> Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money.
Also known as taxation, or living in a society. If you don't like money being taken from you by force then fine, just please opt out of all the services and benefits the society provides for you. This is in fact entirely doable, and it's called "renunciation of citizenship".
RE the automation angle, you're ignoring the automation quality aspect. Humans can basically provide three types of labour - physical labour, cognitive labour and social labour. The first type is already almost completely eliminated by the first wave of automation, starting with industrial revolution. Current wave of automation is making inroads in the second one. Just how many people you think we can fit in jobs which value is mostly created by the fact they're done by a human (e.g. psychologist, waitress, nanny)?
1) There is nowhere on Earth that someone can go to escape the reach of government.
2) There is no reason why the anarchist should bear the burden of leaving. If someone comes along and starts extorting you, but says you can leave their area of extortion, you are not obligated to either pay them or leave.
In case you rely on social contract theory (or implied/tacit social contract theory), here is a brief explanation of why it is wrong.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...
[2] http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/02/why-social-contrac...
Ok, so you're just declaring yourself king of the US? You're allowed to travel wherever you want without playing by any of the rules the rest of us have agreed to?
There are plenty of places in the world with no or non-functioning government, mostly Antarctica and subsaharan Africa, but there are also plenty of barely-inhabited islands where you could probably live off the grid. Just have to figure out food, medicine, etc.
Did you agree to the rules? I didn't agree to any, and I don't know anyone who did; most people just follow them. There are some interesting theories on political authority derived from democracy, but all that I've seen are fatally flawed.
Antarctica has many (overlapping) claims by non-Antarctican countries, so it is not a good place to go and avoid states. If you go to Subsaharan Africa, you are still subject to the government of whatever state you are in, whether it is 'failed' for now, or not. More importantly, you haven't explained why the victim is the one who has to accommodate their oppressor.
Consider instead a different question - what authority your parents have over you when you're a child? After all, you haven't agreed on anything. Aren't they an oppressor, that often forces you to do things (like eating broccoli) against your will?
1) The state has authority over its citizens until the citizens reach a certain level of capacity. As an adult who makes most of his own decisions, I believe I have a level of capacity which allows me to make good decisions without a state. This seems reasonable, as the state has declared me "eligible to vote", and perform other tasks significant to the state, which appears to be an endorsement of my level of capacity.
2) The state is our eternal guardian, and has authority over all of us forever, thus North Korea and other totalitarian states have the moral authority to oppress and direct their people in ways that seem wrong, because we are but children.
The other problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't really define what gives a state this authority. If I declare my own state "The Kingdom of Nickff", and invade (a portion of) Canada, I have the same authority as the previous government, though I may be 'cruel' and 'despotic'.
You don't get a patch of sovereign land as a birthright. That's never how it worked, anytime in history. You can play by the rules here, you can go someplace with different rules, or you can go someplace with no rules. Plenty of rural areas in the 3rd world with no effective government presence.
I'm new here! Don't kill me!
> Also known as taxation,
I wrote a lengthy reply to this argument below.
Automation:
There are still tons of physical jobs. The point is that even when automation "almost completely eliminated" the first type, unemployment did not skyrocket. I'd rather base my policy prescriptions on history and well documented economic factors than wild speculation about the effects future automation will have.
Sorry :). I'll leave that to Skynet ;).
> The point is that even when automation "almost completely eliminated" the first type, unemployment did not skyrocket.
Yeah, the labor pool moved to the service / cognitive jobs. With automation taking big bites off services and mental work, where should the labor pool move next? Now, I know there's a lot of place in marketing and all kind of bullshit jobs, but it surely has its limits, if not economical then those of mental health - bullshit jobs aren't exactly good for one's self-esteem.
That lots of humans are required to work the land, or that the horses are important for logistics and transporting people were both well-documented and established facts for many thousand years. Until at some point, they stopped being true.
CGPGrey rears his ugly head!
> Yeah, the labor pool moved to the service / cognitive jobs.
I'm sure you are right but I would argue that trying to quantify cognitive jobs is foolhardy and I am not convinced in the slightest that automation is capable of replacing them. Having said that, I have time and time again been surprised as to how ingenious human beings are with creating jobs! Industries no one ever thought of are now major industries. Humans are far more adaptable than horses. That's kind of our thing.
I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral".
I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give.
Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc.
Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it.
I know it's easy to make emotional arguments and I know it's easy to feel charitable with other people's money, I'm in no way rich btw, but you have to see the problem with that?
> We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them.
Tyranny of the masses is a thing and something our founders tried to prevent.
Dude... you're just framing it differently. You can easily look at UBI and taxes as they currently are as moneys from individuals that go into a large pot which is then spent to help the greater good. Roads do that, police do that, and so does public assistance programs like social security and welfare. But somehow UBI is different because it is cash? It's all the same. It does the same basic thing: lower income inequality.
