Citizen's Income

[tomandlu]

As things go, benefits, dole, CI etc are a better option for society in general than the thieves just keeping the loot (the tory plan) but a very distant second best to getting rid of the theft entirely.

Nice. BTW what happens to the underprivileged and/or handicapped in Injin world? Sink or swim, or something a bit more altruistic?

[Injin]

Nice. BTW what happens to the underprivileged and/or handicapped in Injin world? Sink or swim, or something a bit more altruistic?

That's up to you.

If you care, you'll sort it. if you don't you won't.

But you'll be free to and crucially, have the income to.

[tomandlu]

That's up to you.

If you care, you'll sort it. if you don't you won't.

But you'll be free to and crucially, have the income to.

Crucially, this is the bit of Injin world I have a problem with (well, among other issues...).

Haven't you just made caring about what happens to, say, blind people you don't know a liability that isn't shared?

[Injin]

Crucially, this is the bit of Injin world I have a problem with (well, among other issues...).

Haven't you just made caring about what happens to, say, blind people you don't know a liability that isn't shared?

Absolutely.

If people really genuinely care, they'll take an interest. If they don't, they don't.

This comes right down to the issue of what you think people are like - if you think that everyone is a bad self interested git then they can't be free (but also can't be caged because the only thing that can do that is...yes, other people) and we are all doomed, or you think that if people had enough steady income to spend on what they want they'd make some more moral choices and help the less fortunate.

Theres a real conumdrum here though -

1) People are evil. In which case theres no chance of blind people ever getting any help.

2) People are good. In which case blind people will get help (or helping blind people isn't good?)

3) Some people are good and some people are evil. In which case we'd better hope the good outnumber the bad.

[tomandlu]

1) People are evil. In which case theres no chance of blind people ever getting any help.

2) People are good. In which case blind people will get help (or helping blind people isn't good?)

3) Some people are good and some people are evil. In which case we'd better hope the good outnumber the bad.

I'd go with 3 - the problem is that it isn't symmetrical. One destructive person can undo the constructive work of a lot of people with very little effort. (on a fundamental level, this is my primary objection to Injin world).

In the case of the blind in Injin's world, when altruism is optional, it has diminishing returns. One non-altruistic individual gains due to not helping. Others observe this and also stop helping. At this point, the remaining altruists either have to up the ante (give more) or observe that their efforts are inadequate. If they've got any sense, they argue that their efforts are counter-productive, since all they are doing is giving others a cop-out (as in, "oh, others are helping the blind, so we really don't need a universal fund that everyone pays into."), and then they stop helping, having justified doing so.

[Injin]

I'd go with 3 - the problem is that it isn't symmetrical. One destructive person can undo the constructive work of a lot of people with very little effort. (on a fundamental level, this is my primary objection to Injin world).

In the case of the blind in Injin's world, when altruism is optional, it has diminishing returns. One non-altruistic individual gains due to not helping. Others observe this and also stop helping. At this point, the remaining altruists either have to up the ante (give more) or observe that their efforts are inadequate. If they've got any sense, they argue that their efforts are counter-productive, since all they are doing is giving others a cop-out (as in, "oh, others are helping the blind, so we really don't need a universal fund that everyone pays into."), and then they stop helping, having justified doing so.

And the problem of having a universal and coerced system is that it only takes one evil man to get hold of it and we are all ******ed.

Whereas in a free system they can't do anything like as much damage but are ever present.

That's the choice - between low grade and constant or genocide/war.

And if helping is pointless, it's pointless no matter how we feel about it.

Oh ye I just noticed that you think peoples efforts are linked. They aren't - your efforts have nothing to do with anyone elses.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Injin

[Boom Boom]

If you are going to have a system of extortion, then a CI or benefits is absolutely essential to stop the extortionists from getting murdered in their beds.

It's not an actual solution though, hand outs to the dispossessed from the extortionists just guarantees the status quo will last a bit longer, before it fails completely.

I mean, look at what happens to peopel who get hand outs in the long term - they lose the ability to fend for themselves When the money runs out to pay them (because extortion is actually pretty difficult to maintain as those being stolen from constantly wriggle to avoid it) then they are twice as ******ed as they would have been in the first place.

As things go, benefits, dole, CI etc are a better option for society in general than the thieves just keeping the loot (the tory plan) but a very distant second best to getting rid of the theft entirely.

