach', how are they paid, why will anyone listen to them. What implied - if time runs out - is the force of circumstance and experience, the best educators. When there will be no other choice and people take over their workplaces, they will notice that they can manage them without the "legitimacy" of shareholders. What legitimacy do you mean? I was thinking about the way in which, for example, someone speaking at Hyde Park might be listened to vs. someone, saying much the same sort of thing, speaking from Cambridge of from Downing St. or from the City. Sparking the willingness to make internal shifts rests on trust of the communicator. arthur cordell
Re: Fw Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
-- Hi all, [Thomas Lunde wrote...] Excuse me if this is a reposting. -- But my concern is for those, who for whatever reason, do not want to be, or are unable to be, 'knowledge' workers. Will there be a place for them in our future economy? Sure, you can retrain many workers, but we need decent jobs even for those who do not fit in to the ideal of the 21st century worker. These two paragraphs indicate how strong our current paradigm is that self worth comes from worthwhile employment. I would argue that we need decent incomes for all rather than decent jobs for all. We have accepted as a culture that not to work is to be not worthy. Yet others have posted and I agree with them that in one way or the other everyone works. The Budda did not have a job and yet to say his contribution to thought and philosophy was worthless could be strongly argued. The idea behind this thread is to accept the concept that there may not be monetized jobs for everyone - that will, perhaps be, the "fact' of the 21st century. The question then becomes, do we provide decent incomes for all or do we marginalize a minority which if automation continues may become a majority. Tom points out the two avenues towards a solution of our perceived economic situation. 1. We can distribute moneys to those who are not direct participants in the cash economy. This is a path that may follow from the experience of some European countries. 2. As I pointed out earlier, we may monitize the work that is not currently considered part of our ash economy. I contend that this may be the easier path in the US where I live. (I recognize the confusion between CA as in California and CA as in Canada.) I don't really think that these paths differ all that much. They are just two roads to a similar destination. It has yet to be shown that there is not a need for personal services in as great a quantity as the labor force may provide. Most people like to be waited on, in one manner or another. The problem is that these jobs have been under-valued. Until wage payments are raised, or goods made cheap enough through automation, we will be unable to pay a livable wage for most kinds of personal services. I am concerned about another phenomenon. There is the likelihood that thoughtful computer programs and the Internet will allow the most skilled in certain service areas, namely education and medicine, to spread their influence very widely and displace local less-skilled practitioners. So the issue is not just automation. It is finding a place in our economy for everyone that rewards knowledge, effort and ability. Again, I would argue that an economy is a device that we have invented. Like any technology, it is subject to improvement. Perhaps we may find that we require a way to invent an ecomomy in which something else is monetized instead of labour. If we cannot find such a place, we will not have a sustainable economy, or a sustainable social system. Again I might argue that our current concept of an economy is not demonstrating either of your two criteria. If sustainability is the goal, capitalism may not be the method or at least capitalism as is now pracitised. If the industrialists will not learn this message, I hope that the public will elect politicians who do! I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation. Dennis Paull, Los Altos, CA Note! I am a well paid automation engineer. Politicians are not all of one note. They vary almost as much as their constituents. It is a problem that these days those aspiring candidates who really have the interests of the voters of their districts at heart are chased off by the high cost of raising money. They also having to listen to the whines of those who have provided those funds. Many good folks who might led us in the economic direction being discussed on this list simply refuse to run. If we, the voters, could push the existing movers and shakers to make some of the changes we propose, we may very well attract a new class of more future-thinking leaders. It will take all our efforts to popularize and make socially acceptable what we propose. Let's get with it. It is not rocket science. Most welfare recipients are equally able to promote our ideas as engineers, moreso really as they may have the contacts among the ranks of non-voters that is necessary to turn us around. If everyone voted their personal interests the world would be a much different place. In the US at least, the existing crop of government leaders seem bent on discouraging participation. The same, only moreso for the national media.
