Past-Focused Policy

That is what I said.

As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it’s unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it’s small, so it’s not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.

If you’re interested, I’ve laid out my arguments for UBI in more detail here, and discussed some of the mechanics of funding and distributing it here. I’m also happy to continue this discussion here or in either of those threads.

I don’t think they were particularly free, no, but I don’t think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I’d put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.

In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.

I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you’re justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn’t necessary. Almost as though you’re arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that’s circular and you didn’t put it that way, so I’m sure I’m just not following, I just don’t see how else this is relevant. The left’s aim (which I’m actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right’s aim (which I’m also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don’t symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.

All my conclusions are just premises for the next thing :slight_smile:

Having thought a bit more about it, I still agree that ideals in general can be harmful, and I still disagree that most of our problems are because of adherence to ideals. But I will say more to the former: I don’t think ideals are avoidable. Even if our goals are modest and iterative, they still must rely on a modest and iterative ideal of what the world should look like. They still also allow for things to get worse before they get better (even if it’s only modestly worse to get modestly better).

So I don’t think the choice is between pursuing ideals or not pursuing ideals. Rather, it’s about what those ideals are and where they reside, e.g. past or future, and how far in either direction. I think a future-focused ideal is preferable (and I think suggestions like James’ amendment would keep our ideals set in a future that we can realistically expect, and therefore potentially achieve).

By a large measure , the problem with an amendment, or any other remedy is, that the political basis of referring to such needed rationale-ideal hides a disconnect not only along party lines, but with the anti-historical trend advancing and undermining its philosophical underpinnings.

Public policy can be stretched only so far to accommodate the thinning out of black letter version of the good old days.

Testing outcomes vis. such rationale statements sound like they may work, however the swamp being what it is on either side,there may may not be guarantees against pfiltering them with non factual data. It may serve as a possible plan for the future, maybe.

So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income? For instance would a lawyer in Washington D.C. have an income beyond universal basic income? Also, is the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody? Will some individuals still have more wealth than others? Your source for a universal basic income through taxation is problematic because there is no large political will to implement such a program from any political party moreover the individuals that are masters or gatekeepers of industry and infrastructure are cut throats who do not in any significant ideological form believe in sharing wealth in collective distribution. Then there are all their underlings that work for them that also ideologically won’t support it. Just exactly how would you overcome this tremendous hurdle?

There are many forms of discrimination where socio economic classism is the most embedded form of them all.

I’ve lived near several reservations and not all native Americans share in the wealth of a tribal casino just so you know. A great deal of them still live in poverty to this day.

Yes, I do justify white resentment and anger viewing it as natural due to the historical underpinnings that have played out the last hundred years. Violent rebellion and retribution is always a particular possibility if things get to a breaking point of no return however with that said if a peaceful solution to the conflict could be ascertained I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to that. The only problem is that there are many different kinds of white political factions concerning this resentment as you call it and not all of them are as diplomatic as I am in terms of negotiation or coexistence. You might get some to try in negotiating peace like myself while the more radical ones politically believe in peace not whatsoever. They have a no tolerance, coexistence, or peace mindset. It depends on what kind of resenting European of us you speak with.

There is also the problem of various individuals and groups that are vested in maintaining the current status quo against ethnic whites and Europeans that so far have no interest in changing their agenda where so long as they exist I can definitely tell you no peace or negotiation of any kind will ever exist if their objectives are continued increasing ethnic hostilities.

You’re right that idealism is unavoidable but some ideals are less dangerous than others where some also have horrendous consequences. Still yet, there will never be any kind of ideal to be realized that will get rid of human conflict completely. We can only realistically aspire towards minimization of human conflict. At our present course there is only the maximum of human conflict where many of us understand the dangers in all that.

I can agree with the statement on unequal distribution by tribes unto their membership of monetary gains. When I asked a cashier if she sees big winners on a regular basis, she replied that when the tribal leaders come into play, tens of thousands are bet in a single play, and none of which is recirulated because that’s against lawful distribution. So the climate perpetuates its swampish aura, and that lawful public policy decision may have a questionable outcome.

Agreed. When I lived near the reservations it was a constant to hear about the ongoing corruption of tribal council members. Charges of financial embezzlement and swindling of tribal money happens frequently.

So on the basis of that specific example, a line could be drawn to a more general one that infringes on what a reasonable approach would comprise of in an equitable distribution ?
At least in today’s and more likely in expected near future testing of credibility in this regard? Or are You unwilling to go that far?

Is this directed towards me?

Of course not, and it is not a negation of anyone’s views, only an exploratory attempt to see how this issue is going.

Addressed to Carleas then?

No it’s not addressed to him either. This forum has been started by him , and it is the issue what is addressed, since its an open discussion. That comments pertain to his opinions, do not extend to ad hominem prescriptions, I hope.

I think the left and right are very forward-thinking. It seems to me a lot of their policies and rhetoric are completely wrapped up in trying to avoid the dystopias they think the other faction is trying to bring about. We just got done hearing that tax cuts are literally the end of the world, and we hear plenty that Muslim immigration is the end of the world as well. It seems to me that the fear and resentment each side has for the other is largely motivated through poor attempts at predicting the future.

