The push for universal basic income is gaining ground

I am a libertarian CJ. I pretty much agree with left wing libertarian ideology. What about you?

Feb 2, 2015 -- 7:58PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

I am a libertarian CJ. I pretty much agree with left wing libertarian ideology. What about you?

Do you think libertarian = liberal? Posh word for dirty ole socialist?

I had a discussion on this before, I will bring up the thread.

Question Time is thread title, is up now CJ.

Okay you won't put some flesh on those bones Buzzer. How about you explain to us who you are both a left winger and a libertarian?

Ive brought up the thread where I explain that EO. You didn't define libertarianism then, maybe you will now? What do you mean by libertarian?

We don't answer questions with questions here Buzzer. After you old boy. You can run but you can't hide.

Feb 2, 2015 -- 8:11PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

Question Time is thread title, is up now CJ.

Cheers. I've browsed through EO and yourself discussing the libertarian issue.

I think you've appropriated a term which doesn't mean what you think it does. There's nothing libertarian about the welfare distribution, soak the rich stuff that you put over in this thread.

I may have missed key tenets of what you believe in that aren't in this thread, but why do you consider yourself a libertarian?

It reminds me of the student fees riots where you had people in balaclavas spraying anarchist signs and big Gov slogans.

I see. You can't. Nevermind.

We don't answer questions with questions here CJ old boy. You've got to give to get. EO rules. I asked what about you?

Feb 2, 2015 -- 8:31PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

We don't answer questions with questions here CJ old boy. You've got to give to get. EO rules. I asked what about you?

There wasn't a question in that comment, so that doesn't quite work ;)

Why do you consider yourself a libertarian isn't a question?

I wouldn't have brought that thread up again if I were you Buzzer. Even I was wincing as I read your posts. You're still as evasive. It seems clear you're a naked man looking for a suit and any one will do. Take your time and think about things before you commit.

Yeah yeah. I am a libertarian because i believe in the doctrine of freewill and the principle of individual liberty of thought and action.
You claim to be libertarian EO, what do you believe?

In my experience those I've encountered claiming to be libertarian's tend to be socialists with an extra layer of bullshit to try and justify taking the money/assets from one group and giving it to another.


I'll have a skim through the thread later

You were just telling CJ about the rules Buzzer. The least you can do is not answer a question with another question. I know what I think. Just for once it would be nice for you to be a little more clear without a cut and paste of someone else's views. You do have views don't you? If so now is the time. Carpe diem old sausage. Carpe diem.

Feb 2, 2015 -- 8:33PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

Why do you consider yourself a libertarian isn't a question?

The quote I was replying to is still there, there's no question in that.

As I said previously and EO has mentioned in his last reply. You seem to have come across the term and describe yourself as such without it seemingly fitting with your comments.

It was a very cunning and effective trick by the right to smear the left as by definition authoritarian but its not the truth. Left wing libertarians believe the land and natural resources belong to us all. Right wing so called libertarians don't it seems.

CJ these assumptions about my thinking make clear we are not on the same wavelength. I believe that the introduction of basic income would give more freedom and autonomy to the mass of the population, this is consistent with my libertarian instincts, you don't understand that, fair enough.

Another  trick was this including 'property rights' in the definition of libertarian. Yet more abuse of the language to manipulate people's thinking to suit a political agenda.

Feb 2, 2015 -- 8:52PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

CJ these assumptions about my thinking make clear we are not on the same wavelength. I believe that the introduction of basic income would give more freedom and autonomy to the mass of the population, this is consistent with my libertarian instincts, you don't understand that, fair enough.

I understand you perfectly.

Your thinking is muddled. Change basic income to living wage in all that you've said and read it back to yourself.

Thereby those with no property at all have no rights but its ok it is all done in the name of 'libertarianism'.

I said basic income not living wage CJ.

Feb 2, 2015 -- 9:10PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

I said basic income not living wage CJ.

That's why I asked you to change it and read it back to yourself. Scary, eh?

blah blah what ever you want to call the free money I'd still like an answer to :-

A) How much do you think people should get per annum?
B) How many out of the 60million in the UK should get it

A * B = C (total amount required every year)

Look at QE done so far , GDP , current welfare spend and tax receipts , then describe with a bit more than hopium where amount C is going to come from.

I said basic income not living wage CJ, I don't understand your point?

