= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChrisHallquist comments on Non-standard politics - 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 (231)
Liberal here, I think my major heresy is being pro-free trade.
Also, I'm not sure if there's actually a standard liberal view of zoning policy, but it often feels like the standard view is that we need to keep restrictive zoning laws in place to keep out those evil gentrifiers, in which case my support for loser zoning regulations is another major heresy.
You could argue I should call myself a libertarian, because I agree the main thrust of Milton Friedman's book Capitalism and Freedom. However, I suspect a politician running on Friedman's platform today would be branded a socialist if a Democrat, and a RINO if a Republican.
(Friedman, among other things, supported a version of guaranteed basic income. To which today's GOP mainstream would probably say, "but if we do that, it will just make poor people even lazier!")
Political labels are weird.
Good thing! We're going to end up in a world where robots do the poor-people jobs. (Just as we are now in a world where machines do the horse and ox jobs, like plowing and pulling carriages.) I for one would prefer that the poor people not starve to death as a result.
Depends, is this in addition to or in place of the existing welfare state? Friedman's position was "in place of", someone running on that position today would probably be considered a "heartless fascist".
The existing welfare state only gives unemployed money if they are looking for a job. Unconditional basic income gives them always money. Today's GOP is likely to see that as encouraging laziness.
There's a lot more to the welfare state then just what's called the welfare program.
You can read my statement narrowly. Then it's about giving money and not about various other advantages. You can read my statement broadly for it's intent. Then it's about the difference that an unconditional basic income system puts less pressure on people to get jobs. The GOP generally wants that pressure. It also likes to give food stamps instead of cash.
Both reading are correct. There no reason to read something else into my sentence.
Well the current system has an over 100% marginal cliff in some places.
MedicAid is only available to people who are unemployed. Seeing that everyone who isn't unemployed is still insured was an important part of Obamacare. YOu see how the GOP reacted.
While certain people in the GOP don't like 100% marginal cliffs I don't think they are willing to not put pressure n people to get jobs as it currently stands to get rid of those cliffs.
If you had instead eliminated Medicaid entirely and given everyone a basic income that includes enough money to buy insurance you would have gotten more GOP support.
I've paid a lot of attention to the debate on Obamacare, I don't think I've heard that argument made once.
People in the US generally don't care that much about the poor so nobody frames the argument that way.
On the other hand that there are people who don't get medicare because they work and who can't easily insure themselves was surely part of the debate. Whether or not people use it as a talking point also doesn't matter that much to the practical results of policy.
If the proposal simply would have been Medicaid for everyone, likely more people would have made the argument.
He supported a large negative income tax for those on the lowest (earned) incomes, tapering off to zero, then positive as earned income increased. This is really very far from a guaranteed basic income.