Universal basic income

Watch
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
Our ancestors could breath unpolluted air and drink unspoiled water, hunt or gather their own food and create their own housing. Civilised humans can do none of those things, that's human progress! Of course density of occupation precludes an autarkic life-style but somehow we have come to accept that there are no inalienable property rights for humanity just alienable rights for those who can afford them, everything including a right to life is for sale for if no one has an inalienable property right in the Earth they have no right to a life that is not subject to the arbitrary power of better placed humans. There is no right to say no for the disinherited, disenfranchised and domesticated who should be in receipt of consideration for the contribution of their jus soli (interest in the Earth) to those who wish to create a surplus from it. Since humanity in general is denied the ability to provide for their own subsistence because of the appropriation of the land by exceptional individuals, corporates and States, the surpluses they create should provide that subsistence as a consideration for denying them the freedom that their ancestors enjoyed. UBI is that consideration for everyone, not something that is graciously given but the right of a person whose property (jus soli) has been occupied and who requires payment under the law of property from the person or entity who occupies it (ground rent of £25pa. and subsistance).
1
reply
pepe the prophet
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
I do support the idea of a UBI but I am not entirely sold that we are quite there yet as in we don't need it atm but that being said we are getting really close and our government should be getting ready for it there are certain technology's looming on the horizon that are about to displace massive numbers of jobs and create a real need for UBI specifically self driving cars and voice recognition software witch is getting real close to achieving parity.
My second concern re: UBI is that over time much like our current welfare state it will be eroded over time, I have spoken to other UBI advocates about this in the past and been told its our responsibility to protect it and fight to keep it from being eroded, witch if I'm honest dosent fill me with confidence because we haven't done a good job protecting our current welfare system witch was once a fair and generous system witch they chipped away at over generations leading to where we are now and gave us Universal credit, witch is causing untold misery all across the UK with there heavy handed approach to sanctions and attempts to seize control of peoples lives with unrealistic demands of 35 hour a week work search requirements as well as demands to do unpaid work experience.
1
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#3
My reason for starting this thread was to provide a solid philosophical argument for universal ground rent and universal basic income founded in property law that applied to every human. If an inalienable right to life is to be accepted as a fundamental human right then an inalienable subsumed material interest in the Earth (birthright) has to be recognised in order to give concrete recognition to an expressed belief in all people’s inalienable right to life and that interest has to be legally enforceable through a written constitution (to protect all individuals’ interest from annexation by avaricious members of their society by codifying an initial equal right to property in the territory of the State of which they are one of the two essential elements). There is no human creator to gift or trade the Earth or its resources to any human although certain groups use religious dogma, (a human invented deity’s inalienable ‘right’ to gift its creation to all, a favoured group or an individual), others a hereditary ‘right‘ (dead relatives handed the land down to them), to justify their ’right’ to ’their’ land. Present land law is a legal fiction (just as an inalienable right to life is) created by landlords or their proxies. If enough people decide that the settlement that has been arrived at is grossly unfair (0.6% of the UK population hold 70% of the land) then it can be overturned.
Last edited by landscape2014; 8 months ago
0
reply
pepe the prophet
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 months ago
#4
landscape2014 you might want to checkout http://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/

look for the user profile Brutus he's a massive UBI supporter and done allot of good posts on it over there I think you will enjoy his posts.
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 months ago
#5
(Original post by landscape2014)
Our ancestors could breath unpolluted air and drink unspoiled water, hunt or gather their own food and create their own housing. Civilised humans can do none of those things, that's human progress!
True. But we do have things like soft beds, central heating and food that isn't just wilderbeast and blackberries. That is progress for you.