It isn't "feeling" they have too much money and "deserving" it. It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy. You're the one making the emotional argument here.
Not sure why anyone these days would oppose a system that would lower income inequality from the absurd point it has reached.
If there are ten people in a country and money is dispersed in this way:
Bottom 2 each have $10 Middle 6 each have $20 Top 2 each have $50
I would support a system that takes say... 10% from everyone.
Bottom 2 are taxed $1 each == $2 Middle 6 are taxed $2 each == $12 Top 2 are taxed $5 each = $10
They then put all of the money in a "pot" to be spent on a military. This benefits everyone because a poor homeless person in Alabama will be defended equally as well as a middle class secretary in Georgia.
However, if you tax the Top 2 for an extra 10% which comes out to $10 more and then put it in a "pot" that will only be spent on the Bottom 2, we have a problem.
This is a problem because you are treating 20% of the population unfairly simply because they have more money than the other 80%. This is being charitable with their money and not letting them decide to do with it as they please. I support the poor in my own way by donating money, volunteering for charity, etc. but it is wrong for you to take a larger percent of my money and give it to another group of people for arbitrary reasons.
> It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy.
I would love to see the geniuses and God level economists who can make those calculations and factor in every aspect of the economy. You can't, it's impossible.
Or as Adam Smith puts it: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
In that sense, it's quite natural that the richer you are the more you contribute.
It's interesting that in your example you seem to tax wealth and not income. I don't know of any country in which the tax system is based around wealth and not income.
And indeed, a flat tax on wealth would probably be the fairest tax, but I imagine that it's a lot harder to do than taxing income or consumption.
And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone. In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs! Because it goes to everyone! I get the policy disagreement on this, but that's still different than the "taxes are immoral" argument. And that's the one that bothers me when I hear it because it's an attack on democracy.
As to our founders - yes, they built protections in our Constitution. Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional? Because that's a legal argument I'd be interested in reading!
It benefits the poorer at the expense of the rich.
>In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs!
I would support the UBI as a replacement for the current welfare system but only as a replacement and only because it is less morally bankrupt and ineffective. Just to clarify, I don't support the UBI in general but if you're willing to completely get rid of our current system then we can talk.
> Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional?
No that was a response to the commenter supporting Democracy over Republicanism.
A society should search to maximize utility. Let's make some numbers up. One starving person has a utility of 1. One not starving person has a utility of 10. One mega-ultra-rich person has a utility of 100. One ultra-rich person has a utility of 99.
If you take money from 1 mega-ultra-rich person and give it to 2 starving persons:
99-100 = -1
2*(10-1) = 18
+___
+17
This is a really hard point to prove.
> A society should search to maximize utility.
"Society" doesn't do anything. There is no hivemind. We are each individuals pursuing our own self interest. It is up to the individual to help those who need it, not a small group of people who think they know what we should all be doing.
> One starving person has a utility of 1. One not starving person has a utility of 10. One mega-ultra-rich person has a utility of 100. One ultra-rich person has a utility of 99.
If you take money from 1 mega-ultra-rich person and give it to 2 starving persons: 99-100 = -1 2*(10-1) = 18 +___ +17
You are going to have to clear that up for me because I am frankly not understanding it.
> A rich American wouldn't be rich if they didn't receive any benefits from society.
Yes and society benefits from having rich people with capital invest in companies that produce things we want. It's not a fixed pie.
The main issue I see with this line of thinking is that you simply cannot speak for "society" and whenever we as a species tried to organize everything to our personal standards it has failed miserably.
>Yes and society benefits from having rich people with capital invest in companies that produce things we want. It's not a fixed pie.
That's my entire point. It isn't a fixed pie. The whole concept that a person "owns" part of the pie is dubious, because they relied on everyone else to get that part of the pie.
>you simply cannot speak for "society"
I'm not speaking for society. Society is speaking for society by voting.
>whenever we as a species tried to organize everything to our personal standards it has failed miserably.
What are you referring to? Because I see:
-public services
-public education
-firefighters
-single payer healthcare
-law & order
-criminal justice
-Software standards (you're talking to me over a "personal standard" called TCP/IP)
First, lets assume that after UBI the total amount of work done does not change. Then lets assume that after UBI the poor does not work any harder and certainly neither does the rich (do the rich even work at all?). So if poor were to come out ahead from this deal, then it must be either the middle class, or the new machines (automation), that are now working harder.
And thus if we come up with new automation, or a way for the poor to work more, then UBI does not have to come at anyones expense.