If you ever had to exist in the lawless anarchy you advocate you'd realise what a fool you've been. There is no civil society to be had in which the actions of just one misanthropic individual can completely undermine it. The ridiculousness of the society you dream about can be demonstrated thus...

A person makes a living processing toxic and radiological waste. He decides that he could make a much better profit by simply dumping it. Accordingly, he dump a ton if it where you live, surrounding your home and going up to a few inches before your front door. What recourse do you have?

[Injin]

If you ever had to exist in the lawless anarchy you advocate you'd realise what a fool you've been.

So you think that a world where there is no coercion would be abad thing? No one waving guns around?

Why?

There is no civil society to be had in which the actions of just one misanthropic individual can completely undermine it. The ridiculousness of the society you dream about can be demonstrated thus...

A person makes a living processing toxic and radiological waste. He decides that he could make a much better profit by simply dumping it. Accordingly, he dump a ton if it where you live, surrounding your home and going up to a few inches before your front door. What recourse do you have?

Full costs, clean up, my time, any damage caused and ofc the extra pay out i'd get from my hedged insurance.

Why do you ask?

[Ologhai Jones]

If you ever had to exist in the lawless anarchy you advocate you'd realise what a fool you've been. There is no civil society to be had in which the actions of just one misanthropic individual can completely undermine it. The ridiculousness of the society you dream about can be demonstrated thus...

A person makes a living processing toxic and radiological waste. He decides that he could make a much better profit by simply dumping it. Accordingly, he dump a ton if it where you live, surrounding your home and going up to a few inches before your front door. What recourse do you have?

Hasn't this forum seen enough 'Injin World' threads already?

[Injin]

Hasn't this forum seen enough 'Injin World' threads already?

It has.

[SHERWICK]

I'd go with 3 - the problem is that it isn't symmetrical. One destructive person can undo the constructive work of a lot of people with very little effort. (on a fundamental level, this is my primary objection to Injin world).

In the case of the blind in Injin's world, when altruism is optional, it has diminishing returns. One non-altruistic individual gains due to not helping. Others observe this and also stop helping. At this point, the remaining altruists either have to up the ante (give more) or observe that their efforts are inadequate. If they've got any sense, they argue that their efforts are counter-productive, since all they are doing is giving others a cop-out (as in, "oh, others are helping the blind, so we really don't need a universal fund that everyone pays into."), and then they stop helping, having justified doing so.

Of course, there's the problem that the blind people have costs that need to be budgeted for and met each day/month/year. However, if contributions to the blind person's fund were completely voluntary, there is no way that the blind people could budget for this (i.e. contributions would constantly go down or up - are blind people supposed to adjust accordingly?).

[SHERWICK]

So you think that a world where there is no coercion would be abad thing? No one waving guns around?

Why?

Full costs, clean up, my time, any damage caused and ofc the extra pay out i'd get from my hedged insurance.

Why do you ask?

Unfortunately there are two problems with this:

1. you'd be dead.

2. the damage has been done.

[Boom Boom]

So you think that a world where there is no coercion would be abad thing? No one waving guns around?

Why?

Full costs, clean up, my time, any damage caused and ofc the extra pay out i'd get from my hedged insurance.

Why do you ask?

Plenty of people would be waving guns around, because there would be no legal injunction preventing them. As for clean up costs, why? You have no claim to the land, and the toxic waste has not touched any of your possessions. Apart from that, who is going to enforce the fine?

[Injin]

Plenty of people would be waving guns around, because there would be no legal injunction preventing them. As for clean up costs, why? You have no claim to the land, and the toxic waste has not touched any of your possessions. Apart from that, who is going to enforce the fine?

No, no one woudl be waving guns around.

I think you mistake my position. I am not anti state, i am anti-coercion, all of it - the state merely being a large subset of that position.

The fine will be enforced by his wife and kids.

[Injin]

Of course, there's the problem that the blind people have costs that need to be budgeted for and met each day/month/year. However, if contributions to the blind person's fund were completely voluntary, there is no way that the blind people could budget for this (i.e. contributions would constantly go down or up - are blind people supposed to adjust accordingly?).

Why not just budget per decade and if anything else comes in, send them a cheque?

[Boom Boom]

No, no one woudl be waving guns around.

I think you mistake my position. I am not anti state, i am anti-coercion, all of it - the state merely being a large subset of that position.

The fine will be enforced by his wife and kids.

Evasion.

