Ayn Rand & Unconditional Basic Income
Posted by Billypot 9 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
I am from Belgium, heart of welfare Europe. And still I am a creative entrepreneur at the core. I felt strongly like Galt even before reading about Atlas Shrugged. I do appreciate greatly the vision of Ayn Rand but I think she is now used by selfish people as the rallying icon to promote social dominance of those who have vs those who have not.
The societal system must support innovation and allow entrepreneurs to fully benefit of the result of their enterprise, while at the same time not punish those who do not have the craving for entrepreneurship. We are all different and there is no vertical hierarchy of any sort in humanity.
There is a bright light shining when you mix Ayn Rand's vision with unconditional basic income.
We need a currency stripped of its magical power of creating money from the money owned.Earning extra money just because you own money brings no added value to our shared reality. Money itself has no value.
The currency is only good to exchange goods and services.
Each of us must have the minimum income to live correctly while entrepreneur and workers at large should earn more and benefit directly of their involvement and participation. There will always be some who participate less (or not at all). The system must equally provide for them and for the rest us by unconditionally creating a basic, equal amount tokens (currency, money) for all of us to participate in our daily life. Those who participate in the creation of goods or any activity that fits their abilities can earn more, exchange more and bring more to the world. But this does not mean that those who do or possess less are of lower value.
Humanity is creative and will thrive when money, the ultimate domination tool, is replaced by a basic income that each of us can complement with a revenue built from our creativity and entrepreneurship.
I would like to go deeper into the systemic organization of such a vision but I guess there is already lots to react to - I am looking forward to reading your comments.
The societal system must support innovation and allow entrepreneurs to fully benefit of the result of their enterprise, while at the same time not punish those who do not have the craving for entrepreneurship. We are all different and there is no vertical hierarchy of any sort in humanity.
There is a bright light shining when you mix Ayn Rand's vision with unconditional basic income.
We need a currency stripped of its magical power of creating money from the money owned.Earning extra money just because you own money brings no added value to our shared reality. Money itself has no value.
The currency is only good to exchange goods and services.
Each of us must have the minimum income to live correctly while entrepreneur and workers at large should earn more and benefit directly of their involvement and participation. There will always be some who participate less (or not at all). The system must equally provide for them and for the rest us by unconditionally creating a basic, equal amount tokens (currency, money) for all of us to participate in our daily life. Those who participate in the creation of goods or any activity that fits their abilities can earn more, exchange more and bring more to the world. But this does not mean that those who do or possess less are of lower value.
Humanity is creative and will thrive when money, the ultimate domination tool, is replaced by a basic income that each of us can complement with a revenue built from our creativity and entrepreneurship.
I would like to go deeper into the systemic organization of such a vision but I guess there is already lots to react to - I am looking forward to reading your comments.
Money used to make money is Capital. Without capital there can be no capitalism... no seed money for entrepreneurs or start-ups. Money men are no different than banks, each must do their part.
Systems that guarantee a basic living without responsibility or stigma destroy initiative from all but the most determined... progress and prosperity for all is diminished when fewer are pulling the cart. This is the lesson many of us are painfully experiencing.
Wow... where to start... What studies/books on economics have you read?
Let me suggest a few right off the bat to investigate. Capitalism: The unknown Ideal- Rand, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics - Hazlitt, Capitalism And Freedom- Milton Friedman, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy -Thomas Sowell... That should keep you busy for a while. I have many more.
Rand's, book Atlas Shrugged and her philosophy is anathema to your premise. I hope you are in earnest in your desire to examine your premises. If so, many here will be very happy to help and exchange their perspectives.
Respectfully,
O.A.
thanks for the reply. Here is a piece of Friedman that gives us both something to chew : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tm... (or look for Milton Friedman Redistribution of Wealth on Youtube).
About this clip : I am not interested in Redistribution of Wealth as some can think of it in the Capitalist system, nor in the questions brought forward by the young man. Please just pay attention to what Friedman says.
Most of what he says goes along your lines, of course, justifying the way things are being run now.
And still, his very first sentence is a rare moment where he contemplates another way of doing things.
Because the trouble about our dialogue is that we don't start on the same premises – you start from 'the way things are' and I start from 'the way it might be'.
That's what Friedman's first sentence is about. He says : 'The only way to effectively redistribute wealth is to destroy the incentive to have one.' And that's the route I would like to see taken. A truly free society is a society where we start equal and obtain more or less in correspondance with our personal efforts/actions – not because we simply own more. Owning has no value . Only actions bring value. In my view, the society itself should be organised around such premises.
The main pre-requisite for this, and that is another way in which we are diametrically apart, is a high-level of trust in people. You will probably say that most people will just hang around and do nothing unless they are given incentives to do so. I will say incentives lead people to aim for them and not create what is really needed. Because I do believe that people are likely to be creative and be naturally participative, and that the incentives lead people to stop thinking for themselves – but to aim at the incentives alone.
I do believe incentives lead people NOT to think for themselves and act accordingly, out of their free will, but to mainly aim at the incentives. Those who are just happy with the incentives are those who don't have the imagination, creative spark – the 'out-of-the-box' thinkers. While those who have the craving for creativity may not ultimately want to aim at the proposed incentives – these may end up refusing the proposed system. So the incentives actually undermine creativity while rising the incentive symbolic value.
