= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - 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 (212)
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems and the producers of good being worse off. Maybe the trade off is not worth it, I'd like to have it tried just to check.
I am indecisive, even if they are not responsible, criminals are harmful for the rest of the population so imprisonment can be necessary. However the justice system should be focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Your question made me think, coming from that one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.
Bearing that, I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive. But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
Nope, that would be true in a subsistence economy. You don't want to live in one :-/
In the current system people produce goods to be exchanged for money which money will be used to buy other goods.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so -- besides "maybe"?
Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a bus mechanic is not such a great job and there are not enough guys who are willing to do it just for fun...
Of course. See e.g. the Soviet Union or Mao's China: being unemployed was a crime. If you can't find a job, the state has a nice labour camp all ready for you.
In money or bullets?
No, that's why I'd like to see it tried. Nordic countries seems to be headed in that direction, we'll see how it goes.
One possibility is too find a new equilibrium where the least attractive a job is, the better the advantages for doing it (since people would be ready to pay more to have it done at your place).
You forgot the second part :
This is already how it works. And In a perfect capitalistic society, you have a choice between working or starving (except if someone is willing to help you), this is not much better than bullets.
I would go for less incentives that in our current society personally.
Do you think that trying could have considerable costs? Russia tried communism, that... didn't turn out well.
Why new? That's precisely how the current equilibrium works (where advantages == money).
You didn't answer the question.
Why capitalistic? In your black-and-white picture that would be true for all human societies except for socialist ones. Under capitalism you could at least live off your capital if/when you have some.
So why would anyone come to unclog your toilet?
It could, incremental changes, or doing it on a smaller case would mitigate the costs. A "partial" basic income already exist in several European countries, where even when not contributing to society you are given enough to subsist. The results are not too bad so far.
You are right, it would just be different jobs having the most value
Is any system where people are automatically given subsistence socialist? Because it is the only thing I have talked about.
Money, but with a cost for not being a producer smaller than today (aka no comfort rather than no subsistence)
For money, same as today
What non-socialist societies which unconditionally provided subsistence to all its members, sufficient to live on, do you know other than a few oil-rich sheikhdoms?