Feb 2, 2015 -- 9:20PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

I said basic income not living wage CJ, I don't understand your point?

Basic income is X and living wage is Y.

You believe X is libertarian by whatever means because it is X. Replace X with Y and you sound like Len McCluskey, who's a well known libertarian.

You still haven't explained why you are a libertarian Buzzer. I'd have thought two years would have been enough for you to formulate an answer. It seems not. And yes the left do tend to be authoritarian. You see it on here all the time.

CJ Im advocating a basic income not a living wage.They are not the same thing so what would the point be of re reading my own posts substituting a different notion for basic income?
EO you haven't explained why we should take your alleged libertarianism seriously. Why are you so sure that you are libertarian and I'm not?

Feb 2, 2015 -- 11:03PM, The beauty of Buzzer wrote:

CJ Im advocating a basic income not a living wage.They are not the same thing so what would the point be of re reading my own posts substituting a different notion for basic income? EO you haven't explained why we should take your alleged libertarianism seriously. Why are you so sure that you are libertarian and I'm not?

Yes, your hiding behind something you believe to be libertarian to back up your views which are purely envy driven socialism.

Some proper grammar going on in that last comment.

Something that demonstrates the intolerant authoritarian nature of liberals and left is that, from everything I'v read here especially, they wouldn’t be able to accept the idea of the left and right splitting into two groups and going off and living in their own areas according to their own principles.
I for one would be quite happy if the lefties fkd off and did their own thing somewhere else, but they seem to have this overwhelming desire to impose their bullsh&t on everyone regardless and can’t accept a dissenting view.
Part of the answer is that because they’re generally jealous and broke ar&e they need someone else to pay for their socialist economic fantasy and inevitable failures.

Funnily enough if SNP get a stranglehold on Jockland and get further independence you could all get your socialist dystopia to f off to, but I'd bet a pound to pinch of sh&t you'd be back trying to put your hands in the pockets of the right before long.

Why Buzzer I can't be sure you aren't until you tell me what you stand for and why you think you are a libertarian. Anybody would think you had something to hide.

You boys want to get over yourselves with all this telling me what I really think lark. Envy driven socialism eh Cj. Watch out with that projection , envy of what exactly?

None of us know what you think Buzzer. It's like The Dance Of The Seven Veils in your head.

I think that basic income is a good idea as explained in this thread.
This is consistent with my libertarian instincts. Not this twisted defintion of libertarianism that includes'property rights' but the original definition of libertarianism before some on the right hijacked it to push their quite blatently anti libertarian agenda. Libertarianism for the rich, mortgage/rent slavery for nearly all the rest.

Well I think we've established at this stage that you are unable to flesh out your beliefs Buzzer so we'll need to go a bit easier on you. How about a question?

Do you believe in redistribution?

Yes, introducing basic income would be a form of redistribution as I mention in my OP and again later on.

How is that libertarian Buzzer?

Because it would mean more freedom and liberty for more people? How is it not?

We had this discussion before, you seem to believe in people being coerced to labour but not ever being coerced into sharing ill gotten gains .

Err no. What you describe is a type utilitarianism. The greatest happiness of the greatest number. Libertarianism is a concept for all and not just the majority or a larger than existing number.

I think you need to have another think before we proceed with this discussion.

What do you think libertarianism actually means as opposed to what you would like it to mean?

We did have that discussion and I was quite explicit in saying that nobody should be coerced to labour. You should always have the choice.

I've already said what I think it means earlier in the thread. What do you think it means?

I don't think you have and to the extent that you have committed yourself you have expressed support for something which is anti libertarian which is redistribution.

What do you mean by libertarian?

Seems to me the crucial difference between a leftie libertarian and a rightie one is that the leftie libertarian believes the land and natural resources belong to us all and the rightie doesn't. My views are consistent with left wing libertarianism , left wing libertarianism is a political philosophy , there is plenty written on the subject.

There are many definitions of libertarian but all the ones I recognise have the individual rejecting the idea of using violence, the threat of violence or compulsion to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. The individual is autonomous and should respect the autonomy of others. Anything which impinges upon this autonomy moves towards authoritarianism. This principle can be extended into the public sphere into government. Which isn't to say that some libertarians aren't willing to cede some of their liberty where they see some benefit but there are others who would take a dim view of such a suggestion.

and all he can provide re costing is vague weightless ideas rather than responding to my post re A * B = C
but that would be actually committing himself....