About books, I see you have a great collection of 'think-inside-the-box' works. There are others. Did you read Schumpeter ? He is not a socialist, more of a capitalist even though he has a critical view of it – and most of all he is the champion in promoting innovation. Because Galt is first of all an innovator and a free-thinker. He is a 'think-outside-the-box' guy. Friedman is not that well considered by everyone today.
About John Galt, the problem lies with the fact that people see in him what they are looking for at first. Please keep in mind that I am a truly creative person, developing my own systems (photography) and making a decent living that way. John Galt is before anything else a creative person who wants to think for himself, don't want his work and the fruits of his work being taken away from him.
I suppose you won't agree on many of this but I don't think it is important to expect to agree. The reactions I get are illuminating about what sets us apart. That's something important too.
Looking forward to reading you.
Sincerely,
JL
The "justifying the way things are being run now" as you see things, is not what is happening now. It is closest to how history has best delivered prosperity and increased the standard of living for more people around the world than any other system yet devised. We have drifted far afield from the ideal capitalist system and paid dearly for every step in the socialist direction. I am not satisfied with the present state/practice of things. We are practicing mixed market, crony capitalism.
As far as my reading material goes, I have read much that is "out of the box" including such radical doctrines (by comparison) as Marx and Engels have written. What I have offered was a minute portion of the material I have studied. What they have in common is the tried and true ring of truth. Though, to this day, much of what they advocate is not being practiced.
What you are proposing is not new; it has been tried in various forms and revealed themselves to be machinations.
No. You are not suggesting anything new or innovative that someone has not in some iteration tried to do before. It is just packaged in a new wrapper.
Friedman once proposed a minimal stipend for the masses and later expressed reservations.
To suggest that a true laissez faire system has somehow failed people, is to deny the fact that it has never truly been exercised. We have always had a mixed economy, but when we were closest to truly free markets we made the greatest leaps of progress known to history. It is also a logical fallacy to suggest that this system is not innovative or creative. It (though never fully laissez faire) was the product of millennia of inferior experiments and is the result of historical innovation. All other Utopian visions have proven that the one unchanging condition of human nature will always manifest itself and produce equality in the form of equal poverty under any system that rewards people for sloth.
There will never be a universal Utopia. Men naturally have divergent interests and a self interest that must be acknowledged and harnessed to best advantage, not to perfection. Perfection is a pipe dream. One man's utopia is another's prison.
When one is given something for nothing, one must always ask "at whose expense." Rand
Utopia on an individual basis can be achieved if one has the initiative and is left to enjoy all of the fruits of their labor.
You are quite right. We are unlikely to agree on much of what you have proposed. Perhaps if/when man has changed his nature in ways most unlikely many more millennia from now... Well, maybe I could see something positive to your vision.
Until then,
Respectfully,
O.A.
thanks for the reply. Two questions/remarks:
- "Utopia on an individual basis can be achieved if one has the initiative and is left to enjoy all of the fruits of their labor." Right. Even though as the individual is the basic element of humanity, achieving it would go beyond the individual level - so mentioning individual level sounds like minimizing the scope of what can be achieved the manner explained. But the current system absolutely makes it impossible. Even though Capitalism has been a necessary step in the advancement of humanity, the time calls for a change. You call the current system 'crony capitalism' - I do agree. What do you see as the necessary changes ? And what do you do about those who don't fit the system ?
- "You are not suggesting anything new or innovative that someone has not in some iteration tried to do before." What is striking now is the possibilities offered to make it work today: the advent of technology that makes automated work on a large scale possible (transport for example) and also the possibility to give small-scale production means into the hand of the citizens (3D printing for example), plus the availability of knowledge through the digital revolution. Add to this of course the general, global unrest about the current world organization. The ideas are not new by themselves - but the convergence of so many factors make the ideas coherent and relevant today. Besides, out of curiosity, please tell me more about the previous attempts you see resembling what I mentioned so far.
Sincerely,
JL
1.) Utopia literally will probably never be achieved even on an individual basis, No one is ever satisfied. That is human nature. Happiness in varying degrees can be achieved and in this nation we were once promised the right to pursue it. Since happiness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder no government can set up a system that will please all. the best one can hope for is a minimalist government that protects the right of all to pursue to the best of their ability there own course. That means not taking from them the fruits of their labor or efforts they exert in this personal quest for the benefit of others not of their choosing.
The necessary changes are to live up to these promises, the spirit of the highest laws of the land the Constitution, return to a limited government that protects the rights of the individual instead of focusing on various groups.
"The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals* ( *I would interject here that these would be the most limited circumstances and I might disagree slightly with Locke). In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects." John Locke http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/...
"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” T. J.
“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” T. J.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson
Good government would punish those in government and those outside that practice/participate in crony capitalism. It would protect the natural rights of all individuals, be the arbiter of legal disputes and the unbiased arbiter and dispenser of objective punishment of those that violate the rights of others. Nothing more.
Those that don't fit the system must fend for themselves as best as they can... depend upon the goodwill of others. In extreme cases where charity would not suffice then as a last resort State and local governments are best suited to aid them. The Federal government has no legitimate place. It has overstepped its legitimate authority.
2.) Technology and times have changed, but that has always been the case and the argument. Human nature has not.
As for other attempts at forms of socialism, or attempts to take care of the masses when they cannot or will not do for themselves. World history is replete with Marxist, socialist, and fascist examples. Our system has implemented schemes like the Square Deal, The New Deal, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., etc. Billions and billions have been spent on the war against poverty and yet it remains. Nations will go broke trying to help through good intentions, but the problem remains and is often exacerbated. Again, human nature remains unchanged. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Margaret Thatcher — 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'
Respectfully,
O.A.
