Prompted by: VC, Entrepreneur Says Basic Income Would Work Even If 90% People ‘Smoked Pot’ and Didn’t Work (Slashdot)
Contributing to the probably well-intentioned but problematic idea of a guaranteed base income, I cite another commenter (amicusNYCL) stating a solid counterpoint…
I think the VC’s claim is a little strange also:
“Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that’s still a huge net-win,”
Yes, people will continue to invent, they will create new products and services, music, art, etc. But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they’re going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
One of my main concerns for humanity is popularly convenient spin devastatingly outweighs the hard truth (i.e. sometimes horribly brutal reality).
Worse — that spin begets more of that spin, and culture becomes heavily corrupted by the imaginary net-resulting base (like believing and convincing that we can walk across bridges made purely of mud for societal progress).
Life is (sometimes seriously, and eventually deadly) challenging, and people must die to make way for the healthy members of upcoming generations.
Survival of the fittest is not a human problem of inequality, but an inevitable natural methodology to clean out the weak for everyone’s strength.
Civility corresponds with the healthiest defining of weakness, but that definition leveraged as law against the masses has been selfishly corrupted by elitists to form ironic weakness (euphemistic civility).
Moreover, other species demonstrate gay members are nature’s positive way towards dealing with overpopulation — obviously also a human issue. Freely (actually taking from working taxpayers) giving enough resources to guarantee survival for life for everyone likely exacerbates our overpopulation problem.
Guaranteeing a base income for even the weak unable (even if only unwilling) to strengthen humanity’s role within a healthy environment for better species level of survival is like saying that all trees (regardless of health) should have the same light, water, soil, and wind. If ecologists tried to force that tree equality, there would be radical changes likely with serious unintended environmental consequences.
There are roughly 300,000,000 Americans, and according to a fairly recent mainstream news report regarding the happiest income amount (at least in Massachusetts these days), that means $75,000 annually for each of us — so we’re talking about an annual taxpayer cost that my basic calculator can’t even handle (it oddly reads “220.127.116.11.9.9…”).
You can feel free to argue the base income doesn’t have to be a happy one, but I maintain it really doesn’t ultimately matter (even $30,000, for a quick offhand example, results in a similarly odd calculated read).
Also remember that I’m a ‘starving musician’, so having a guaranteed income would be superficially great for yours truly, but I prefer to earn my resources the respectably hard way.
Of course, a guaranteed income would have a serious effect on the economy, so prices would change upwards (probably dramatically, based upon well-established economic laws of supply and demand).
Prices are usually set to whatever the market will bear (or unhealthily fixed by anti-competitive structuring), and guaranteed income means the market will be able to (so logically would) bear higher prices — which means $75,000 (or such) would no longer be enough — repeat problematic cycle until economic crash.
Too many traditional leftists are terrible when it comes to understanding even basic economy and law, but leverage tremendous power towards roughly influencing them both (like intellectual presentation of actually beating a SUV into a Prius with baseball bats for equality).
That terrible quality usually results in a public backlash at the voting booth towards traditional rightists and their terribly sickening leverage of hypocrisy euphemistically as principle to control liberty in conjunction with their definition of morality — which spins voters right back ultimately into learned helplessness (where “We the people” frustratingly, if not angrily, are right now).
As our nation undeniably degrades amid the rampant-yet-largely-unreported corruption (while most people do nothing to gain necessary community traction and consequent mass power to put a maturely firm and prompt stop to that corruption prior to a logically imminent revolutionary explosion), at some point, sanity must prevail on behalf of survival of the fittest.
So far throughout history, the supposed fittest are dominantly made up of reason abusers and thugs too often breaking honorable lives.
Civility demands dramatically much better, and that starts with each one of us living maximally honorably (getting righteously up when imperfection knocks us down).
As way too many (sadly especially young) people are feeling the Bern (pretending traditional leftism spanning many-if-not-all generations at terrible and inevitable societal pain is somehow progressive), and way too many leftists are ignoring (with major sarcastic thanks to the mainstream media) the serious FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s apparently flagrant violation of seriously strict national security standards potentially (if not likely) ending her candidacy, and the ugly thought of crossing the major political aisle to the ‘red team’ essentially deteriorating and likely collapsing under aforementioned hypocrisy, I continue to refine (solidify) and casually promote the only logical and grounded solution to avoid the learned helplessness disastrously consuming us all.
That solution is (drum roll) — scientific constitutionalism (or scicon for efficiency) — i.e. purely conclusively objectively defined law by similarly defined harm, while risk remains purely an educational matter (reasonable upon considering the Information Age logically gives way to the Education Age).
Scicon naturally strengthens language by carefully increasing certainty in language, so naturally benefits law, science, education, and health throughout posterity.
Scicon includes the critical ingredient missing from any other political front — the Rule of Reality, which is a purely scientific conclusion that means defeat is ultimately mutual (nobody can logically ever get away with abuse regardless of human punishment — suffering out is suffering in, so minimize suffering for healthier living, purely logically speaking — likely a radical and positive change of human behavior wonderfully against voluntary corruption).
The basic result is everyone equally has a fundamental right to liberty (certainly defined as the condition of being free from restriction or control) that’s limited only by that right — logically civilized liberty, or balanced liberty — coincidentally a progressive national obligation nationally factually rejected from the national get-go into a false sense of antiquation or unfairly, so immorally, by one dominantly religiously defined moral exception (and other hypocritical exceptions — e.g. slavery, gender bias, etc.)
Scicon isn’t idealism, but constructing logically hardcore basics functioning as a guiding light.
Complexity without basics is chaos, and that chaos is foolishly society’s “base” these days. Don’t believe me? Find a 100% consensus on what concisely constitutes those basics (it’s not there).
Scicon is actual progressivism/liberalism, American (not pre-American) conservatism, and fully scientifically hardened libertarianism — a “slam dunk” of political unification via honest and grounded leverage inevitably crushing the corrupt (reason abusers and thugs) via scientific certainty as a permanent and pure prerequisite.
Accuracy in liberty requires accuracy in defining harm for fairness (and therefore justice), and that requires conclusive (not suggestive, or any form of weak/pseudo/junk) science.
These posts are usually ignored by you all (thank you for even getting to this point), but I’m patient and healthily confident that you’ll adapt fittingly as the pain against society increases by corrupt “winners” — e.g. the “1%” and the traditional leftist elitists hypocritically among them supposedly trying to fight that percentage (via “change we can believe in” and such) by increasing their elitist power, so merely (and historically demonstrably) an oligarchical shift with all of the same hideous stressors abusively against the populace to bring comfort to the newly selfishly appointed “1%”.
Is defeatism via ignorance (pathetically disguised as popular progress) really the best way for us all?
So far, the popular consensus expresses that answer as an insanely resounding yes!
We can (and must) do better by building community traction here and beyond (both on simple and complex fronts for effectiveness).
If you want the full explanation of scicon, then read our Liberty Shield informational roots (a web page that’s freely a part of this journal) at your convenience. I’m always refining it (usually monthly these days). The first (and at least some of the middle) sections are strong, and I’m refining the remaining ones to match that strength. Feel free to weigh mutually constructively in. I don’t enable comments there, but you can always comment in posts such as this one.