= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
coffeespoons comments on Politics Discussion Thread September 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (195)
I tend to associate the idea of a citizen's income with the left - eg, the green party in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Economy
That has not seemed to be the case in the US. I'd expect that to be the case for people who want to help the poor, but it seems that some chunk of libertarians support it, while liberals do not. I believe it got a little bit of play across the board in the 70s among public intellectuals across the board, but I haven't heard it from the left in political discourse since.
Hence my question - why the regulatory state instead of guaranteed income?