That's the issue pawras. He refuses to clarify if he is a shepherd or a wolf.

His dream would be liberating for those who get their hands on OTHER PEOPLE’S money/assets.
If you’ve worked many years and accumulated xyz money/assets how is that ill gotten????
Like most of his ilk I would imagine he's got f all and just feels entitled to other people’s stuff

Oh I'd still like an answer to :-

A) How much do you think people should get per annum?
B) How many out of the 60million in the UK should get it

A * B = C (total amount required every year)

Look at total QE done so far , GDP , current welfare spend and tax receipts , then describe with a bit more than hopium where amount C is going to come from.

The current government total spend is currently about 560 billion and you’re seeking to increase that by at least 300 billion, don’t say qe because the total so far would barely cover 2 years worth of your free money and doing that every year would lead to the Weimar republic situation.
The only way you can extract money from the land, over 60% of the value of which is in people’s homes, is to impose a static capital tax on people’s homes, which will drive down values and reduce tax take.
Therefore very quickly the end game for your wealth redistribution has to be huge tax increase on buisnesses on the top 10% or so (i.e. anyone hitting the 40% bracket) who happen to be the most likely to leave and go somewhere else.

Some you need some clear numbers or it’s just wishful thinking with no real concrete roadmap for implementation which has zero chance of ever happening
Here’s those links to help you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom

I looked at report wrong , total government spend is 562.8 central and 168.6 local making 731.4 billion

How do you suggest we get house prices back in line with income? Basic income is one way of doing that and would free people from the mortgage/rent slavery caused by 30 odd years of so called 'libertarian' economics. Libertarian means believing in the doctrine of freewill, the addition of believer in small state is political isn't it. Some may define justice as meaning belief in redistribution of wealth for eg, does that mean a person who doesn't believe in redistribution of wealth then has to accept that means he is inherently unjust? The concept of libertarianism has been hijacked , I am a libertarian by the original definition ie I believe in freewill autonomy and liberty, how that is attained is obviously up for debate but this oh you are not libertarian because you don't accept a hijacked definition is, in itself, authoritarian.

You clearly don't believe in autonomy if you advocate the state stealing someones money/labour to give to someone else Buzzer. You clearly don't believe in free will if you advocate the state stealing someones money to give to someone else Buzzer. You clearly don't believe in liberty if you advocate the state stealing someones wealth/labour to give to someone else Buzzer.

exactly. exactly. exactly.


I would find it extremely unjust if what I've spent life working for was taken away to give to someone else. I would rather burn it first personally.

You keep saying basic income would do xyz but you have no way of costing it without ultimately applying massive tax increases on those you see as 'unjustly' having more than others,

Oh. I see. So lets say one family owns all the wealth in the UK and enslaves everybody else. What would a libertarian do about it?

if you're having trouble understanding the cost issue read my previous post, explaining the costing problem, out loud and maybe move your finger along the screen as you do it.

How do you suggest we get house prices back in line with income pawras?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-on-housing-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-detailed-characteristics.html

While you’ve got over half the homes in the UK are owner occupied you’ve ZERO chance of them voting to handover their personal wealth to finance your bullsh&t little dream.

Unless interest rates go up then the most that will happen is that they’ll reach a point where people can’t borrow the money required to buy them and/or they’ll have to accept spending a long time saving up for a deposit. Home ownership isn’t some sort of human right. I did without a car , hols and all sorts to buy my first place, people should perhaps not expect to have everything all at once.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

If the Tories have any sense they won’t let home ownership dip under 50% because if you actually own your own place you’re less likely to vote for the sort of numb cu&ts that want to tax you out of it.

Oh. I see. So lets say one family owns all the wealth in the UK and enslaves everybody else. What would a libertarian do about it?

Hardly very likely Buzzer but seeing as that would contravene the central tenets of libertarianism then it couldn't be allowed to stand.

Seems to me the difference between a left wing libertarian and a right wing one is that the left wing one has more of a problem with people being coerced to labour and the right with people being coerced to share wealth.This is because the left wing one believes the land and resources belong to us all and the right wing one doesn't.

EO the way things are going it may well be that soon enough a very few families will own all the wealth in the UK. The intro of basic income is one way of making that less likely to happen imo.