I have an allotment in my front garden. Do you have any idea how much land, time and skill one needs to be self sufficient? And then you would need to learn skills in house building. When would you have time for that when you are farming. Then cooking and processing skills? How would you have time to make your tools?
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#6
Of course density of occupation precludes an autarkic life-style but somehow we have come to accept that there are no inalienable property rights for humanity just alienable rights for those who can afford them, everything including a right to life is for sale for if no one has an inalienable property right in the Earth they have no right to a life that is not subject to the arbitrary power of better placed humans. There is no right to say no for the disinherited, disenfranchised and domesticated who should be in receipt of consideration for the contribution of their jus soli (interest in the Earth) to those who wish to create a surplus from it. Since humanity in general is denied the ability to provide for their own subsistence because of the appropriation of the land by exceptional individuals, corporates and States, the surpluses they create should provide that subsistence as a consideration for denying them the freedom that their ancestors enjoyed.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#7
Thanks for the head-up site shows up as insecure
(Original post by pepe the prophet)
landscape2014 you might want to checkout http://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/

look for the user profile Brutus he's a massive UBI supporter and done allot of good posts on it over there I think you will enjoy his posts.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#8
What philosophical arguments do those who favour UBI use to justify it?
Last edited by landscape2014; 8 months ago
0
reply
pepe the prophet
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 months ago
#9
Id say the primary argument is automation in the work place displacing jobs another is that it's a way to make work pay for all no matter what there circumstances.
The latter is one I can relate to as someone who spent the better part of a year on welfare when I was living alone and was unskilled in any field and could only apply for minimum wage jobs.
With travel expenses and lunches ect on top of the regular living expenses such as rent and council tax I was actually worse off than I was on welfare at the time and it prevented me applying for most jobs.
0
reply
pepe the prophet
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 months ago
#10
you might enjoy this Landscape2014 its a talk by Yanis Varoufakis ex greek finance minister discussing the neceicisty of a UBI in the near future

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y0Ss
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#11
Thanks, I follow Yanis but missed this particular talk. His bases his philosophical underpinning of UBI on ethical consideration I would base it on the law of property, inalienable property rights for humanity and alienable rights for those who can afford personal property or occupy a portion of the common domain, subject to a payment of consideration (universal ground rent to the nation for the contribution of its jus soli (interest in the Earth) from those who wish to create a surplus from it (UBI would be paid to every national from those surpluses). To realise UGR and UBI a majority of humanity in any given area would have to accept two fundamental propositions; 1) Jus ad rem - the right of every individual to a thing, an inalienable right to life. 2) Jus soli - the inalienable right of every individual in the territory into which they are born (their birthright). Jus soli being inalienable would not be subject to Lex Mercantoria - merchant's law, the individual's interest in the land could never be sold (but it could be leased for exclusive use by an person or entity who wished to acquire it, for a consideration to the nation).
Last edited by landscape2014; 8 months ago
0
reply
pepe the prophet
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 months ago
#12
Interesting approach i dont think i have heard that one before, personally the argument that has made the most sense to me was the idea of a robot/automation tax to pay for a UBI.
If the primary reason for needing a UBI is automation in the work place and these businesses are making more money and contributing less to society due to automation then I think its only sensible those business owners pay tax on the machines equivalent to the labour they replace.
I allso think the state should offer grants to businesses to help kick start automation in more fields if these business owners cant aford the cost on there own but can show a good plan/business model to justify why automation would be profitable for both buisnes owner and state.

I see allot of fear centerd around automation in the work place these days like train ticket inspectors protesting tikket barriers for example, And rightly so as these will dissplace them from the job market and force them on to an abhorrent welfare system that demonizes the unemployed
With the automation tax and a UBI automation would be something we embrace instead of holding back technical innovation and UBI could be seen more as a dividend of a successful economy.

