If you listen to the video by Charles Murray, you'll be listening not only to a voice of reasonable compromise, but the voice of experience regarding overcoming political gridlock.
I agree, however, that the US looks likely to be headed toward devolution if it can't work out some means of localizing tests of social theory -- perhaps such as your block grant idea. However, I fear we are now in a situation that is similar to, but worse than that facing the protestant reformation: a de facto theocracy that is actively opposing not only of freedom of association among those sharing social theories, but is terrified of progress in the social sciences that might render the de facto theocracy forever incapable of enslaving the minds of men again. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > To be fair, Ed, the left wing fights the solution too. The solution being >> the unconditional basic income. It was the last thing Martin Luther King, >> Jr. recommended as the proper solution to inequality -- just before he was >> assassinated. >> > > I consider myself pretty liberal, and I think a basic income would be a > good thing, if the unintended consequences could be anticipated and > managed. (First one: if it's handled at the state level, how do you deal > with the internal migration problem?). I do not believe a basic income > should be accompanied by a flat tax, as one sometimes hears. I do like > some of the ideas you've mentioned about experimentation at the local > level. I wonder if states could be selectively given block grants to carry > out these types of experiments in lieu of obligations under existing > federal programs. > > I do not consider a basic income a realistic outcome in the US anytime > soon, because of political gridlock. > > Eric > >