This guy has no kids and his wife fully supports the dumping of toxic waste inches from your homestead. Now, please explain...

1. Why there would be any fone in the first place given you have no claim to hte land. This guy is perfectly entitled to do as he pleases with it.

2. Who enforces any fine that could be made in the event of the toxic waste also destroying your home?

[Injin]

Evasion.

This guy has no kids and his wife fully supports the dumping of toxic waste inches from your homestead. Now, please explain...

1. Why there would be any fone in the first place given you have no claim to hte land. This guy is perfectly entitled to do as he pleases with it.

Because i've got insurance against such events, who claim back against him. The damage to my life is obvious and indisputable.

2. Who enforces any fine that could be made in the event of the toxic waste also destroying your home?

In the absence of his wife and kids, it'd be everyone else he deals with.

It's quite hard to function without food, water, medical attention, social company and so on.

he can either pay me up or live with nothing and have no one talk to him ever again.

[tomandlu]

Hasn't this forum seen enough 'Injin World' threads already?

Indeed - my fault. I rose to the bait. It's like squeezing spots, you know you shouldn't, but...

[babesagainstmachines]

he can either pay me up or live with nothing and have no one talk to him ever again.

or change his name and move somewhere else, pretty much how the scam companies on Watchdog work

[Injin]

or change his name and move somewhere else, pretty much how the scam companies on Watchdog work

And how would he do that, exactly?

Go to new area, no one knows him, he's got no standing why would they be providing him with food, water, medical attention?

And if he could...why?

This whole scenario is bizzarre. The problem with advocating peaceful solutions rather than using extortion to do everything is Dr. Evil might drop toxic wste* outside your house.

*Borrowed from Wil E Coyote, I assume.

[Boom Boom]

Because i've got insurance against such events, who claim back against him. The damage to my life is obvious and indisputable.

In the absence of his wife and kids, it'd be everyone else he deals with.

It's quite hard to function without food, water, medical attention, social company and so on.

he can either pay me up or live with nothing and have no one talk to him ever again.

How do they claim back against him? They have no recourse to do so. As for the individual dumping waste, he's made a fortune and find that he has no trouble finding people wanting to talk to him.

[DabHand]

I've read all about it it's just the same tired socialist and communist wealth redistribution and planned economy by another name.

It won't foster any entrepreneurship all safety nets do is encourage mediocrity. Some people may choose to use their spare time to self-education others will not. The whole thing is just like a human zoo where every chimpanzee is provided with a cage, food and water. Some chimps might play on the rope swing others might w@nk in their hands and throw it at each other, I can't see how it's progress.

I'd much rather the chimps were out in the wild even if it does mean it might get eaten by a predator or die of starvation now or again.

What the hell are you on, you crazy person.

Benefits already do this (worse due to marginal taxation rates, greater reward the less you help yourself etc). Soo actually your point is what exactly? Not really CI specific is it?

[Injin]

How do they claim back against him? They have no recourse to do so. As for the individual dumping waste, he's made a fortune and find that he has no trouble finding people wanting to talk to him.

Yes. he will.

Because of the dumping no one will talk to him, trade with him until he makes arrangements to make it right.

That's how this system works, you see. You do bad stuff, no one deals with you. That's how "enforcement" occurs under a free market.

It doesn't matter how much money he's got, no one will take it.

[nixy]

Because i've got insurance against such events, who claim back against him. The damage to my life is obvious and indisputable.

In the absence of his wife and kids, it'd be everyone else he deals with.

It's quite hard to function without food, water, medical attention, social company and so on.

he can either pay me up or live with nothing and have no one talk to him ever again.

Agree. This would be true 'society'.

Where reputation is all.

??

[Boom Boom]

And how would he do that, exactly?

Go to new area, no one knows him, he's got no standing why would they be providing him with food, water, medical attention?

And if he could...why?

This whole scenario is bizzarre. The problem with advocating peaceful solutions rather than using extortion to do everything is Dr. Evil might drop toxic wste* outside your house.

*Borrowed from Wil E Coyote, I assume.

Right, because the issue of people dumping dangerous waste on public land is purely theoretical, never happens. You've revealed another wonderful aspect of InjinWorld, nobody ever moves anywhere, they reside birth to death in the area they were born. I can't move to a new area and expect things like healthcare or the provision of basic social services as. That's great Injin, I'm beginning to think you're a crypto-communist.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Boom Boom