23

23

response to universal basic serfdom take 2

UNIVERSAL BASIC SERFDOM


Posted on 6th November 2016 by Colin R. Turner






https://freeworlder.com/blog/2016/11/06/universal-basic-serfdom/


I would start by asking the question: Does basic income look like 'serfdom' IN COMPARISON to the system we have now, or does it only look like serfdom in comparison to an RBE? This is an important question because it establishes the issue of whether UBI is an improvement from the current situation but just not good enough, or if instead it is a step backwards and thus away from the goal of an RBE.

and there is this one to research:
Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal-basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer

car

                                                                           

goal 1=1,500
completed

or

goal 2=2,000
completed

or

goal 3=50,000
1/20th completed

4.22.17=0.
6.24.17=500.
7.1.17=  575.
8.1.17=  800.
9.1.17=  500.
10.1.17=800.
11.1.17=1100.
12.1.17=2000.
2.1.18=  2500.
3.1.18=  2283.

Quotes from The New Human Rights Movement

I will be going back through Peter Joseph's book "The New Human Rights Movement" and posting quotes from it. It may take some time but I think it is important

."The Single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
-George Bernard Shaw- p. xiii

"Modern poverty is actually not an inevitable byproduct of humans' sharing a planet that is supposedly deficient in resources. Rather, poverty today is a systemic consequence native to our current economic mode. In other words, its existence is artificial and contrived, not natural." p. xix


"Poverty is simply a negative externality of the market economy, just as industrial pollution often is. However, while poverty is certainly an effect of the social system, it can also be separated as a cause. In modern sociological research, poverty is frequently referenced as a starting point, or prediction, that leads to a spectrum of sociological problems. These include premature mortality, violence, social destabilization, epidemic disease, crime, suicide, mental illness, domestic abuse, and many other public-health concerns."  p. xix

Quasi-Basic Income experiment in Finland

This is a good article about the Finland experiment because it shows that it is not a "Universal-Basic-Income" experiment. The only word here that even applies (besides 'Income' is "guaranteed" and even that is not really accurate because it is temporary (2 years). It is not "Universal" because not everyone gets it. It is not "Basic" because it is not enough to cover basic needs. It is designed specifically as an experiment to see if existing unemployment benefits and a few other programs can be replaced. That seems fine but it should not be confused with a Universal Basic Income experiment.

Finland's guaranteed basic income is working to tackle poverty
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-06/finlands-guaranteed-basic-income-working-tackle-poverty

I think in a way it is a good step. At the same time it may be a step in the wrong direction if the data collected from this experiment turns out to be in some ways negative and then is incorrectly attached to the Universal Basic Income idea. Here is why I think it may be negative:

In the USA it has long been a stereo-type that people on welfare are 'lazy', depressed and undermotivated to better their lives. This is mainly because welfare is usually such a small amount that people are actually not free to take risks or become inspired to follow their passions. The stereo-type of welfare recipients in the USA is of a couch potatoe in a small apartment or trailer, drinking and eating potatoe chips while watching TV all day or doing drugs. This stereo-type is what many people picture when they hear about the idea of UBI. This stereo-type like most, has some basis in reality. So why then does the welfare system many times cause this problem?

I know from experience what can happen when a person has only a tiny amount to live off of which is only enough to NOT STARVE, but to do nothing beyond that. It causes a kind of depression and hopelessness. Not being able to go out and do things, not being able to buy materials for inspiring projects or to pursue higher things like education or travel... basically, not having options other than eating beans and rice and staying home to save money.... this kind of lifestyle in my opinion is against the concept of basic income and the freedom and innovation that it could make possible for those who are currently inhibited by poverty and inequality.

To me it is ironic because these intellectuals of privilege tend to say over and over that "if you give people enough money to be comfortable then you get rid of their incentive to reach for more". But I think for many people this is the exact opposite of what actually happens. People NEED a certain level of comfort in order to feel the safety and confidence to strive for more. There are always exceptions of the starving person in poverty who used their destitution as a motivation to try EXTRA hard and not let it get them down. But I think these people are the exception rather than the rule, and will inevitably corrupt the data of this quasi-UBI.

I would also want to honestly ask those in positions of privilege who seem to think that 'poverty and struggle gives you incentive'..... the typical entreprenuer type.
Were you actually under constant threat of eviction and flat broke and with little or no food when you started that new business idea? That successful new venture? Or were you in a sort of positions of having the most basic things taken care of from your own savings, or help from well-to-do family and friends? Did you have a car so that you could go mett with people you needed to meet with for your project? Etc...

Once again, there are exceptions, but they are not the rule. The rule is that poverty and not having enough generally makes people depressed and crates a cycle of poverty. I though this was what the Basic Income idea was meant to address and I cannot see how it can do so in reality if it is trying to keep people "hungry" in the name of incentive.

