Bob,
I'm no sure myself how this became a multiple posting, but we can break
lose in due course. I must have replied to a multiple poster without
realizing it.
Some years ago, I had a radio program called "From the Radical Center".
I pointed out that I was in neither the Left Corner, with their
restrictions on Liberty, nor in the Right Corner with their restrictions on
Liberty - Liberty being, of course, Freedom under the law.
Rather, I was on a tack separate from both - in the Center. Yet the Center
is thought to be a wimpish place for people afraid to take a position -
hardly descriptive of me. Indeed, I was a radical - someone actively
seeking the root cause rather than fiddling with effects.
Thus the Radical Center and my description of a Radical Centrist.
The term does bother some people safely ensconced in their unthreatening
political niches, but there you are.
I am philosophically opposed to forcibly taking from one and giving to
another. As you may have read in an earlier post, I call this a Privilege -
a private law intended to benefit one at the expense of another.
Thus, I'm "philosophically opposed" to the idea of a Basic Income that
takes from one and gives to another.
You said:
ROBERT: 'Harry says, "Basic income suggestions seem to be essentially welfare
payments." Calling something a name doesn't make it either good or bad -
it simply attaches a label, usually a threadbare label, which is supposed
to bring certain pictures into the minds of the reader.'
"Welfare payment" really touched a nerve, I fear. You must get this kind of
comment a lot. A welfare payment presumably is taken from the better off to
give to those in need. However, you couch it, that is precisely what a
Basic Income seems to do. Indeed in your answer to Keith, you said:
ROBERT: "One comment on that: Persons in need will certainly welcome it, as
will those whose income is marginal."
I suspect you mean they would welcome it because they are getting something
for nothing. Now, you might suggest that they are welcoming it because it's
a just distribution of society's Wealth At least, I would respond like that.
But, to take that position, you have to separate Wealth produced by the
community and which should be returned to the community, from Wealth
produced by individuals that justly should remain with individuals.
There again, we must consider how an individual obtains his Wealth. I doubt
this is done in any society.
If a person works for a large income, I would think that the income justly
belongs to him - no matter how large. Nothing should be taken from him and
given to those with "marginal incomes".
On the other hand, if a robber steals to get his large income, he shouldn't
keep any of it. It should be given back to those from whom he stole.
Present policies everywhere seem to say - if you have a large income, a
large piece should be taken and given to those with marginal incomes.
This might be expedient, but it is hardly just. But, perhaps you believe
charity is greater than justice - something philosophically rather suspect.
However, you seem down of philosophical thinking. I blinked at your
statement about who enforces a "philosophy. You said:
ROBERT: "Obviously the ones that have the *physical* power (money, guns,
influence or whatever) to enforce their point-of-view."
Sounds like the same people who would enforce a"Basic Income".
You mix your concepts a little but that's all right. You should know the
difference between "power" and "authority". Power enforces - authority
influences. So, a soldier with gun and bayonet is power. Einstein has
authority.
You obey the soldier's force, you may accept Einstein's authority.
When you philosophize, you think about things and maybe come to a
conclusion. How money and guns comes into it I don't know. But you do, so
as long as one of us does, that's fine.
Robert, you remind me somewhat of the 12th grader who declaimed: "We don't
want ideas, we want action."
You continued:
ROBERT: "One of the
things that Basic Income 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."
However, I've probably got it all wrong. I'd like to know - how do welfare
payments differ from payments made by a Basic Income policy?
However, I am apparently trespassing on the Basic Income list, so if you
don't wish to answer my simple question, please don't. I'm sure you've
covered it all in the past and are now eager for action.
It was nice of you to say I "haven't changed at all". To enjoy a consistent
philosophy is indeed a boon. It was nice of you to appreciate that.
Harry
______________________________________________________________
Robert Rosenstein wrote:
>First, apologies if you are on both Lists and thus get this twice. Harry
>wrote about Basic Income and Sent it to FW.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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 :-)
>
>Robert
