UBI - a Libertarian Idea

Revoltingest said:

If someone wants to live solely on UBI, then they would do well to move.
UBI shouldn't mean living anywhere one wants, eg,
The Hamptons, Grosse Pointe Farms, Dupont Circle.

Click to expand...

Most people live in big cities because they see more opportunity to find work or at least money. I'd think more people would move to rural areas by themselves with UBI.
And yes, as I said, UBI should be enough to survive, not a dolce vita.

Revoltingest said:

If someone wants to live solely on UBI, then they would do well to move.
UBI shouldn't mean living anywhere one wants, eg,
The Hamptons, Grosse Pointe Farms, Dupont Circle.

Click to expand...

Usually there are less expensive areas within relative proximity, so most people shouldn't have to move too far. But that may raise questions about the possible quality of life in some of the lower-rent neighborhoods where people would be living off UBI. Would they be like slums?

Stevicus said:

Usually there are less expensive areas within relative proximity, so most people shouldn't have to move too far. But that may raise questions about the possible quality of life in some of the lower-rent neighborhoods where people would be living off UBI. Would they be like slums?

Click to expand...

If someone chooses to live in a slum, instead of moving to
nicer cheap living elsewhere, that's their choice. The UBI
would give them all they need. But if they want more, that
would be where earning money would be incentivized.

Revoltingest said:

If someone wants to live solely on UBI, then they would do well to move.
UBI shouldn't mean living anywhere one wants, eg,
The Hamptons, Grosse Pointe Farms, Dupont Circle.

Click to expand...

Even in low class areas in NYC costs of living are really high.

A problem with moving is capacity. If all of NYC poor were forced to leave where would they go. More so people from cities that have similar issues like NYC.

Heyo said:

I am aware of that but don't really want to discuss the details of UBI. I'm sure some kind of solution could be found if that is the intention. My question was more if you (when you call yourself a libertarian) see UBI as principally a good idea. My thesis is that you should because it brings more freedom to more people.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. I was just asking questions which I rarely see brought up by advocates. If you can not answer my questions how do you expect me to give you an answer? Without details all I can see is advocates of UBI avoiding the flaws in the system when pointed out which make UBI is idealistic fantasy.

I do not see if as freedom when it requires the majority of the population to support the minority. It is dependency on government and other people's money.

Shad said:

Even in low class areas in NYC costs of living are really high.

A problem with moving is capacity. If all of NYC poor were forced to leave where would they go. More so people from cities that have similar issues like NYC.

Click to expand...

I doubt that they'd all move at once.
For one thing, they're living in NYC already.
Give'm a UBI, & they'd be even more capable of living
there....unless they wanted to retire on the UBI. I don't feel
the need to subsidize a life of sloth in the high rent district.

Btw, NYC is losing people.
Daughter is getting rent deals like she's never gotten before.

Shad said:

I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. I was just asking questions which I rarely see brought up by advocates. If you can not answer my questions how do you expect me to give you an answer? Without details all I can see is advocates of UBI avoiding the flaws in the system when pointed out which make UBI is idealistic fantasy.

Click to expand...

I think when renowned economists propose the idea, they have at least looked into the monetary details.
A big chunk of the money would simply come from an existing social system, only that it would be automatic thus cutting heavily on administration. (Keyword: small government
Depending on the current social system some additional money would have to be raised, usually through taxes but there are a dozen other means.

I do not see if as freedom when it requires the majority of the population to support the minority. It is dependency on government and other people's money.

Click to expand...

The notion of ownership is an entirely cultural construct. E.g. many Indian tribes believed that one can not gain ownership of land (or water, or air).
Thus, the government, as representative of the community, could lend resources to individuals or corporations for a fee. That money would then be community money because all the people of the community gave their share of land, water and air to the company.

Heyo said:

The notion of ownership is an entirely cultural construct. E.g. many Indian tribes believed that one can not gain ownership of land (or water, or air).

Click to expand...

Oh, I disagree. We can observe the concept of ownership in many animals.
They have territory they defend by tooth & claw. Moreover, this ownership
can be individual as with wolverines, or communal as with chimpanzees.
I say that it's more than cultural....it's fundamentally hardwired.