The real solution here would be to use scientific studies to figure out which is it. Is it that struggle keeps people down or that it creates incentive? I know that the OPINION of most wealthy people is the latter, even though most of them have never experienced poverty themselves. But what does behavioral sciences say? Luckily, there is a lot of information on this topic and it points to the fact that people do better when they have their needs met. I would only hope that these experiments could be scientific rather than political and designed based on the findings of science rather than the opinions of the wealthy and intellectual who think this incentive thing.

My Review of Utopia by Thomas More

I found Thomas More's Utopia very interesting for several reasons. Firstly, most of his critiques of England at the time are still relevant today in their criticisms of property, the treatment of the poor and working class, the parasitical nature of the rich and ruling class and the ineffectiveness of using severe punishments as a means to stop crime. This is Illustrated in the two statements that I particularly liked: "no penalty on Earth will stop people from stealing, if its their only way of getting food."
And: "Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody's under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse."
The book is written in a style where More is having a conversation with a fictional character who is telling him about the political, economic and social system of the fictional land 'Utopia'. To me, this seems like a sort of loophole in which More was able to question his real life England and somehow get away with it (although maybe that didn't actually work, since he was later hanged for his ideas) I think it was also as a way perhaps for him to speak more from his conscience which probably contradicted his religious beliefs and actions.
While some of his ideas about the social system in Utopia seem like they might be progress even for our time, most of them are actually barbaric, fascist, totalitarian and inhumane by our standards. I think that there is a valuable lesson to be learned here and that is that More's vision of a perfect world is limited and corrupted by the brutality, ignorance and injustice of his own real life society. We should learn from this and use it to help us humbly admit that even our most utopian dreams in the present are corrupted by the influences of the system which produces us, such as capitalism, an imperialist government and other forms of hierarchy that we may even be blind to, unable to see them because we are so used to them. We can only hope that future generations will look back at us and our ideas of a perfect society, with disgust and sympathy for our ignorance.
 One example of More's flawed idea of Utopia was that this place was supposedly a place where the social system worked so well that everyone was happy and freely chose to follow its just laws. And yet he repeatedly names slavery as the punishment for crime after crime. Supposedly everyone loves to work, and yet there is a large slave class which supports the society through their labor, doing things that or too hard or dirty for 'respectable' citizens.  The society is also riddled with a complex system of family and community hierarchy in which no one is really equal, especially not the women. This shows the flaws of a mind which is the product of the 16th century environment. If people are so 'free', happy and in agreement as to the rationality of their social system, then why would that system need to enforce its many laws with threat of lifetime slavery? Why would this system depend on slaves for its productive work? Why would there need to be a stratified social system where everyone has to obey their 'betters' and women must submit to the whims of the husbands? These things are actually proof of a failed social system, I would argue. More had another interesting contradiction in Utopia. He claimed that in Utopia, there is no money and that everyone shares equally in the products of society, but this idea was obviously so extremely revolutionary at the time that his mind seemed incapable of conceiving it even when trying because he also goes on to say how even the poor are treated well in this situation of moneyless, communistic equality. So I wonder... if there is no money and everyone shares equally in the fruits of society, then how can there even be 'poor' people (never mind the slaves) who are treated well?
I actually did like the book and would recommend reading it for exactly the reasons I mentioned: it is a valuable although perhaps unintentional warning to all those of us who dream of a better world. That warning is that we are product of our culture, our socio-economic environment. Even our most egalitarian and Utopian dreams are products of a corrupt and unjust system. It is arrogant to think otherwise. We can only work towards a better world than we have, and never a  Utopia.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A small amendment to my review is based on a slight misunderstanding that I had the feeling people might get when reading what I wrote. I am not so much saying that people shouldn't dream big and aim for Utopia, but rather that they should take warning from the example of people like More and realize how LIMITED their dreams may be, unavoidably influenced by their current system. We should all strive to reach even farther "out off the box".  This can only be done by first realizing that we are in one. A small example comes from something that a friend once said to me when I was telling him ideas about a world without money or war. He said "Oh God, if we could only get single-payer healthcare!!!" This to me was so sad to see someone's dreams so small and yet there is this kind of widespread tendency to limit our goals in an attempt to 'be realistic'. Has any innovation throughout history whether social, technological or artistic ever come from people limiting their dreams to be 'realistic'? No. They came from the very opposite. To reach farther than what was known or accepted at the time.

Daemon

A few years ago I heard a lecture from the Long Now Foundation where Daniel Suarez talked about internet bots. The lecture was incredibly interesting and inspired me to read his book. When I got the book from the Public library I was a little intimidated by its 600 pages but decided to try and read it before the due date. As soon as I began, the book flew by. I have never read anything so fast paced and easily flowing. It has a few gruesome scenes and plenty of action. I'm looking forward to reading the next book in the series and am excited to see where the story goes.

Here is the author's non-fiction lecture about internet bots and other technology...

http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/aug/08/daemon-bot-mediated-reality/