While I'm not an outspoken advocate for UBI I only know the arguments in a surface sort of way but this one seems to be what makes the most sense to me.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#13
My approach employs both religious (for the religiously inclined) and humanist (for the humanistically inclined) philosophy. The Old Testament states, Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Which raises a fundamental question for Christians, Moslems and Jews; at what stage in their religion’s development did the divine revelations of God become subordinate to the divine right of capital? Was it when Esau sold his birthright for a mess of potage and deprived his posterity of an inheritance God had promised them in Genesis? Jacob ignored God's will and was not summarily punished so Jacobites rule, OK. The humanist could point to the American Declaration of Independence; ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. How were the founding fathers to ensure an inalienable right to life without legalising inalienable right to property (in the legal, not the physical sense) in the territory? The inalienable right to life was reserved for the property owning class (c.150,000 of a population of c. 4million, their representatives constructed a constitution for their constituency, not the American people). Your tax suggestion involves chasing businesses through their balance sheets which as we are all aware can be made to say what their smart accountant decides it will say. You may have seen the BBC programme about the BoE on Tuesday last (available on iplayer) in which a employee justifiably praised the central computer at the BoE which processes about £690 billion in GBP transactions a day, that amounts to about £250 trillion a year. The UK budget is about £810 billion a year. For a century economists from John Maynard Keynes to James Tobin have suggested that a transaction tax would be the fairest way for capitalism to provide for government expenditure. A transaction tax of 0.16% on both sides of every transaction would net the treasury £800 billion per year, there would be no need of any other taxation. Why then isn't a transaction tax adopted? One reason is the tens of thousands of government employees who would become redundant. The other is that the financial and corporate sector would have to pay their proportionate share for use of GBP. The total salary/wage bill for the country is about £1 trillion, people spend most of it. C.£249 trillion is the financial and corporate sectors usage. Presently the working population pay about 50% of the tax bill (those use c.£1 trillion) the other 50% is paid by the finance sector and corporates (those use c. £249 trillion) the disproportionate load of the present tax system has existed for generations, and economists have been aware of it, few want to 'rock the boat' and publicly endorse a proportionate tax system which would shift the burden of taxation to those who presently make disproportionate use of GBP. Decades ago electronic technology made transaction taxation possible, vested interests will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. UBI is affordable but not while we persist with the corrupt and corrupting financial system we have inherited.
Last edited by landscape2014; 7 months ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#14
To put the previous information into context the proportionate contributions to annual government income by real people and artificial personalities (corporates) with a flat rate transaction tax of 0.16% ; real people 0.4% (£3.2 billion), artificial people 99.6% (£800 billion, and they would do that by merely increasing their present total contribution of about 0.13% to 0.32% (2 x 0.16%).
Last edited by landscape2014; 8 months ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#15
There is no objective interest which can be ascribed to groups or individuals who do not recognise it themselves; the acceptance of a legal right to UBI is ignored by both its intended beneficiaries (they see it as a hand-out, welfare) and those who benefit from civilised humanity's disarticulation from the Earth. The striving of the dispossessed for security and sufficiency, which freedom for the corporatist has denied them, has been replaced with the pessimism of insufficiency and insecurity born of an inability to analyse their situation and act to change the existing political settlement; to claim their inheritance. Those who claim to represent their constituents interests have analysed their situation and decided to accept the corporate capitalist settlement (as opposed to a commonwealth capitalist one) as the basis of their actions on behalf of their constituencies, re-claiming the population’s material interest in land (jus soli) is not part of any political agenda because there is no appreciation of it, and because there is no demand for it by the electorate mass ignorance and disinterest has made slaves to corporate capital and credit markets of us all.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now? (select all that apply)

Lack of purpose or routine (180)
15.33%
Uncertainty around my education (193)
16.44%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (115)
9.8%
Isolating with family (81)
6.9%
Lack of support system (eg. Teachers, counsellors) (45)
3.83%
Lack of exercise/ability to be outside (99)
8.43%
Loneliness (114)
9.71%
Financial worries (52)
4.43%
Concern about myself or my loved ones getting ill (109)
9.28%
Exposure to negative news/social media (86)
7.33%
Lack of real life entertainment (eg. cinema, gigs, restaurants) (100)
8.52%

Watched Threads

View All