In particular I'm at a loss to understand the arguments for UBI that assume the system could/should provide a sufficient income for everyone to 'live' independent of any other source of income. How exactly would that work? Wouldn't the people actually working be just a bit unhappy being taxed to support people who didn't work at all? Wouldn't people on the margins simply stop working? Wouldn't this system drift into a completely unsustainable configuration?
But you're right. I don't know how people in the US would react. Maybe they would see it as an evil tax from rich to poor and never accept it. However, I'm arguing that it doesn't have to come with any extra tax burden.
There is an UBI experiment starting in Finland in 2017. If it proves to be successful, then I have no doubt that it will be implemented elsewhere too.
Wouldn't the market be freer if we slowly replaced that minimum wage with UBI (i.e. decrease minimum wage and increase UBI over time). The market would then be free to set prices more accurately because there would be a lower artificial price floor. This also helps create more jobs to offset the ones lost to automation, since people can afford to be paid less, a wider variety of jobs can be economically viable. Additionally, people would have more freedom in find jobs that they enjoy and are well suited for. All of this would increase economic efficiency.
Thus, yes, UBI could benefit everyone by making our labour market freer and more efficient. Basically, UBI is a form of economic infrastructure, and thus is a MORAL thing to spend taxes on.
That is an assertion/opinion, not a fact. You are also confusing a problem (poverty) with a solution (minimum wage). There are many other ways to tackle poverty that don't involve distorting labor markets with minimum wage. There is also a strong argument to be made that a minimum wage that is above market prices hurts low-skilled workers by making it illegal for them to be employed.
Personally I'd rather have the challenge of supporting people with low-paying jobs vs the challenge of supporting people with no job at all.
If that were true then we would switch to a better system. I don't think it is and I don't think there is one.
I don't know what capitalism's logical extreme is but if you are talking about anarchy then I am not for that. I believe government serves a very important role in capitalism. It enforces contracts (legal system), protects third parties (environmental hazards), and defends against foreign or domestic aggression (police, military).
This isn't to say capitalism is perfect! Of course not but it is better than every other conceived system and has proven so by bringing millions out of poverty.
But certainly I vote, I protest, I write letters, I convince others to. I work for an advocacy organization. I knock on doors and make calls. I believe it's not nearly enough to "just vote." And if that's all someone is doing, that person has little room to complain.
The taxation is immoral argument is an argument against democracy.
Taxation when taken too far is immoral, regardless of the popular vote
So how does one define the point at which taxation becomes immoral?
Anyway, taxes don't matter. All taxes return to circulation (unless government is radically changing economic policy). What people are really saying is that they want to be better off than some other group of people.
FYI, he paid 14% federal because most of his money came from carried interest which is taxed like dividends. The 14% is only after the same income is taxed at the corporate level at 35%.
The unemployment rate is still high (~9%), and thats just people still looking who haven't given up yet.
Labor force participation rate: https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png
The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.
Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.
I meant "better number" as in "far more representative than the jobless-and-looking rate". I objected to calling it the "unemployment rate" without caveat, because that term usually refers to jobless-and-looking and therefore threatens to cause confusion.
https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/machine-money-and-people-...
Depends on what you consider basic needs doesn't it? If humans only consumed their basic needs than I agree, we should be scared of automation. The thing is as we become more prosperous, our basic needs are met and our other needs expand. Do you need a cell phone? Do you need a car? No, of course not, but people demand them, and other people supply them. The problem is that the automation people are making sweeping statements about all of our needs being supplied by automation. I don't think that's possible. I also don't think its wise to take advice from a Keynesian.
http://www.cato.org/blog/keynes-was-wrong-stimulus-keynesian...
The problem isn't going to be putting everyone out of work, it's going to be putting a quarter of the country out of work or loosely attached to the labor market.
The social costs for this are going to be absolute huge. Our norms are not ready for that many people to not work, and you only need a handful of people with little to lose to have massive social disorder.
Automation WILL put people out of work. Just looking at my agricultural example that is true. My point is that those people found other jobs in other industries which is why the unemployment rate isn't currently 52%. There is a reason why economists use the term "technological unemployment."
First of all, it's expensive. Guaranteeing every American a certain sum of money will cost a ridiculous amount.
Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money.
Third, it's funny that he points to Social Security when it is approaching disaster. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ssa/social-security-reti...
Fourth, the fear mongering about automation needs to stop. Automation will not put everyone out of work and it will not spell the end of capitalism. At every stage of technological advancement, you get people, like the UBIers, who run around like chicken with their heads cut off, Luddite Fallacy. The fact is that automation makes some jobs obsolete but compensates by creating entire industries profitable. Did Software Engineering exist in 1920? No, so don't be surprised if in 20 years a new field has arisen.
I really want to stress the point about automation because I think it is the largest source of misinformation out there. In 1870, 50% of the US labor force worked in agriculture. Today guess how many? 1.2%. Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish!