Great stuff from Pfhorrest. Forum quality overall just shot up. — bert1

Thanks a ton! Although my posts in this thread are all from a year ago.

My system is better. Make the polluters pay. That is, make make parents pay. They have violated rights and owe their offspring a living and others protection from their offspring. That debt can rightfully be collected. Thus taxing parents so that they pay for the problems they have created is just. Taxing others is not - it is extracting money with menaces, and that's wrong unless the money is owed. — Bartricks

So you can urinate in the river as much as you like because you don't have relatives downstream?

Er, no. That quite obviously isn't implied by anything I said. Up your game.

No. Blimey. Baby steps. It is wrong to mug me and give the proceeds to someone who has less. That's wrong. Okay?

Now, would it magically become okay if you put the matter to a vote - shall I mug bartricks and give the proceeds to this person who has less than Bartricks?

No. Obviously.

Bert reasons: oh, so, er, you're now in favour of a dictatorship!!

No, Berty. It would also be wrong if a dictator decides to mug me and give the proceeds to a person who has less.

What you don't seem to understand is that our rights - the basic moral rights that a state, if it has any justification at all, is supposed to protect - are not a function of votes. You don't have a right to life and a right to non-interference because someone voted on it.

This isn't about democracy versus dictatorship. This is about what the state is entitled to do.

Let's say you need an organ. YOu'll die unless you get it. I have a spare one inside me. Are you entitled to cut me open and take it? No, obviously not. Can you hire someone else to do it on your behalf? No, obviously not.

You may ask me to give it to you. Perhaps I ought to give it to you - not denying that - but still, it's not something you're entitled to take without my consent.

And by extension, someone else is not entitled to take it out of me without my consent and give it to you. Right?

Likewise, if I have some spare money and you need it, you have to ask for it and rely on my generosity or the generosity of others, not just take it from me. And by extension, if someone else decides to take it off me and give it to you, then they have wronged me as much as you would have done if you'd done so.

Simple and obvious stuff.

What if I'm responsible for you needing the organ in question? What if I voluntarily did something to you without your consent that resulted in you needing an organ? Well, now it's plausible that I owe you the organ and that this is a debt that can be paid with force if necessary. So 'now' you may - plausibly - take the organ from me even if I do not wish to give it to you. And by extension, others may do it on your behalf.

Hence why it is parents - who, by their voluntary procreative decisions knowingly burden others with a lifetime of work among other things - owe those they create a living, a living that can be extracted by force if necessary. THus parents can justly be taxed to provide everyone (bar themselves, of course) with a minimum income. (More than minimum, incidentally - enough to live on with dignity).

But those of us who have been decent enough not to do that to others should not pay a penny. Not until or unless we start violating the rights of others.

Er, no. That quite obviously isn't implied by anything I said. Up your game. — Bartricks

Up yours! I'm describing Riparian Rights - as a metaphor for intergenerational environmental responsibilities. Google it igno!

Explain how what you said was implied by anything I said. Go on.

Explain how what you said was implied by anything I said. Go on. — Bartricks

A stream flows in one direction - like time. If you pollute the river upstream, you are impinging on the rights those downstream. If you pollute the planet now - if effects subsequent generations. Riparian Rights asserts the rights of those downstream to enjoy the same rights as those upstream.

By asserting that you don't have to pay tax on pollution because you have no offspring, is essentially saying that you can piss in the river upstream, because you don't have relatives downstream. But there are still people downstream - forced to drink your piss. The fact they are not related to you is neither here nor there, is it?

Er, what on earth are you on about? Saying 'polluters should pay' is not equivalent to saying "I am allowed to pollute". I can only marvel at the reasoning skills that permit you to think that "polluters should pay" implies "I can pollute".

Er, what on earth are you on about? Saying 'polluters should pay' is not equivalent to saying "I am allowed to pollute". I can only marvel at the reasoning skills that permit you to think that "polluters should pay" implies "I can pollute". — Bartricks

I marvel at your inability to grasp the concept of Riparian Rights. Personally, I think taxation is not the right way to address this problem. It's the blunt tool of choice, but for me - I'd harness limitless magma heat energy, and extract carbon from the atmosphere.

The only reason any of us have a carbon footprint is because we still use fossil fuels - when all the clean energy we could ever need, and more - is right there beneath our feet.

Taxation reduces demand - for the poor. The rich don't give a shit; carry on as they are, while poor people are dying of hypothermia because they can't afford fuel. I cannot understand how the left can advocate such a policy approach; while weeping buckets about equality.