- I agree on all the first point. I am not pro-government at all.
all the systems you mention are a variant of the use of Money as we know it. I guess that by now you understand that I do not profess taking from one and giving to the other; as I said what I am thinking about is a totally new currency system. You may doubt the possibility of change, but then I find myself thinking the words of John Galt. Indeed, you may very well be a man of 'good' as you see the need for change - but you use your ability for the wrong purpose. By proclaiming that Capitalism is worth pursuing, you are thinking and acting against change. Because what must be stopped is not the world's mechanics (governments) but the motor itself (magic speculating money).
- Let me just insist here that my main goal is NOT HELPING THE POOR as such – it is putting creativity and enterprise, at a human level – more local/regional and not global – at the center of the system in a way that the entrepreneur keeps the totality of the result of his work. As I have replied to someone else on this page, this is not a socialist plan as such. To repeat again the idea would be : changing the currency system into another 'token' system, strictly for trading goods and services, that would allow an Unconditional Basic Income WITHOUT taking from one and giving to the other.
- About Human Nature, in its lowest level of expression, it is indeed not likely to change much. But humans see their nature change as they understand better the world and themselves through education. The very purpose of education, as I stated elsewhere, has to change equally drastically.
The man of today is different from the man of the past – even of the recent past. I am 46, the adults I knew when I was a kid are not the same – the world has changed and the people have changed accordingly. But the lowest characteristics are still the same and maybe even worse as they are being put to teh forefront by a society that makes appearance ever more important than substance. Changing the Motor of the World has implications that would change the way Humans see themselves and the others and, being less materialistic and more substantial, the way they 'control' the basic aspects of their nature would be different. Because change at a higher level is possible – that's what our neo-cortex is all about.
Sincerely,
JL
Good luck. I do not believe in a free lunch and I fail to see how someone can be supported without effort on their part and at no one else's expense, but then again the government has been printing money without backing...
In the mean time the motor of the world is well on its way to stopping.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Respectfully,
O.A.
you are right that Socialism - just as Capitalism or Totalitorism or any variation of the current money system - implies that Humanity is in a cage and that the cage has an owner. To remove the cage you must remove the possibility to have an owner. Please read the reply I gave to O.A. above if you are interested in having more explanation of my views. I am not about socialism - I am about each of us getting the fruit of our own personal work. With a stress on personal - not working towards rising the value of the cage we are kept into. This require a completely other mindset - an societal tabula rasa. But I understand this kind of idea is difficult to debate with those governed by the 'principle of reality'. But it doesn't prevent me to try. :-)
You also make the same mistake that many attacking or just questioning Objectivism consistently make, that is to conflate self-interest with self centeredness. AR's description and use of the term selfishness relies on the application of self-interest--not self centeredness. They are not the same.
You continue on with that self same conflation of terminology and identity in your discussion of money and true corporate capital and ownership structure. Sound money, which doesn't include the fiat system we live under today, is simply a tool of value measurement and facilitation of commodity/service trading.
The rest of your commentary appears an attempt to redefine, conflate, and confuse while criticizing AS and Objectivism as outdated and no longer relevant. Then you add: "Besides the notion of reason has changed completely since Ayn Rand's time. We know that emotions are central to reasoning-" Reason is not a 'notion', it is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
I find your commentary in total, to be be specious, at best and double-speak at worst.
this is getting confusing but I sense that there is common ground between us. I do understand the confusion that may arise between self-interest and self-centeredness. It is in my own view, as in yours I hope (?), that we must thrive and defend our own individual view and path (actions) in life. That is self-interest not selfishness. Selfishness comes when acting in our own self-interest harms others and we consider our self-interest more important than the harm it causes - and that is where 'reason' should come at play: make Society work when several trypes of self-interests must live together.
You mention double-speak, and that is what I try to bring to light as well : maybe you will agree that not all adepts of Objectivism draw the clear line between self-interest and self-centeredness. An example would be those who possess (bankers, lenders) without creating anything and suffocate entrepreneurs. There is a hypocrisy of the fiat money system (as you put it rightly) that ends up undermining those who correspond to 'the good' – those who live by their own actions. That is why some have coined the term Propertarians – do you draw a line between Propertarians and Libertarians ?
Another double-speak, or impossibility, is inherent to the fact of following 'litterally' someone else's idea that professes for all to think by themselves. This can be pushed to the absurd of requesting everyone to think by themselves the very same thing. There is something about Objectivism – or the discourse heard from many adepts - that pushes towards the single-dimension society. What do you think ?
About reason being a notion, I would say this because our understanding of our reasoning changes with the advances of brain studies. It is not a set thing. AR died before major brain science discoveries and the (ongoing) development of new tools opening new perspectives in brain analysis. She died when the cognitive – logical – view of reasoning was the dominant view. We know today that logic is more than tainted by emotions. This means that we cannot envision a single-dimensional view as different persons will reason differently. We must integrate diversity without valueing one type of person more than another.
I am just trying to think of a societal system that gives us all equal chances to take actions – not a system that levels everyone regardless of their actions/creativity. This would correspond to some socialist vision I am strongly against and, I do agree, tends to kill creativity and innovation.
You mention the context of JG's speech – I'd rather look at the context of the time Atlas Shrugged was published. It was before Corporatism took on the world, right at the time of Communism was the great ennemy – today Communism is a ghost, a relic. The worst of Socialism is probably the mirror image of the worst of Propertarianism.Don't worry – I am taking on the Socialists as well when I can. Since Ayn Rand, which I do value, there have been other schools of thought than have change the landscape – especially post-modernism. Not saying Objectivism is obsolete, but it naturally deserves a critical look and a repositioning in function of today's landscape.
I guess we do not agree on all things, but I hope you see somewhere between us some common ground. Thank you for pushing me to clarify my views. I am looking forward to your reactions.
you are saying 'We are entitled to what we can make of our life, nothing more' - I agree with you.
Creativity is an individual characteristic and is not determined by the social layer in which you happen to start your life. Many wealthy people actually bring nothing to the world besides the automatic self-replication of their wealth. But the current situation actually favors inactive wealthy people vs active less wealthy ones - it is the start situation (wealth) that determines how far you can reach in your life, not your actual actions.
That is why a Unconditional Basic Income for all can help by easing the start situation of each of us.
But again what I am proposing here does not fit in he current scheme - it requires another societal organisation. Thus please make the mental stretch to see this income as a distribution of newly-created tokens, not the arbitrary redistribution of anyone's tokens to someone else. This would be contrary to what I am saying.
Our sustenance does not emerge miraculously from a replicator.
Everything we need and want is made by someone. Without the efforts of others we are naked and afraid.
Until the day robots do our work for us, someone will have to work the swing shift in a graphite mine.
Leave aside such advanced concepts as "Social Systems" or "Entrepreneurism" or whatever.
It's as simple as this - who finds "fulfillment" as a graphite miner? Who would CHOOSE that job if you could choose to do nothing.
But for just a moment lets back up and leave the confusion of modern life.
Consider a different time and circumstance - but the very same situation.
Imagine you are one of a handful of Islanders who've just landed on an unknown shore.
There is much to be done. There is EVERYTHING to be done.
But perhaps you don't like to hunt, fish, thatch roofs or take care of the pig. Maybe your thing is Polynesian Poetry.
Or maybe you're just so lazy you'd prefer to simply lie on the beach and let others catch your food, build your hut and watch the communal pig.
What RIGHT do you have to a free ride while others dig graphite at 22:00?
What system do you envision that does away with countless examples of less-than-desirable work?
I am personnally far from a free-rider - I work my ass off to develop my own projects. I don't make use of subsidies or any State/Public help available. And I am doing ok. What do you do ?
I am pro-entrepreneurs, anti-centralization, anti-speculation but I am also studying - while working as photographer and software developer - Psychology with a particular interest in Educational Neuroscience. And I know that people are hard-wired differently. Nurture can change nature but in a limited way only. Not everyone can or wants to be an entrepreneur. We are all different and reality is different for each of us. The idea that reality is what IT IS is regarded as an oversimplification and a view of the past. We have to accept diversity. And organize the world towards diversity and away of any kind of domination. As I said in another reply, none of the current variants of the system (Capitalism / Socialism (incl. Communism) / Totalitarianism / Anarchy) can do without domination. We need a societal / political reboot - to stop the motor of the World : and that is self-replicating Money. Replace it by tokens strictly made for trading - no posibility to make tokens off tokens, only through creativity and trade. This is made possible through technology and by making it available to most of us. That is what automation can be used for. Reward the engineers, the farmers, the nurses,... but let the entrepreneurs be central to the society and earn extra when their creation meets success.
No need in all this to label anyone as parasites. It is the current money / economic system tax system that creates parasites through the necessity of taxation. A complete overhaul is imaginable and can be put into place - because economy is man-made and artificial. It can be changed - completely.
The worst thing you can do for a man is simply give him a check.
The VAST MAJORITY will simply resign themselves to that standard of living - however low that may be.
Here in America we have a great deal of experience with that.
I myself, have lived off unemployment until it ran out.
(As a sinner may be Christian - so to do I still consider myself an OBJ - though I have sinned.)
1. the problem is not to give a check. It is to take away from the active to give to the inactive. Each is entitled to the fruit of its efforts. But the current Money system allows nothing else than handicapping the creative. There are other possibilities but these imply not a modification of the system, but a total paradigm shift.
2. You say the vast majority would just do nothing. This is an assumption that has been proven wrong on the terrain. Check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E3...
I agree some will not do much or anything. But these are a minority. Currently they are indeed a cost to the working population. But the system can be engineered otherwise – and not remove to the active to let the inactive access food, lodging, energy. If we don't change the system, what is your best option ? Working camps ? Extermination camps ? Here is an idea from the past. In 19th century Russia, BEFORE the communist era, there was no death penalty. But they would cut off the nose and ears of the guilty. And send them to freezing Siberia. They were dead after a maximum of 5 days. I guess there is always a guilt-free way to do things... What's your option ?
3. Unemployment is not without meaning. Bear with me. When you were unemployed, did you refuse to engage in something meaninful to you ? Or did you just not feel like there was anything worth moving your ass for ? In another educational system that teaches you to know yourself and to take action, rather than the current system that just tries to show you teh value of sacrifice and how to do well what you're told, you might have been ready to take action for a project that you find engaging for yourself at the time you went on welfare. There are ways to empower people through education and designing a system giving them the means of action without handicapping the active population. But it is a choice – the current choice is to organize greed and maintain those who have the magic money in the dominant position. Laziness is not a sin in science. It is a sign of maladjustment to the situation you're in at a certain moment in time. And it takes more than reason to change that – it requires self-knowledge and emotional balance. Not currently available in a greedy competition manufacturing fear and distrust.