RE: FW Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Arthur Cordell wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thomas Lunde wrote: snip, snip, snip. I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation. How does this happen? The re-educators have to have legitimacy. Where do they 'teach', how are they paid, why will anyone listen to them. Like Eva's answer, I'm sorry if I misled you Arthur, the re-educating I think will happen will not happen in the classroom, it will happen from several other sources. The primary one is experience. There are now millions of Canadian workers who will never allow a corporation to hold their loyalties like they once did. Downsize me once and I will be prepared the next time or even better, I will feel much more free to move when opportunity becomes available. The stock market is another, as it cycles through it's attempts at rebalancing, it will cause many to lose and few to gain. The weather is another, have you heard of El Nino - what do you think the cost of El Nino will be worldwide in lives, lost crops, ecological damage, emergency government aid, insurance costs for property and life. Jay Hanson's information on impending fuel shortages. Nuclear power phase out with no adequate replacement. The millennium bug. The current welfare system is another - people who have been self sufficient all their lives are having the experience of standing in welfare lines. The Internet which brings everyone's problems to everyone else, instantaneously. Secondly, new ideas are loose on the land. The Newtonian physics model is dead, it's just taking a little time to carry the body away. Capitalism is showing major cracks that were deferred by the cold war, it's like Henry George's Land Rents in economic thinking, or our idea of a Basic Income, Proportional voting,, a cashless society. The Internet through your TV set, instant access for everyone. This kind of learning is going on in everyone's life and people listen because it is their experience. The change needed is profound. So profound that I have trouble finding a place to start (this especially now when children are being taught computer skills in kindergarten so they can become part of the new 'educated' workforce.) I too rant at seeing my daughters being trained to use a day timer. I am consoled by the fact that no permanent harm will be done because daytimers will probably become obsolete in the kind of society that will exist in 20 years. We are in the middle of a great cultural change. From the centre of the whirlpool, facing death momentarily, it is very hard to objectively plan the future, explain the present or learn from a past that is increasingly irrelevant. The business community at the moment enjoys the strength that the nobility did in 15, 16 and 17th century Europe. No one then could foresee what would happen in the 18th, 19th and 20 th centuries except that the nobility has become very scarce and ineffective. Similar unforeseen changes will happen soon or are happening now. Education no longer happens in schools, by the time a teacher learns it, writes about it and teaches it, it is already obsolete. Most of the noise about a University education will, I predict, turn out to be redundant. In a few years, we will walk around with a voice activated data bank that will provide us any answer we can think of the question too. Education as we know it, the learning of facts and techniques will be obsolete. The real education will be learning how to ask the question. Our personal tutor will be able to assist us in fixing the washing machine, get the latest statistics on juvenile crime in regards to shoplifting and tell us of the ten most effective treatment programs as quickly as we can listen to the answer. In detailing a specific incident, it can provide us with advice, ask for more information, connect us to someone with that particular expertise in real time - no more appointments, research, or points of view. If the expert requires a visual, we will be able to digitize sound and video to provide remote viewing. Think of the cell phone - a dream ten years ago. Think of the fax machine, an impossible technological challenge 15 years ago. Think of the photocopier - it solved an incredible problem thirty years ago. More and more we are carrying the world with us - we don't have to go to the world. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS Just note on this small list in the last week, about how a question from Jim Dator re automation provided three book titles, some intelligent commentary and some anecdotal experience. How long would it have taken Jim to get the same information in 1960?
Re: FW Some hard questions about basic income 1
Brad wrote: IMO, this is the *key*. I seem to have lost the meaning of IMO which makes it hard to understand several of your messages. Sorry about the large print, this blankity blank program is not following it's set up or I don't know how to set it up. Grey hairs are multiplying. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: FW Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Thomas Lunde wrote: Dear Tor: I appreciate your posting and your eloquent comments about everyone wanting to contribute. I seem to recall when reading the FW archives that you tried to start a small business growing something in the sea and that you were forced to discontinue it because you could not find adequate financing for your project and your livelihood. The original question posed the question that everyone - man - woman - child receive a Basic Income. Obviously the combined Basic Income for a family would be higher than for an individual. With that security and your desire and stubbornness, would you have felt secure enough to continue after your major setback? I am teaching now, and it is fine because I have some bright pupils, and I am living a place where I like to live, and I have considerable freedom to develop my education and my situation. However, let's be frank. If 5% of the people chose to be TV watchers, layabouts, deadbeats or whatever for 20 years and then decided to do something - would that be unconscionable? Your question brings into play the deep seated bias we have in the Western world that work is the primary consideration for any sane person. However, the reality is, that there is not enough paid work to go around. Raising children is work - my daughters have just been sick with the flu for a week and my days have been long and tiresome - I have worked, I have just not been paid. In a sense, the Basic Income is a way of recognizing all the unpaid work done in society rather than work that has been monetized. Is this a compelling reason to advocate a Basic Income? For those who work and don't get