It's fucked up, but your objections are still misconceived. The fact you don't have kids is irrelevant to your responsibility to leave behind a liveable planet. And treating people as pollution is doubly fucked up. Fossil fuels are the polluter, and there is an alternative, more than adequate to replace them entirely.

You're now wandering horribly. Focus.

IF you've had kids, then you owe them a living. They don't have to earn it. You owe them it. I mean, you knowingly brought them into a dangerous world in which you have to work or die, other things being equal. That was wicked, and you owe them a living. (And you owe them protection from all the depraved monsters that live here). You owe them the lot: a good, dignified life, whatever it costs.

It is the basic intuition behind the idea of the universal basic income: we're all entitled - entitled - to a good life (until we behave like arseholes, of course). The world won't just provide it to us though. Not without us doing things. But we - we who have been bred but have not bred - are not the ones who owe it to ourselves to do those things, for our being here was in no way something we did to ourselves. It was what others did to us. So they ought to do what's necessary - they ought to work to provide us with the dignified living that we deserve (deserve, that is, until we make the same immoral decision they made and decide to breed). And if they don't, they can be forced: forced by the system, through taxation.

The state has, for many people, become the parent. But it is our parents who owe us livings. Not just all other people. Our parents specifically. I don't owe you a living, for example. Why on earth would I?

But most parents, by their very nature, don't do much planning and aren't particularly intelligent (for having kids is, as well as immoral, unbelievably stupid). And thus most parents can't afford it. So tax all of them. Make them all pay into a common pot - and tax them what it takes - and use taht common pot to provide the rest of us with the guaranteed income we're all entitled to (those of us who have not bred, of course).

It makes sense, you just don't like it.

You're now wandering horribly. Focus. — Bartricks

With all due respect, who cares what you think you're entitled to. In a state of nature you'd be driven from the tribe for refusing to reciprocate, and die torn apart by wild dogs. Your adolescent "I didn't ask to be born" antinatalist caterwauling - in no way entitles you to a good life. Reciprocation is the basis of civilisation. Make yourself useful - live up to your responsibilities, or bog off and die.

With the greatest of respect, who cares what you think you're entitled to. — counterpunch

Because it is not just what I am entitled to, but what everyone who has been bred but hasn't bred is entitled to. And I am showing it by reasoned argument. So, you can not care, but if you're reasonable you will.

And now, rather than address the argument, you engage in witless insults. The world needs more of you.

And now, rather than address the argument, you engage in witless insults. — Bartricks

Not at all. I'm describing life in a state of nature in the hope you might understand that your imagined values are civilisation dependent, such that you might recognise the hypocrisy of claiming you have no responsibility to that civilisation.

Er, what? No, rather than address my case for a universal income paid for by parents, you just told me to

bog off and die — counterpunch

after assuming that I am not useful. You think that's not an insult? You think taht doesn't make you someone who has a childish temper and can't treat an argument as an argument but has to take it personally?

Let me explain: when someone says "parents should pay all the taxes" and you reply "bog off and die" then you are being rude. Now, if the claim that "parents should pay all the taxes" really angers you and you think it is outrageous because you're a parent and it's all fuzzy in your head but the nasty reasoning man is saying things that seem to imply you're not a great person, that still doesn't make my claim an insult. It's a theory. And I can defend it to the hilt and will to all comers. And all comers will, like you, get angry and insult me and think that I was somehow insulting them, even though all I was doing was making arguments that show them to be unreasonable people with tempers. Of course, once you insult me I'll insult you back a lot better, but that's reciprocity and it is the basis of all civilization, isn't it?

I suggest you now resist the temptation to go on about me and try instead to address the philosophical case that I made for parents being the ones who owe the rest of us a guaranteed income.

How can one meet unreason but with unreason? If you're claiming everyone else owes you a living for the injury of bringing you into the world, there's a solution for that. It's not one I recommend. Rather, I suggest accepting that you're born - and that the world is a difficult place. There comes a time when you have to wean yourself off the tit - and hunt. But you say, I didn't ask to be born, and because I'm not going to contribute to the ongoing existence of the tribe, I'm going to sit by the fire, demanding others bring me more meat. Who the fuck do you think you are?

Who the fuck do you think you are? — counterpunch

Again with the outrage.

How can one meet unreason but with unreason? — counterpunch

You think I didn't make a reasoned case? Do you know the meaning of the words you are using. You seriously think I didn't make a case??

You skip back and forth between UBI and environmental taxation. I talk about one, you talk about the other. Pick one, and stick with it.

No, I've been talking about universal income throughout. No doubt the word 'polluter' confused you.

Taxation reduces demand - for the poor. The rich don't give a shit; carry on as they are, while poor people are dying of hypothermia because they can't afford fuel. I cannot understand how the left can advocate such a policy approach; while weeping buckets about equality. — counterpunch

That's because the left you are talking about are not the left they were 40 years ago. Taxation can absolutely work to combat inequality, and has done so after WW2. But the last 40 years we have seen a consistent process of making the taxes less progressive (in some cases, like the US, taxes have become effectively regressive) while trying to sustain roughly similar social programs. The result is that the burden of these programs falls more and more on the middle class, which consequentially is breaking apart under the strain.

International agreements all enshrine the free movement of capital and goods, but contain no provisions for the cross-border taxation of profits and wealth. The result is that states are less and less able - and due to increasing interstate competition also less and less willing - to tax the wealthy. The resulting alienation of the least privileged classes leads to increasing identitarian conflict and isolationist sentiment. See e.g. Brexit and Trump, but also the likes of Orban and Le Pen. Meanwhile, all the center left has to offer is statements of soildarity and a focus on identitarian conflicts of a different type, while offering no alternative economic vision.

You construe people as pollution, but in fact no-one need have a carbon footprint. We don't have to use fossil fuels.

No, I've been talking about universal income throughout. No doubt the word 'polluter' confused you. — Bartricks

I'm not confused. You are. We could harness limitless amounts of clean energy from magma; and live sustainably and well long into the future. Consequently, people are not pollution, and over-population is not the problem. The problem is the mis-application of technology. Given an application of technologies in relation to a scientific understanding of reality (assuming only that we wish to survive) the earth could easily support the 10-12bn people projected by 2100 - sustainably and profitably.

It all goes back to Malthus - and his Essay on Population 1770 ish - that predicted population would outstrip food supply and there would be mass starvation. He was wrong; human beings invented tractors and fertilizers - and have out-produced need and population growth through technological innovation. We can continue to do so. Nonetheless, Malthus ideas continue to inform the "pay more-have less, tax this-stop that" left wing anti-capitalist green approach to sustainability. And it's in those terms you construe people as pollution. Your disincentivisation of reproduction through taxation would be hugely counter productive - re: aging populations, in a sustainable future based on magma energy. I felt forced to counter this attitude.

I'm not a tax expert. I attempted to google some information on the socio-economic distribution of wealth in support of the idea of a growing middle class, but the ONS data is labyrinthine and my internet is a trickle. I cannot imagine any more of a burdensome social program than UBI - but haven't got the demographic data to say conclusively that the middle class would be more burdened by it, than benefitting from it. I think it is in general terms a good idea to get money to the bottom of the economy, as I've said - but worry that UBI would undermine natural incentives, whereas, significantly increasing minimum wage could be revenue neutral for companies, and achieve much the same result - while retaining, indeed promoting socially useful incentives.

I'm not a corporate tax expert. I am aware of the perception that large companies don't pay a fair share, but I don't know how true that is. I secretly suspect they can just as justifiably claim to be over taxed as the middle class; but that doesn't fit with a jealous left wing narrative. Philosophically, I always consider Bill Gates - and imagine him in his shed, or whatever, noodling away at his computer, trying to invent windows - about to unleash an enormous wave of value, and I cannot be jealous of his success - such that I demand he be taxed to death in every country, state and townsville that has wifi.

I attempted to google some information on the socio-economic distribution of wealth in support of the idea of a growing middle class, but the ONS data is labyrinthine and my internet is a trickle. — counterpunch

Oh the middle class isn't growing right now, but it was essentially invented in the mid 20th century, a period of high tax rates.

but worry that UBI would undermine natural incentives, whereas, significantly increasing minimum wage could be revenue neutral for companies, and achieve much the same result - while retaining, indeed promoting socially useful incentives. — counterpunch

Yeah, I understand the concern. Unfortunately it's hard to make conclusive statements on this without large scale experimentation. Which is to say we'd need a major economy - something the size of France, Germany or the UK at least - to actually implement an UBI to have any real chance of getting a good idea of the effects. UBI isn't uncontroversial even on the left. It should be noted, however, that basic income - that is some form of welfare to keep you alive - doesn't seem to have destroyed people's willingness to work.

I'm not a corporate tax expert. I am aware of the perception that large companies don't pay a fair share, but I don't know how true that is. I secretly suspect they can just as justifiably claim to be over taxed as the middle class; but that doesn't fit with a jealous left wing narrative — counterpunch

This sounds like ideologically motivated ignorance. It's easy enough to find accounts of how corporate tax avoidance works, and what kind of results this has - Amazon paid 0 federal income tax in 2018 and 2019 thanks to a clever licensing scheme, for example.

Of course not all companies are the same. It's mostly large, multinational corporations that have access to all the tricks.

Philosophically, I always consider Bill Gates - and imagine him in his shed, or whatever, noodling away at his computer, trying to invent windows - about to unleash an enormous wave of value, and I cannot be jealous of his success - such that I demand he be taxed to death in every country, state and townsville that has wifi. — counterpunch

I don't really see why asking for high taxes on rich people is a sign of jealousy. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a principle of solidarity, not jealousy. Would it have been unfair to tax Bill Gates' 10th or 100th million earned at 70%, or 80 or 90? I think a few tens of millions is enough for anyone, does that make me jealous?

it's hard to make conclusive statements on this without large scale experimentation. Which is to say we'd need a major economy - something the size of France, Germany or the UK at least - to actually implement an UBI to have any real chance of getting a good idea of the effects. — Echarmion

That sounds like ideologically motivated ignorance to me. Ha ha. I've offered my inexpert opinion Echarmion. I am more naturally inclined toward approaches that raise the floor, rather than pull down the ceiling. It's like some Far Side cartoon - two stalls, one says 'free money' and has an enormous queue, and the other says "a fair days pay for a fair days work" - and no-one's interested. Tempting offer... but if there are less drastic means to have much the same effect, then what's the real purpose of UBI? Is it in fact, primarily - a political statement?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a principle of solidarity, not jealousy. — Echarmion

So too are all the people at the free money booth in solidarity, but they're not there because they love each other. I don't think solidarity moves people like rational self interest, and offering free money appeals to rational self interest even while being a footbridge to communism.

What if the dictator changes her mind? — bert1

Either you're a girl or your wife/girlfriend/mom is really bossy.

That sounds like ideologically motivated ignorance to me. Ha ha. I've offered my inexpert opinion Echarmion. I am more naturally inclined toward approaches that raise the floor, rather than pull down the ceiling — counterpunch

Well that's essentially what I mean by ideologically motivated ignorance. It wasn't intended as a personal insult. I have my own ideologically motivated ignorance. I just wanted to point out that you seem less inclined to look into something which might be in contradiction to your existing views.

It's like some Far Side cartoon - two stalls, one says 'free money' and has an enormous queue, and the other says "a fair days pay for a fair days work" - and no-one's interested. — counterpunch

Metaphors are all fine and good, but it's too easy to just brush the question aside with a smirk. Rising inequality is a real problem, and one that directly impacts your stated aim of providing everyone with cheap and clean energy.

Tempting offer... but if there are less drastic means to have much the same effect, then what's the real purpose of UBI? Is it in fact, primarily - a political statement? — counterpunch

Of course different people have different purposes in mind when they make a proposal. But are there less drastic measures that do the same thing? The people affected by UBI are not the same as the people affected by a minimum wage increase.

So too are all the people at the free money booth in solidarity, but they're not there because they love each other. I don't believe the communist manifesto was ever a legitimate expression of the working class interest. — counterpunch

You're changing the subject.

I don't think solidarity moves people like rational self interest, and offering free money appeals to rational self interest even while being a footbridge to communism. — counterpunch

That's a false dichotomy. Solidarity is part of a "rational self interest". Of course when people talk about "rational self interest", they rarely take these words at their usual meaning, and instead refer to some kind of purely commercial cost-benefit analysis.

As to the "footbridge to communism" part, please imagine me rolling my eyes theatrically. The countries of western Europe have by and large been giving out "free money" to people for more than 70 years, and communism is farther away than ever.

We don't have to use fossil fuels. — counterpunch

After the great die-back, maybe not. A horse or two for everyone. Or did you have some other energy source in mind?

Either you're a girl or your wife/girlfriend/mom is really bossy. — Benkei

:) I grew up in 1980s Britain. Thatcher was everyone's bossy mum back then.

No. Blimey. Baby steps. It is wrong to mug me and give the proceeds to someone who has less. That's wrong. Okay? — Bartricks

Agreed!

Now, would it magically become okay if you put the matter to a vote - shall I mug bartricks and give the proceeds to this person who has less than Bartricks?

Not magically, but democratically, well, yes, unfortunately. I'd disagree, but that's just tough for me, as democracy is the least bad way of deciding things.

No. Obviously.

Not obviously. We're talking about practical rules, not my personal views.

Bert reasons: oh, so, er, you're now in favour of a dictatorship!!

Well, you're not in favour of voting to decide what is socially acceptable.

No, Berty. It would also be wrong if a dictator decides to mug me and give the proceeds to a person who has less.

I agree.

What you don't seem to understand is that our rights - the basic moral rights that a state, if it has any justification at all, is supposed to protect - are not a function of votes. You don't have a right to life and a right to non-interference because someone voted on it.

That is exactly why I have a right to life. In 1998 the UK formally adopted the ECHR and enacted the Human Rights Act 1998.

This isn't about democracy versus dictatorship. This is about what the state is entitled to do.

*shrug* What the state is and is not entitled to do is entirely dependent on how laws are made.

Let's say you need an organ. YOu'll die unless you get it. I have a spare one inside me. Are you entitled to cut me open and take it? No, obviously not. Can you hire someone else to do it on your behalf? No, obviously not.

It depends on what the law is in the jurisdiction in question. These are legal matters.

You may ask me to give it to you. Perhaps I ought to give it to you - not denying that - but still, it's not something you're entitled to take without my consent.

And by extension, someone else is not entitled to take it out of me without my consent and give it to you. Right?

Likewise, if I have some spare money and you need it, you have to ask for it and rely on my generosity or the generosity of others, not just take it from me. And by extension, if someone else decides to take it off me and give it to you, then they have wronged me as much as you would have done if you'd done so.

Simple and obvious stuff.

What if I'm responsible for you needing the organ in question? What if I voluntarily did something to you without your consent that resulted in you needing an organ? Well, now it's plausible that I owe you the organ and that this is a debt that can be paid with force if necessary. So 'now' you may - plausibly - take the organ from me even if I do not wish to give it to you. And by extension, others may do it on your behalf.

These are legal matters. To influence the law according to my values, I can vote in a democracy.

Hence why it is parents - who, by their voluntary procreative decisions knowingly burden others with a lifetime of work among other things - owe those they create a living, a living that can be extracted by force if necessary. THus parents can justly be taxed to provide everyone (bar themselves, of course) with a minimum income. (More than minimum, incidentally - enough to live on with dignity).

But those of us who have been decent enough not to do that to others should not pay a penny. Not until or unless we start violating the rights of others.

Rights only make sense to me in a legal context. Again, these are all legal matters.

As a global redistribution of capital from the haves to the have-nots, UBI is also a form of collective bargaining that reduces the incentive for people to work in the non-desirable jobs, thereby putting upward pressure on the wages of those jobs. It should also encourage the elimination of bullshit jobs that don't need to exist in the first place, as well as hastening the robot revolution in order to completely eliminate the undesirable jobs whose cost of labour is increasing.

Metaphors are all fine and good, but it's too easy to just brush the question aside with a smirk. Rising inequality is a real problem, and one that directly impacts your stated aim of providing everyone with cheap and clean energy. — Echarmion

Metaphors are fantastic, aren't they? They're like similes in play form. I'm trying to think of one that demonstrates that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. There's always the brain surgeon/ road-sweeper analogy. Why disincentivise further, making the extraordinary effort necessary to become a brain surgeon? Don't we already have enough road-sweepers? I don't look down on roadsweepers. I was an industrial cleaner in the construction industry for the longest time. I'm very familiar with a brush and shovel, but I made the effort to become a philosopher. Bit of a mistake really. I'm a great cook too. I could have been a celebrity chef, but I went for the philosophy. Ho hum! But as we're here, I flatter myself I know a thing or too and can assure you nothing's been brushed aside with a smirk. I'm just witty!

My view is that inequality isn't a problem if the poorest have enough, and effectively limitless clean energy from magma can do that sustainably. Capitalism can be sustained, which is fortunate because communism has failed quite badly quite often, only recently! Something you seem to brush aside easily!

The people affected by UBI are not the same as the people affected by a minimum wage increase. — Echarmion

That's true. It would be people like me as an industrial cleaner, who would be able to afford to keep a roof above their head, and would pay the landlord rent, who would go out and buy a car. Call it the trickle up theory of economics. Note that at every juncture the right motives are promoted in accord with the rational self interest of the individual, and to the benefit of society. I think the left are better pushing on a living wage than trying to sneak communism in by the back door, by handing out a big bag full of someone else's cash!