You say the assumption is proven wrong - I say bull sh!t. I've seen Indian reservations and the South Side on Chicago.
And I know myself.
I am not "driven". Most people are not. Striving "go-getters" are the exception - not the rule.
The average man, if allowed to do so, will sit on the couch and watch daytime. TV I know I did.
I'll say it again - the worst thing you can do for a person is give them a check.
BTW, I never use the word "parasite," I try to be civil.
And also BTW, you glossed over my main point in the first exchange. In this day and age there are no mines without miners, there are no sewage plants without sewage plant workers, there are no snow plows without snow plow drivers.
By what reasoning do you consider it OK to withdraw your efforts from this Great and Necessary Common Endevor?
- I absolutely agree with you on energy.
- the assumption is proven wrong in the sense that people use the means given to them to advance their situation - this can mean starting a business, but also mending their home, taking care of health issues... It is not about going to work for anyone else.
- watching TV: TV is strictly a salesman in a box. It is a produc of the current system and is meant to keep people scotched in their sofas - only to leave it to buy the promoted products. Get rid of corporatism/global capitalism and you get rid of the mesmerizing media as we know it. Besides, and more important - what I am proposing, as answered in my previous reply, implies a different type of education - one that prepares people for action. The current education prepares people for inaction and doing what they're told. That's how you get people melting in their sofas.
- I truly can believe from your answers that you wouldn't use the word 'parasite'. That's good.
- I didn't gloss over your remark: I mentioned automation. The coming technical revolution (and it's already here) will replace many of the existing jobs. This can be ok in a society that let people use their time to be themselves or it can terrible if the system just lets down the people replaced by automation. Please check the following: http://www.federicopistono.org/books/tal... Browse the author's website and you will find his other book 'Robots will steal your jobs but it's ok'.
- I personnally do not see myself withdrawing from any efforts - as I believe you must have understood from what I've said about myself. But I know there are people who either don't have the ability for or just don't fit in a common endeavor. You didn't reply to my question: what you do about these people ?
I don't have to follow the link to see the obvious truth of it. I am a futurist at heart and it is patently obvious that there will come a day when all undesirable effort will be handled by machines.
But how soon?
Come back in 500 years and mines will mine themselves and sewage treatment plants will have no humans.
Hell, come back in 200 years! Maybe even 100 though I doubt it.
But not 50. No way 50. FIFTY years from now people will still be working.
So the change you advocate TODAY cannot fail to be a gross injustice to those who still have to do the jobs that stay-at-home poets have decided doesn't suit them.
But this isn't news to you, Billy. It is obvious from your discourse you are no fool. And that's why I consider a sideways reference to "automation" - as though it were right around the corner and pertinent to the debate - to be "glossing over" my main point - that what you propose is UNFAIR.
---
"The assumption is proven wrong..."
Few people have a head for business. It's not rocket science, but it does require a PASSION few possess.
As for all the rest (except health) - who cares?!
Whether they're reading the Classics, perfecting their backhand or smoking themselves into a perpetual stupor makes no difference. The point is they have stopped contributing to the sum of effort REQUIRED for Man to survive. They've still chosen a life of ease when it's not yet time to rest.
---
As for TV - sound's like you have issues with TV, but I'll leave that alone.
I think it's one of the Great Inventions and has changed Man as well as history.
Me? I like it. A lot. High drama and drop-dead comedy. History comes alive and Science is made plain. There's CSPAN if that's what you're into, or Porn if you prefer.
But as with all things, moderation, of course.
---
And on the last point, for those who "don't have the ability or just don't 'fit'"... well... those are two VERY different kinds of people, don't you think? Why would you would lump them together?
People who genuinely cannot work can be taken care of. Why wouldn't they be? Who would allow an 80 year old grandma to starve?
But "just don't fit?"
What does that mean?
Does it mean they just never learned to wake up every morning and get to work on-time?
Well, work the swing shift! Stay up as late as you want and wake up without an alarm!
The entire range of human endevour can be turned into a viable living.
"Do What You Love and the Money Will Follow" is one of my favorite books.
Dream - make a goal - make a plan - work the plan.
That's not rocket science either.
But for those who simply don't "fit" regardless of how benign their work could be?
Yes, absolutely, LET THEM BEG OR LET THEM STARVE. Right in front of my eyes. I'm totally OK with that. Really - no joke.
Anyone "too good to work" must rely on the MERCY of those who are not. And I, for one, have damn little of it.
there is actually a lot of common ground in the fact that we agree there must be a change from the current situation. I would have to agree with your reply 'not in the next 50 years' if the only option was continuing the current system. As I said, I think we agree on the need for a change - but this must be a drastic one - away from the traditional political schemes. Stop the Motor of the World :-) The Motor, once again, for me – is the current way magic-Money functions. That Motor must be replaced entirely and drastically. Please read my answer to O.A. above as what I say is certainly valid for you as well.
About TV – I am sure that you know that everything told on TV has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The TV, next to the commercials creating unnecessary desires, is an ideological machine (both objections are tied of course). It is always important to know who's doing the talking because the narrative will be different from one to the other and will – definitely – never be complete. Before being a photographer I studied Film and worked a bit in that area. I could see the way stories where being told and why. I didn't want to pursue in such a shallow and false environment. Do I have an issue with TV ? I hope you do too. But of course there are programs I like – but I always watch with a critical eye and a questioning mind.
Also, from what I read on Judge Napolitano's 1-hour appearance Q&A, it feels like revolution is brewing. But a revolution brings changes to the current system. I hear many people talk about protecting what they have. But I don't see many outlines for a new system. Please do explain what you see as best organization. And what is your plan of action regarding those who don't fit to that organization?
What does this mean?
top of others in an evolved society.
Humans have the ability to sublimate their natural instincts and learn to live respectfully together, beyond the fears and through the acceptance of our diversity. Any kind of natural order in humanity is fabricated to favor one group against the rest.
There is room for those who do not have the craving, need or ability to actively participate. Let the creators and entrepreneurs act their way and fully benefit from their efforts. One is not better than the other, just different.
The system must unconditionnally create and make available the resources for all, without taking anything away from the results of one's creative action.
It is not the situation I am talking about.
Each of us should keep 100% of the results of our own individual effort / work. But saying this does not mean that we should let any one down in misery - the system should provide for each the us what we need to live by. I sometimes sense that for some people the Rand option includes the possibility to punish the non-active - but not every one can or wants to earn a lot or be super-productive. Difference is hard-wired. We have to consider and make room for diversity.
The problem is not the non-active, the problem is arbitrarily taking away from the active.
In order to do that we need a new paradigm in the way we value our exchange of services / commodities. A paradigm that drives us towards our own individual realization and away from any engineered hierarchical/pyramidal societal structure. Valueing each other self-realization draws us closer ; evaluating ourselves against the rest draws us all apart.
The paradigme shift I am talking about is a situation where the tokens used as currency are stripped from their symbolic value. Unconditional Basic Income is an old idea that would give everyone the possibility to pay for the bare necessities.
This does not prevent the one who works more to earn more than the others - and it certainly does NOT entail the possibility to arbitrarily take anything away from anyone to give it to another person or group. That is what socialism is about.
I’m sorry, but your system cannot work because you have yet to explain how or where the ‘system’ finds and acquires Unconditional Basic Income resources for those who don’t want to work or work poorly. You want to give them food? Farmers have to work harder to grow more at less value because their crops aren't paid for. You want to give them free housing?Who supplies the materials to build their homes? Who gives up land to the system without being compensated? If the landowners are compensated and the builders and farmers paid, where did the ’system’ get the funds or resources?
I disagree that we would all be better off or could claim we are more ‘evolved’ if we “sublimate our natural instincts” as you put it. We are mammals. We still have a basic instinct for survival. Let’s suppose you could get every man, woman, and child on the planet to accept and follow one system.Let’s follow your system. What happens if that system for unforeseeable circumstances fails and leads to extinction? It is more likely to happen, if there is no diversity in the system, no competing theories or no separate leaders to follow. I think this is why we seek to strive to be better than the guy next to us. We simply strive to survive. It IS who we are.
thanks for bringing the story up – it will help illustrate the subject :-)
The 'Little Red Hen' is a 19th century story. It requires an update. The story today would bring in a new character. Let's make it a Big Dark Hen who does not do anyting but pretends to have a magic glowing stone. The stone is magic because it appears to be self-replicating – whiel in reality teh Big Dark Hen knows how to manufacture them. He has advertised it as a stone that does wonders and makes your wishes come true. Every body wants such a stone. Of course apart from falsely being self-replicating it does not make wishes come true. It is just a stone.
Enters the Little Red Hen who works hard to grow his crops in order to make his cake. His friends still do not help him. When the crops have grown and the harvest is done, instead of baking his own cake for himself, the Big Dark Hen comes and buys his harvest for a little piece of magic stone. The Little Red Hen is left with very little of his harvest, just enough for baking a very tiny cake that still leaves him hungry and in need of growing more crops.
The Big Dark Hen buys in this fashion the harvest of many other Little Red Hens. He can now bake for himself a giant cake. He can even sell the left overs back to the hugry Little Red Hens of everywhere in the world – in exchange for the little pieces of stone that bought the harvest and the fruit of the Little Red Hen's hard work.
The Little Red Hen ends up hungry, without anything but the need to work even harder. But even more striking is the fact that the Big Dark Hen is still doing nothing at all and bringing nothing valuable to the world. He is a con-man. He does not deserve anything more than the friends who didnt help in the original story.
So what would be the best ? I will tell what the system I propose,transposed in this Little Red Hen universe:) would be. But in order to do that I need to answer to different things you brought up in your post :
You say : 'We are mammals. We still have a basic instinct for survival. [...] We simply strive to survive. It IS who we are.' Well, Mimi, we are mammals ok, but with a neo-cortex developed in a unique way among mammals.
This gives us the ability to go well beyond our natural fears by understanding them, controlling them and learning to use our brains to be creative or to participate in our best ability. This is who we are. This is no science-fiction.
But the current system kills creativity and promotes fear – thus I would agree with you if you say we are seeing more fear than creativity around us. But it is not because of the way we are. It is because that's what the system needs to create in order to maintain itself.
You say : 'explain how or where the ‘system’ finds and acquires Unconditional Basic Income resources' : There are two parts to this answer.
Part 1 : that's the paradigm shift, the mental stretch, I am asking from anyone in order to envision the difference of my system with the current « magic » money systems. The system makes available, unconditionnally, an equal amount of tokens for each member of society – created from scratch. Not from a correspondance to a gold reserve or anything, or taken from anyone else. That's the foundation. It is not an idea that I daydreamed about, there is a history of that idea.