Besides houses aren’t expensive everywhere, i.e. the house I’m in now would buy a street where I’m from originally.
If you can’t afford a house in the area you’d like to be in then fkn tough ti&ty I don’t care, being able to afford where you want to live isn’t some human right either.


Lol you believe in no one owning land/property and it should be all shared equally????

don't make yourself look stupid advocating something you won't/can't cost out.

I didn't say property paw I said the land and resources.

I don't care about your opinion of my intellect paw. I believe basic income is a good idea , this is what this thread is about. You don't and believe it unaffordable. I disagree.

Most of value in t

The vast vast majority of land value in the UK is in residential property, 64% of which is owner occupied. Do you grasp why you wouldn’t win any vote on wealth redistribution?

Free money for everyone is always a good idea, let’s all have 10k a week. Woooh yeah brilliant!!!!
The difference is I like to think about the practicalities to the end point as much as possible. I’ve explained clearly why I think it’s not affordable and won’t happen, with plenty of figures to back it up.
So you can either come back with a rational logical argument to counter that, or ignore the facts and just keep saying it’s great, it’s gonna happen , with zero weight behind it.

I don't believe it is unaffordable. I believe it would revolutionise our society and boost our economy. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'm sticking with it.

Sorry but you're wrong Buzzer. No right libertarian could possibly believe that slavery or compulsion is right. It goes against everything they stand for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZEXEItKND0

The clue is in the title Buzzer - libertarian and of course you will get fooled again because you're gullible and not very worldly.

Its still in the Green party manifesto apparently , they're not suggesting enough imo but it's a start

Here's a piece written by the philosopher Thomas Wells on the robot economy ,as melv mentions on this thread, and basic income

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/07/17/4048180.htm

Free money for everyone is always a good idea, let’s all have 10k a week. Woooh yeah brilliant!!!!

That's what happens with those with inherited wealth already.

Here's a piece explaining that basic income suits the right and the left

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040832/world-changing-ideas/a-universal-basic-income-is-the-bipartisan-solution-to-poverty-weve-bee

FFS are you back on this nonsense.

All this was well and truly p&ssed on from a great height previously.
It’s completely un-costed and even a modest amount would require total wealth redistribution which ain’t ever gonna happen so get over it.


As for Edam-Cheese’s comment, nothing wrong with inherited wealth, if you think either my parents or my assets are ever going outside our family you are truly deluded.

Beauty of Buzzer
imagine owning your own cleaning company.

All your staff are labourers, not skilled. 

Are you going to pay them a living wage of £10 an hour, or pay them minimum wage, knowing that the govt will make up the difference with Housing Benefit?

sandgc, if basic income were introduced one of the many benefits conferred would be the abolition of the minimum wage. The basic income would be paid directly from the state , employers would be free to offer as little wage as they can get people to work for.

reread previous posts, it's not costed and would require total wealth redistribution to even do a modest amount worthwhile, ergo it ain't ever gonna happen end of story

Where there's a will there's a way paw.

Never say never on anything, but where full wealth redistribution is concerned I'd lay that one all day.

The introduction of basic income wouldn't mean full wealth redistribution, it would mean no longer would people be slaves to mortgagees and a temporary cap on house prices and rents along with the introduction of basic income would mean housing costs would eventually fall back in line with income.

FFS - look at the numbers in the previous posts, I'm sorry but you are totally deluded. I know you are living in hope but quoting links as for other people who think it would be a goof idea doesn't change the hard reality of the numbers.

Ie as I posted previously

A) How much do you think people should get per annum?
B) How many out of the 60million in the UK should get it

A * B = C (total amount required every year)

Look at total QE done so far , GDP , current welfare spend and tax receipts , then describe with a bit more than hopium where amount C is going to come from.

The current government total spend is currently about 560 billion and you’re seeking to increase that by at least 300 billion, don’t say qe because the total so far would barely cover 2 years worth of your free money and doing that every year would lead to the Weimar republic situation.
The only way you can extract money from the land, over 60% of the value of which is in people’s homes, is to impose a static capital tax on people’s homes, which will drive down values and reduce tax take.
Therefore very quickly the end game for your wealth redistribution has to be huge tax increase on businesses on the top 10% or so (i.e. anyone hitting the 40% bracket) who happen to be the most likely to leave and go somewhere else.

