Robert,
At 15:13 12/04/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Harry says he is "Philosophically" opposed to Basic Income. He is a
>"radical centrist", whatever that is. In any event, we try not decide the
>lives and fortunes of people because of a philosophic point-of-view. And
>if we did, which "philosophy" would we have to follow? Obviously the ones
>that have the *physical* power (money, guns, influence or whatever) to
>enforce their point-of-view. *Metaphysical" or Philosophical argument, by
>itself, is without force.
This is a crude way of interpreting history. Obviously, "money, guns,
influence or whatever" have had, still have, and always will have, big
effects in changing history, but "philosophical argument" has even bigger
effects, because it deals with matters that are not yet clarified in the
existing public domain and, if valid, leads to effects which can last for
centuries, not just temporary events which depend upon temporary
circumstances. Think, for example, of the effects of the Greek or Chinese
philosophers. The former initiated ways of thinking that informed the rise
of western European civilization from about 1000AD and the latter
inculcated ways of imperialistic thinking that may even now trap a huge
region of the world (more than equivalent to Europe or America in term of
population or number of 'countries' it contains) in a governmental
structure from which its population is unlikely to escape for a very long
time to come. "Philosophical argument" is, in fact, a close cousin to
innovation of all sorts. Not all such thinking succeeds, but some of it has
huge effects which last for centuries or millennia.
>Harry says he is a radical centrist and has other suggestions for coping
>with our problems than Basic Income ideas. It seems to me that these
>other suggestions should be discussed on the FW List and not on the Basic
>Income List. The basic Income List should, in my opinion I am not
>speaking for Sally), be for those persons who have already wrestled with
>the relevant problems and have come to the decision that some form of
>Basic Income or Guaranteed Annual Income is the answer to our problems.
>
>Harry says, "Basic income suggestions seem to be esentially welfare
>payments." Calling something a name doesn't make it either good or bad -
>it simply attaches a label, usually a threadbare label, whch is supposed
>to bring certain pictures into the minds of the reader. One of the
>things that BasicIncome or GAI advocates are working towards is a society
>in which both the need and "idea" of welfare. whatever anyone's
>conception of it might be, becomes a thing of the past.
There is a confusion here between 'name' and 'label'. A 'label' (in the
political sense we are using it here) is merely a short-cut to thinking and
is usually intended to arouse emotions. Labels like 'Fascism' or
'Socialism' cannot be defined in a succint way. 'Names', however, can be
defined. Harry is wrong to call Basic Income 'welfare payments' because it
is patently not welfare for the majority of its recipients. Basic Income
should more exactly be called 'Indiscriminate Income for All'. It is for
this reason that it will never be introduced, of course -- because tax
payers will not stomach it.
>Finally, he asks, "If BasicIncome is a right ... does a baby have less
>right than an adult?" That's a reasonable question, the answer to which
>depends on the type of Basic Income or GAI that a person or group finally
>adopts. So the discussion of that comes later in the game.
>
>On its own, it's an idea worth considering. If every child was guaranteed
>an income until a certain age, an income that could not be touched in any
>manner, it might have a very salutary effect on our future child-rearing
>and the education system and so one. But, please, play with that on the
>FW list, not on the BI list.
>
>Harry, you haven't changed at all ...... and that is something to think
>about :-)
Although I find that most of Harry's comments are refreshing and critical
in a positive sense, I must admit that Harry's ideas don't seem to have
changed much over the past six years or so since the formation of
Futurework. Open-minded though I think I am, I still have no clear idea
about what 'Georgism' is because Harry has never defined it on this List.
However, at the same time, your ideas seem much the same as they have been
in the same period.
As for me, I have found Futurework discussion to have changed my ideas a
great deal. In the last six years I have changed from being a
middle-of-the-road type of well-meaning do-gooding liberal (for whom the
concept of a Basic Income would have been quite acceptable) to being both
extremely right-wing and left-wing in political terms. For example, I am an
extreme supporter of free trade -- so long as it is applied world-wide and
not within a protective nationalistic cartel (such as the EEC or NAFTA) --
but I am also an extreme supporter of welfare -- so long as it is applied
at the lowest possible level so that free-loaders are not supported.
Hopefully, as nation-states decline and politicians continue to lose
credibility, then we have a chance of seeing both developments over the
coming decades.
Keith
________________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