Part 2 : such a change in paradigm brings changes in all aspects of society – from education aiming at self-realization rather than preparing children for being instrumentalized, to the 'hard to fathom' loss of competition feeling that the current system brings (and strive on) and also, among others, a truly participative local and global political management. This is part of the 'sublimated human' that can be brought by the best use of our mental ability. There are many aspects to this that can be imagined. It is not in a post on a website forum that I or anyone can cover all aspects. But houses have been built in all periods of time and there have always been materials made available by some. Some will take better care of their houses than others but I am not saying that everyone must be live in the same level of comfort. It's up to the every individual to make choices about his own participation, activity and use of means available to him. If you think that no one will be interested about providing materials
Here is a link to a very interesting presentation of some real-world facts about the idea. It is a presentation and anaylsis of the Unconditional Basic Income : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E3......
In the best Little Red Hen story, the friends even if they don't want to participate in growing the crops can still buy a share of the cake. This may allow the Little Red Hen to grow more crops if he finds more people to buy a shre of his cakes. And this without owing or having anything taken from him by anyone.
Now if you are anxious about the cake being stolen, the whole system crashing into the extinction of humanity (as you mention), well, it is thinking without taking into account our ability to use our neo-cortex to organize ourselves individually and as a group. Our brains can also be used to control our anxiety, and develop a society that works towards a greater sense of mutual trust. You won't find that in Capitalism for sure.
To put it bluntly, Capitalism is not Corporatism. You are very confused. It doesn’t surprise me. You don’t live here; you are putting your own political biases on a system you have never chosen to live under and is quite different from your portion of the sphere. I love Capitalism. When it is done right, it is great for everyone. But, Corporatism is the enemy of true Capitalism --I’ll concede that point. It is an issue. However, your plan is a silly idea because there is not a handful of nations that are rich enough to pull your scheme off. I rather not pay for the sins of the world, mmm-kay?
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archive...
I do agree Corporatism is not Capitalism - but what's going on out there Mimi ? It is the big global companies killing off entrepreneurs. And I agree Corporatism tends to resemble Collectivism as Corporation tend to buy off Governments. But don't you think many Propertarians / Libertarians are actually supporting Corporatism at least via the stock exchange if not simply earning a high salary in a big company ? Speculators are even worse than do-nothings to the active entrepreneurs. The John Galts of today are the employees of the Corprorations - these are the guys who must say NO and refuse to work for Corporatism. I am for free enterprise - but an entrepreneurial society is not necessarily a 'parasite safari' - but it takes a vision. A vision that takes away the 'man-made' self-replicating ability of money.
It is a different scenario. The scenario is made possible by the technological progress. Because automation will replace a lot of jobs - even standard office employees jobs, we need to get prepared and change the system.
You don't get the diffence implied in the replacement of the money system: in a vision where speculating-prone money is replaced by a token strictly made for trading, and whose creation is automatic and not controlled by anyone, you do not have to pay for anyone else - nothing is taken away from you. And the richness of nations (in money) is not an issue anymore. You are given the means for enterprise and entrepreneurship - let your creativity bring your best to the world - and be rewarded for your efforts when your creation meets success. Without having to hunt down the parasites - which is sometimes what some seem to love most about Libertarianism / Propertarianism.
1. 'someone has to pay for the welfare' : that is so in the current, limited currency availability system. I am not talking about such a system. The exchange currency that is being used is produced by the system each chosen term (month / year...) . What I mention must be envisioned from a prespective completely different of the current way of creating and controlling/limiting currency availability. But it may be clearer as I explain some morebelow.
2. You say: 'When people accept a basic living from the state and just hang out it is proven again and again they get up to no good end up resenting those who choose to be productive'. This is an assumption that has been proven wrong by well researched and terrain-tested experiments: http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-gr...
People use in a positive way the resources made available to them. The important thing is that those resources made available - in the paradigm I am explaining - is created from scratch by the system, not taken away from anyone else. Again this requires you to forget about trying to make what I say in the Capitalist scheme - see point 3.
3. You are trying to see how what I explain fits with Capitalism when you write 'Capitalism does not support a welfare system', . But the paradigm shift I am talking about starts with the abandonment of the current economic / political options.
The current limited availability of money is artificially created and maintained for the profit of the very few possessing the larger part of the cake.
Capitalism / Socialism (incl. communism) / Anarchy / Totalitarism are just variants of the same system - it is a way to share an overall wealth value that is artificially set and controlled by those who possess the most.
None of those variants can work because the system is artificial, not meant for good balance but for the profit of a very small minority and the instrumentalization of the rest. With discontentment inevitably growing, it cannot be maintained - or only through a constantly rising level of fear and violence.
The darkest problem lies in the symbolic value given to money - a notion that is only a social construction engineered as the ultimate domination tool. I am personnally completely with you on taking personal action. In that sense we must remove the possibility for those who own money to generate more money without taking action. Speculation, putting people in debt and generating money out of it, is not 'taking action' in the entrepreneurial sense. It is exerting dominance.
We need a system that generate money for every one PLUS the possibility for each of us who wants to propose services or commodities to do so. These people should absolutely, totally, benefit of 100% of the result of their action. A money generating system does not require tax. In such a system money itself does not have value - in my system you can not earn more by selling money (that's what the banks are doing now).
Changing our perception of the value of money leads to drastic changes in political organization too. But everything starts with determinign eth 'motor of the World' : the tokens we use for exchanging our commodities / services.