Yes, both are very good at creating dystopias, with the left we are being pushed into communism and with the conservative right corporate financial fascism, what choices to choose between! Talk about being herded into false paradigms!

Whatever happens to the reasonably wise moderate agenda?

There is no moderate decision with either choice. That’s the crux of the problem with modern politics. I’d soon see a global slash and burn policy than to choose between either of those choices.

I think , to a degree , Your wish is coming to be, as we speak.

Z_S:

“So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income?” Yes, basic income just means everyone gets the money, people can earn other income as they do now.
“[I]s the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody?” Yes, it’s the same amount for everyone
“Will some individuals still have more wealth than others?” Yes. Think of it as establishing a floor: everyone gets $X/year, and they can go from there. Wealth and income inequality would still exist, though presumably at a lower level than they do today (assuming the UBI is funded through progressive taxation and has the affects I believe it would have).

By convincing people on humble internet backwaters, of course! Winning the hearts and minds!

But seriously, this looks a lot like the expectation-racist-violence-justifies-racist-violence argument. The fact that people don’t support it doesn’t entail that it’s a bad or ineffective policy intervention. It may not be where sitting politicians should expend their limited political capital at the moment, but then I don’t see that kind of consideration holding you back from casually endorsing soft white nationalism.

Uccisore, you make a good point about the future-focused nature of scaring people away from the other party. And I think that tells you something about why future focus is so scarce in positive political visions: for any group of people, it’s relatively easy to find a description of the future that they will all agree is bad, but it’s quite difficult to find one where they all agree it’s good. That’s true even where people ostensibly agree about a lot of things. Take the Clinton vs. Bernie divide on the left: in terms of achievable policy outcomes they aren’t that different, but you can barely keep the house hanging together due to the small differences in the ideal world they’d like to see. I see something similar going on on the right, though it’s suppressed because they’re in a position to achieve their achievable policy outcomes.

Explain that to me since I’ve always heard that universal basic income would only go to those that need it mainly those with a consistent history of having little to no income whatsoever.

Why would a millionaire for instance collect a universal basic income?

So, in other words nothing really changes as some will still have more than others and with that rule over them.

Good luck with that, remember that they own all of the internet including the shut off button.

Violence begets violence as is standard of all human history which I’m sure you’re already aware of.

The rest of your post makes a bit of a mockery of me for surely you think of me as a naive simpleton as your tone towards me expresses such. I would of expect a more in depth reply concerning this conversation from you but I guess that was asking for too much.

I can think of two reasons, not equally persuasive:

  1. Trying to target a universal income means making a big elaborate bureaucracy around it. It increases the overhead of running the program, and it increases the political pork barreling that can be done with it.
  2. Making everyone get it changes how people think about it. When it’s raised, it’s raised for everyone. When it’s lowered, it’s lowered for everyone. I find this reason less important, but not nothing.

It creates a floor of individual wealth. I think that’s important, even if the floor is low. It meaningfully decreases the degree to which people are ruled over, because they have a minimum amount of autonomy, a minimum amount of power to exert. People can quit their job knowing they won’t starve.

I also think it changes dynamics at the community level significantly. Think of opening a store in a poor community. At present, there’s not enough money in some communities to justify that kind of investment. So no one in the neighborhood can open a store in their community, and the people in the community have a harder time getting work, and when they buy things they spend that money outside that community. Over time, there is a net money outflow from the poor community, and it’s a vicious cycle because the more money flows out, the poorer it is, the less space for investment.

Introduce a basic income and things change. There’s money flowing into the community. That money allows for people to invest in the community with an expectation that the community will have enough money to make it worth while. Now you have a virtuous cycle, where the whole community has a floor to their poverty. That gives every member of that community more opportunity, more choice, more freedom.

I own this site, and there are others like me. I do think a distributed mesh network would be better, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near the point where we need one.

That’s a bad habit of mine, and I offer a sincere mea culpa. I mean to critique your ideas (and I appreciate your critique of mine), but I don’t mean to mock you.

Well, then we’re left with the inequality of those whose income solely depends on universal basic income and those who receive it but also have another income stemming from somewhere else. With that how has monetary social inequality changed at all?

Yes, having some kind of income is better than not having any kind of income at all however I fail to see how the market won’t price gauge individuals on universal basic income like they do when individual wages rise considerably. For instance people’s wages rise and so individuals that control the markets raise the price on everything including both goods or services.

Also, I fail to see how being dependent on the state for everything is a form of autonomy.

I’ll believe it when I see one. :wink:

Perhaps I am becoming impatient because for me I keep hearing the same tiring inconsistent rebuttals that for me doesn’t explain much of anything. I view myself as a rational racialist and you’ll not meet many others like me that can explain everything in terms of point of views more clearly. I have problems just finding others like myself that embrace similar views.

If you want to have a concise and precise conversation on race, ethnicity, or culture I would really enjoy that. I only ask that you don’t take me lightly and hear out everything I have to say responding to my points where I will do likewise. If we are to learn anything from conversations about this particular subject it requires considerable amounts of dialogue between even opposition or opposing sides. We always hear from the anti- racialist point of view but concerning my side of the argument on the direct opposite we don’t get much consideration at all. Until that changes this particular subject will always install conflict, bickering, and contemptuous behaviors.