Some you need some clear numbers or it’s just wishful thinking with no real concrete roadmap for implementation which has zero chance of ever happening Laugh
Here’s those links to help you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom


The vast vast majority of land value in the UK is in residential property, 64% of which is owner occupied. Do you grasp why you wouldn’t win any vote on wealth redistribution?

How many of the 'owners' of the 64% you quote have a charge on their property to the mortgagee? Then theres the rest which is presumably made up of dwindling council stock and that which is 'owned' by landlords. This country is rich both in natural resources and labour , it doesn't have to be that nearly all the land and property is charged to mortgagees. Basic income would make up for the fact that 'trickle down' and 'the property owning democracy' has actually meant financiers have now got charges on nearly all the land and property as it would help people pay off these charges and get the market back to how it once was, in line with income.

Deregulation of financial services has been a disaster with the only winners being the financiers, obviously. Basic income is a way of redressing the balance.

FFS you dipstick, the money HAS to come from somewhere and in the end that means those that have handing it over to those that haven't, which simply isn't going to happen, you can hope and wish all you but it ain't.

If you say so. I believe it is the best solution we have to protect ourselves from falling further and further into a dictatorship by the rich/financiers.

not once have you been able to cost your dream without resorting to wealth redistribution, and we're not just talking about the top 1% here, we're talking about sixty odd % of the populous that own their own home, wealth of which you'd seek to 'distribute'

Its not my dream, its one practical solution to the damage caused by 30 odd years of bad economics and the robbery of our land and property by financiers. The wealth redistribution that you have a bee in your bonnet about would only be in the sense that the cost of property would come down and be back in line with incomes which is how it should be.
If we going to live in a free market economy everybody should start with some chips as it were and basic income would mean everybody does.

Are you being deliberately obtuse??????

As you can’t just print endless amounts of money, therefore to give X amount of money to everyone every week it has to come from somewhere.
Or do you think it’s a bit like the magic porridge pot or something???

What is the current benefit bill do you know? Anyway obviously that would all be basic income and the rest would be like quantative easing but direct to the people. It would be big boost to the economy so the tax take would increase, it would cause inflation so handy for the debt, it would mean the pound would go down, so good for exports too.

LMFAO !!! You really a tard and you obviously ignore the hard info I've provided. So in other words you need to learn some remedial maths, then afterwards reread this that I’ve posted several times and look at the links

A) How much do you think people should get per annum?
B) How many out of the 60million in the UK should get it

A * B = C (total amount required every year)

Look at total QE done so far , GDP , current welfare spend and tax receipts , then describe with a bit more than hopium where amount C is going to come from.

The current government total spend is currently about 560 billion and you’re seeking to increase that by at least 300 billion, don’t say qe because the total so far would barely cover 2 years worth of your free money and doing that every year would lead to the Weimar republic hyper inflation situation.
The only way you can extract money from the land, over 60% of the value of which is in people’s homes, is to impose a static capital tax on people’s homes, which will drive down values and reduce tax take.
Therefore very quickly the end game for your wealth redistribution has to be huge tax increase on businesses on the top 10% or so (i.e. anyone hitting the 40% bracket) who happen to be the most likely to leave and go somewhere else.

Some you need some clear numbers or it’s just wishful thinking with no real concrete roadmap for implementation which has zero chance of ever happening
Here’s those links to help you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom

they are crowing about reduction of the deficit
a presenter on sky going on about it this morning

but it is still adding some 65 billion to the debt

it isn't zero or the reverse - in credit

what on earth are any of them crowing about - the debt is increasing every month

Apparently the Chinese are getting a bit agitated with the US for inflating away debt with quantative easing. They might not mind us doing it for basic income.They set exchange rates to suit themselves after all, unless somethings changed.

Here's a link to a letter in the FT arguing for 'quantative easing' for the people

http://www.basicincome.org/news/2015/03/europe-quantitative-easing-for-people/

you can argue giving to the people the amounts of QE currently given to the banks but full basic income is uncosted boll&&ks

Here's another suggestion as to how basic income could be funded- from the value of collectively owned resources.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/rajesh-makwana/rethinking-basic-income-in-sharing-society

anything that involves people who have wealth now in cash/property/tangible assets, then redistributing that to others via taxes or whatever else on said cash/property/tangible assets just ain't gonna happen and you need to face that reality