paid, I'm sure the answer would be "yes". For those doing monetized work and perhaps some of their productivity being used to make the payroll, the answer may well be "no." I hope that we are doing something with a situation like that. The new governement in Norway is going for what is called "kontant-stoette" - "cash-support", an increase in the benefits that parents get by 3000 kroner, about 400 US dollars per month per child under the age of six. If you add to this the regular child-benefits and that parents do not pay taxes from this money, we have got the situation that parents who stay home taking care of three children less than six year old will get the same income as a person gets in a full time job. And today when people stay home to take care of children or relatives etc. who needs care, they get the rigth to pensions. They get the same points in the pension fund as they would have got if they were working earning about 25.000 US dollars a year. This is an example of how an arrangement that already exists and covers a part of the population can be extended to cover larger parts of the population. (First the authorities paid most of the expences by having a child in a daycare-center, and now it looks like everybody with children can get this amount of money). These arrangements are like agreements/contracts: If you are in such or such a situation then you are entitled to this and that. The big problem is for those who are not in any of those situations. They have to rely on welfare, and it is humiliating and in some municipalities it is hardly enough to make a life. There are other arrangements that can be extended to cover larger groups. F.ex students loan and scholarships can be extended to cover everybody that wants to learn something or make a kind of intellectual accomplishment of some kind. Today people have to be a student of a university/college/high-school etc, some formal institution. Everybody, even on their own, should be allowed to take part in this arrangement. It is quite generous in Norway: Everybody gets scholarships, and the loans will never ruin you, because you never have to pay more than seven percents of your income back annualy, no matter how big your debt is. And if you are without an income the governement pays the interest rents. A guaranteed basic income would not cost much in Norway because the arrangements that exists today are already so extensive that it is just a little bit more that is lacking. And why is this "little bit more" lacking? The authorities want to frighten some people: "If you do not behave you end up like those people." The problem about throwing money to everybody without expecting anything in return, is that this will throw some people into isolation. Society ought among other things to be moral relationships in which everybody is included. And to throw money at people do not include them in some kind of moral relationship. But everybody should be included, and of course that means poor people too. Tor Forde
Re: FW - Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Tor Forde wrote: The danger that a Guaranted Annual Income is posing is that it can be a way to put people away. [snip] A Guaranteed Annual Income could be regarded as a kind of scholarship that lasted as long as it will take for people to be able to make it on their own. You know one of the problems here: Who will judge who is worthy of getting such a scholarship? Do you think that if the Committee on Worthiness was composed of a bunch of rabid reductionist scientists and their fellow-travellers, they would fund me to spend my life digging "critical" [use whatever word you want] tunnels under their position [Weltanschauung -- err... "physical world which exists and is knowable independent of what people think about it"]? If the prescripts says that everybody who wants to get such a scolarship is to have it, then the work of that committee is to help you. Maybe they can give some tips about other people doing a similar kind of study, and how you can fund publishing your work if necessary. Would they fund me to keep trying to find some argument that would do the rhetorical equivalent to them of what the Union Army was trying to do with dynamite to the Confederates in Petersberg by tunneling under their trenches during the American Civil War? I've been "at" this project for almost 20 years now, and I have yet to get a nickel *from* it (although I've "sunk" probably more than US$200,000 *into* it -- when direct expenses ($100K?) *and* lost income due to unpaid leaves of absence from work to go to school, etc. are all added in)
Re: FW Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Tor Forde wrote: Thomas Lunde wrote: Dear Tor: I appreciate your posting and your eloquent comments about everyone wanting to contribute. I seem to recall when reading the FW archives that you tried to start a small business growing something in the sea and that you were forced to discontinue it because you could not find adequate financing for your project and your livelihood. The original question posed the question that everyone - man - woman - child receive a Basic Income. [snip] I guess I haven't been reading closely enough, because I really *like* this idea of a Basic Income for every man, woman -- and *child*. Children are, IMO, still far too much at the mercy of the relatively unchecked power of their family, at least in the United States and the N 2 th Worlds. Providing children with a Basic Income would give them a better chance of getting away from parents who are either wilfully injurious, or "well intentioned" with injurious effects (the latter was mostly my case -- check out http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/stalag.html if you are interested in my particular "case"). Such a Basic Income for children would not need to take the form of a "handout", since most kids have full time jobs anyway, even though "our" [at least sometimes, only so-called...] society does not define going to "that place called school" as a job, or the tasks these persons take home with them (AKA "homework") as work either. (Yes, I've written about my "schooling", too: http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/thoughts.html#Chapel ). Now I'm sure somebody's going to tell me that children are not mature enough to choose for themselves, and, of course, in a certain measure, varying inversely with age in general and varying in specific ways with all sorts of factors in particular cases, that is correct. But society often holds up as paragons children of ages between ca. 7 and 15 who do an adult's job of taking care of their families (e.g., alcoholic parents...), so the issue is *largely* one of irrational power politics, self-righteousness, "projection" (see below...), etc. Yes, definitely: School kids and housewives are both full-time workers, and deserve their aliquot share of income, instead of, in the case of the housewife, the husband receiving it, and in the case of children, the parents receiving it. We need to make childhood and apprenticeship (whether "blue collar" or "Phd" or whtever) less painful, so that, when the young persons themselves get into positions of seniority they won't have the pent up hostility to need to persecute the next generation (ref.: Alice Miller, _For Your Own Good_, and _Thou Shalt Not Be Aware_, etc.). Great idea! Let's "Just do it!" \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- !THINK [SGML] Visit my website == http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re FW - Some hard questions about basic income - 1