All this to say - try to see what I am explaining absolutely outside of the current capitalist system. This not a reform. Not even a revolution. It is a full paradigm shift, a completely different slate. It requires a completely different organisation of society - value and protecting the realization of the self for each of us, in the mutual respect of our differences. But - again - it begins with changing what I see as the 'motor of the world' - i.e. the true value of the currency we use to exchange commodities and services.
I have a feeling that John Galt has become an icon for those who are possessing something rather than for those who are actually creating and bringing something new to the world. John Galt is primarily a creator, not an asset manager.
Most of the people I see adhering to Objectivism / Libertarianism seem to be protecting their assets, not the fruit of their own creation. Only few adepts of Objectivism / Libertarianism seem be actually creative. I hope to be shown otherwise on that one. I would love to know more on your background and/or the reasons that make you a proponent of the ideas of Objectivism.
thanks for the reply.
I am not asking for anyone to produce freely for the others. Can I ask what you mean by ' a sanction in the positive' - you mean reward in a way the people for not participating by giving them a 'free lunch' ? Well, experience tends to show that the UBI is not absorbed but transformed by the recipient in a creative / positive manner. But well yes there are guys who will choose not to do much. But receiving a grant to take care of the bare necessities will never make them rich if they don't get active. But 'free lunch' addicts remain an exception - most of us want to act towards a better tomorrow and not just lie there.
About a new delivery method, it is being done in places. Any new system can be created and organized. Basic economics are no fact of nature, like we need water to survive or leaves grow on trees. Economy is man-made, artificial, and can be engineered completely otherwise than what it is today. It changed drastically in steps from what it was before to what we are having now. And it will change again. In steps or in a major sudden change. But don't worry - I won't be the one to trigger the change on my own - I am just confronting ideas :-)
Also you say currency is a tool - I agree with that. But it should be only a commodity/service exchange tool while today it has been transformed by those having most of it (and having the right to create it) as a domination tool. That purpose is not what currency as a tool should be used for.
"Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”-Galt's Speech
thanks for selecting that part. There is a lot I adhere to – but I wonder if we all agree on the meaning of the words. Let me tell you how this text fits with my views and how it shows what Aynd Rand / Objectivism shouldn't be taken litterally today.
« Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. »
I read by that : Men and nations are being destroyed by the invading corporatism that instrumentalizes the persons and corrupts and nullifies the governments.
Yes, each of us should use our brains to think for ourselves and live our life reaping the rewards of our own actions. But I have a feeling that many libertarians/objectivists of today are happy to indulge in corporatism and use Objectivism as a justification for their selfishness. Having exclusively a self-centered view is not a sign of great use of reasoning – as reality also includes others.
But I do agree that each of us should decide for themselves how to use its own resources.
« I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. »
I do agree that the enemy is an inverted morality. It is materialized in the hoax that is the symbolic value of Money. Corporatism attracts everyone on the promise that with money you will not only be able to afford and (thus) BE all you desire but also contribute to the smooth running of the engine of the World.
But all this is just inverted morality, the perversion of the reality Objectivism holds dear.
Indeed the people on the quest for Money must strictly follow the lines traced by Corporatism and never look back. They must abandon their reasoning, their own free-will to decide for themselves which path to take. The only choice they got is a choice between paths traced by others. Never can they trace their own path in unknown terrain – or else they get ostracized and sent to social death row.
Besides, by spending to assure the smooth running of the motor of the World, the individual lets go of the basic resource that would allow him to act for himself and trace his own path. And in so-doing, bring the money back to the Corporations as independent entrepreneurs are either swallowed up or destroyed.
Not all of us have a personal vision of a new path in unknown terrain, but how many of those who have this ability fall for the Corporatist trap and aim for Money rather than reaping the rewards of their own actions ? In other words : 'the willingness of the good to serve it'.
« Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan ...»
Here is where Ayn Rand fails to win the World – but succeeds in being controversial. The sentence has truth in it – as new, creative ideas are stolen by do-nothings and Corporatists alike without looking back at the independent creator.
But she fails on one single word : parasites. By using this word she focuses the mind of the reader to look down, towards the social death row, those who don't participate in the smooth running of the motor of the World.
This sentence betrays Objectivism as a theory of liberation – it sets it as (another) tool of domination. Not even a new domination, but just an excuse to muscle the current rejection of those who don't want to participate in the running of the Corporatist engine.
« —so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.” »
Agreed. Say No. Refuse the Corporatist deal, the magic (holly?) self-replication of Money, that prevents any participants to design his own course in life. Create an educational system that teaches how to make new paths rather than following the lines. Make a society with no lines. And I think I already hear those saying : without lines most wouldn't know where to go. And those saying that will probably be Objectivists – you know the guys who advocate the use of reason above all. The ultimate use of reason does not require pre-traced lines. It is just a matter of giving – unconditionnally - each of us the means of tracing its own path. Be it a long or a small one, a wide or a narrow one. Live and let live.
I would like to end on the idea that Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism should not be taken litterally. It is a work of a different time. In today's Corporatist era, the use of reason is really in danger. Besides the notion of reason has changed completely since Ayn Rand's time. We know that emotions are central to reasoning – not quite the cold view of reasoning that Objectivism advocates.
It seems to resonate today as ever before, but it is because it represents today only an empty box. It has lost its original content and anyone can use Ayn Rand's words in his own view – even inverting it to advocate domination rather than liberation.
What meaning do you see in the extract of Galt's speech you have selected ?