Robert,
At 18:41 17/04/00 -0400, you wrote:
> Keith, in commenting on my response to Harry Pollard, wrote:
>
>"This is a crude way of interpreting history."
>
>I was not interpreting history. I was criticizing the idea of the use of
>philosophy as a methodology of solving very immediate and practical
>problems.
>
>It is true that certain philosophic ideas have had an enormous effect
>over the centuries, but, in terms of our present situation - or the
>situation that has accelerated since the Industrial Revolution - they are
>of no use in solving any aspect of our current predicament.
I would agree if we confine ourselves to traditional linguistic philosophy
which, like music, art and poetry has already flowered and reached the end
of its intrinsic potentialies. Such philosophic ideas -- from, let us say,
Socrates or Lao Tze through to Wittgenstein -- are still magnificent
achievements of humankind and, like the other art forms, deserve to be
treasured and practised. However, they no longer engage the best minds.
What we have instead (and this is where I disagree with you), is philosophy
which was kicked off by quantum physics in the early part of the last
century. This has given rise to a quite new form of thinking, otherwise
known as cosmology or futurology as elaborated by Wheeler, Freeman Dyson,
and a handful of others. Despite the fact that their language is
mathematics-based rather than words, they are still involved in the most
important question of all which will have a very real impact on the
activities of mankind.
This is the matter of significance. Do we have significance? Do we have a
future? We have a sense of curiosity far beyond anything that our species
needed for mere survival vis-à-vis other life forms on earth. These matters
of significance have always been at the core of man's
religious/philosophical impulses and practices. A sense of this
significance needs to be maintained. Otherwise, we will not survive. We
will simply give up and be overwhelmed by the immense problems that are all
around us -- ecological devastation, starvation, AIDs, possible nuclear
disasters and so forth. Mankind has to have a philosophy of survival at a
very deep level, far beyond matters of everyday existence.
cut to . .
>Further on you say, "Basic Income should more exactly be called
>"Indiscriminate Income For All." .This is not so. As the litertaure
>shows, there are many variatons on the idea of a basic income. Whether or
>not it should be the same for all, how the income is determined, etc. are
>all quetsons to be discussed.
>
>Finally, you say that Basic Income will never get off the ground
>"because tax payers will not stomach it." One comment on that: Persons in
>need will certainly welcome it, as will those whose income is marginal.
>And if a Basic Income became a reality, I am sure that those who opposed
>its passage on principle will not turn down their share because it goes
>against their principles.
You're right -- I don't know the many variations of Basic Income. But I
don't need to know because its statutory imposition in any form would be
unfair and immoral in principle. Even if I as an individual were forced to
share some of my (fairly ordinary) income with others (some of whom may
need it, some of whom are free-loaders) by means of increasing my personal
taxation then the situation would be:
(a) unfair because a proportion of rich people get away with paying very
little tax at all. At present levels of taxation this situation is just
about sustainable at the present time. Any further increase in taxation of
ordinary incomes (and it would have to be a sizeable increase) would cause
even more tax avoidance and evasion by the better-off. Taxpayers wouldn't
stand for it any longer. It's no use saying that better legislation must be
devised. This is tried every year by all western governments, but the rich
can always buy better brains than politicians' and civil servants' and new
ways of avoiding tax are always discovered -- often within days of new
legislation;
(b) immoral because people who talk of basic incomes for all are not
prepared to spread the benefit around the world. When I consider the
plight of many people in the Third World, I would rather be taxed for their
benefit than I would for several (highly intelligent) free-loaders (whom I
know well) in my city who have no intention of working at any time because
they can survive comfortably on all the different government benefits that
they already receive. To be taxed further so they could continue to laze
about would really stick in my craw.
-----
Basic Income would really only extend the notion and powers of
nationalistic governments in Western countries. Yet (as I've already
suggested) they have now reached the end of their period of usefulness (if,
indeed, historians will grant them that). Nation-statism is plainly no
longer working in the advanced countries. We are moving into a totally
different world. I haven't got the answers to the problem of poverty in
advanced countries for the same reason as I haven't got the answers to the
rapid spread of AIDs, or starvation, or ecological destruction around the
world, but then neither have governments or political programmes. The
solutions will only emerge painfully and from a variety of initiatives
which no politician could ever sell to the electorate.
Keith