This post is addressed to Elinor Mosher and Saul Silverman under the original thread. First let me thank you both for great answers and though I have read many of Galbraith's books and have found him excellent, I have not read this one - next trip to library. As to your answer Saul, great history lesson and I'm sure accurate without the criteria of research, anyway good enough for me. What strikes me in the two democratic systems in North America is why voting is considered a right to be invoked instead of an obligation to be fulfilled. Surely, as these ideas of parties and voting were discussed and it was decided who had the right to vote - which has been expanded from property owners to everyone over a certain age - the option was there to make it mandatory for everyone qualified to vote. It would have been a simple matter to make it into law, everyone who is a citizen must vote. There could have been penalties for not voting - fines and other disincentives. As everyone has to live under the rules that government make, it would seem to me a logical step to ask each individual as a matter of their citizenship to indicate their preferences. One of my arguments for this might be that the elite, knowing that they are always numerically outnumbered would have found it to their advantage to make voting a right to be invoked by the individual rather than a must as decreed by a law. In the cases you mentioned Saul about the different periods of history when a major effort was made to get the poor to vote, it would have been much simpler to lobby for mandatory voting. Now in regards to the concept of a Basic Income, it would seem reasonable to me to tie the right of a Basic Income to the mandatory right to vote. In other words, if the state is going to pay you a dividend of citizenship, then it would seem logical that the state should demand that you assume the responsibility of choosing who will govern. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: FW - Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Dear Tor: I appreciate your posting and your eloquent comments about everyone wanting to contribute. I seem to recall when reading the FW archives that you tried to start a small business growing something in the sea and that you were forced to discontinue it because you could not find adequate financing for your project and your livelihood. The original question posed the question that everyone - man - woman - child receive a Basic Income. Obviously the combined Basic Income for a family would be higher than for an individual. With that security and your desire and stubbornness, would you have felt secure enough to continue after your major setback? As I recall, you expressed considerable regret that you could not continue. This is the kind of contribution that we would all like to see everyone who receives a Basic Income produce. However, let's be frank. If 5% of the people chose to be TV watchers, layabouts, deadbeats or whatever for 20 years and then decided to do something - would that be unconscionable? Your question brings into play the deep seated bias we have in the Western world that work is the primary consideration for any sane person. However, the reality is, that there is not enough paid work to go around. Raising children is work - my daughters have just been sick with the flu for a week and my days have been long and tiresome - I have worked, I have just not been paid. In a sense, the Basic Income is a way of recognizing all the unpaid work done in society rather than work that has been monetized. Is this a compelling reason to advocate a Basic Income? For those who work and don't get paid, I'm sure the answer would be yes. For those doing monetized work and perhaps some of their productivity being used to make the payroll, the answer may well be no. Can we find a compelling reason that will be acceptable to those who work as well as those who work but don't get paid - that is my challenge. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: FW - some hard questions about Basic Income -1
Jim Dator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Separating "work" entirely from access to goods and services, and permitting/enabling people to live meaningful, satisfied lives without "working" seems one of the biggest challenges of the present, and foreseable future. Trying to create more jobs is futile and degrading. My expectations of the future vary radically with my mood. Sometimes I feel like a dark and wretched `Bladerunner' world is inevitable, other times I think a radical reworking of society to a more practical, sensible, compassionate model has to be just around the corner. It is in these latter moods, that I speculate how people living a few hundred years in the future will look back on this century, from a society of compassion and abundance, and wonder how we could live in a world like this. I imagine adherents to religions which stress the virtue of charity thinking how we in this century missed the opportunity to distribute our wealth among those less fortunate, thereby gaining great blessings unavailable to these future citizens in whose world no poverty exists. I also imagine, in such a culture, the opportunity to do work to keep the machinery of society rolling will be regarded as a rare privilege, to be pursued for its prestige alone, or perhaps regarded as a minor necessary action expected of any civilized human, to be done for a few hours a week, on a par with vacuming the house; or perhaps both, depending on the type of work required. The true, key difference between the dark and enlightened visions of the future lies in the security and self worth of the individual citizen, their sense of their place in society, and their faith in its valuing of their participation. It is the difference between a society of greedy, immature, insecure children, and one of poised and confident adults. -Pete Vincent
