Economic Utopian Plan

Economics Economics Questions
181

ulrichPf said: “If I refuse to give somebody a job and then you force me to do it you are violating MY rights, a positive right is a violation of a negative right. If I call you and idiot, you should still hire me I take it ?”

see my response in the post above

“If 80% of the population is living from your free $20 000 handouts, how else can it work other than your replicators or apple picking robots ???”

I don’t understand. You don’t need a replicator or end scarcity to provide 80% of the population with $20k worth of goods and services.

182

"The same group that provides you with negative freedom (the government who protects you from people stealing your money) can also provide you with positive freedom (the government providing you with a guaranteed job or passing a minimum wage regulation).

You do not have to violate someone’s negative freedom in order to provide positive freedom."

If the government guarantees you a job, where are they getting the money to compensate you? Don’t they have to first violate someone else’s freedom from expropriation to fund your guaranteed job?

183

Guys, only one example is necessary to prove that a manifesto is inherently flawed. One such example has been put forth by mattm, Matt, and myself regarding point #6 of the manifesto. MeSeesBadIdeas has not directly refuted it. I, for one, am taking that as implicit concession. Therefore the manifesto has been proven to be inherently flawed. QED.

184

So please hire me, I do not plan to do anything, will insult you and probably screw your wife, but you need to hire me it is my right so must everyone else hire me, even if that was my attitude.

You do, how else could you give them all $20 000 for doing nothing ??? In your early posts you claim that government will not be a big factor, now you need it to enforce all your plans.

I am still waiting for you to explain your $30 000 threshold problem.

185

Mises Pieces said: “If the government guarantees you a job, where are they getting the money to compensate you? Don’t they have to first violate someone else’s freedom from expropriation to fund your guaranteed job?”

If you want to live in a home inside a community, you have to abide by the community’s rules and pay the costs. If one of those costs is a tax, you do not have the right to just live there anyway and skip out on the fees.

If you do not want to pay the cost of the home or the cost of the tax, you are free to choose another place to live.

Requiring you to pay the cost of the house and the cost of the tax if you want to live there is not a violation of your freedom from theft.

186

"If you want to live in a home inside a community, you have to abide by the community’s rules and pay the costs. If one of those costs is a tax, you do not have the right to just live there anyway and skip out on the fees.

If you do not want to pay the cost of the home or the cost of the tax, you are free to choose another place to live.

Requiring you to pay the cost of the house and the cost of the tax if you want to live there is not a violation of your freedom from theft."

So you are justifying theft and usurpation of private property based on an imaginary implicit social contract?

How is this different from state communism?

187

Autolykos said: “Guys, only one example is necessary to prove that a manifesto is inherently flawed. One such example has been put forth by mattm, Matt, and myself regarding point #6 of the manifesto. MeSeesBadIdeas has not directly refuted it. I, for one, am taking that as implicit concession. Therefore the manifesto has been proven to be inherently flawed. QED.”

I know you didn’t read the manifesto, that is why you incorrectly think it says you can get a loan to buy $60 trillion worth of goods and services. So I will paste the relevant part of the manifesto for you to read here:

In order to extend credit, you need to know two things. You need to know if the borrower can repay the loan. And you need to know how much money is available to lend.

Determining if the borrower has the income to repay a loan in a digital banking system is a simple data lookup. It does not require a human to look over an application. It does not require a credit check. Your financial profile is already digitally available. When you want to borrow money, the computer will just check to see if your current net income is greater than the monthly loan payment. That can be done instantly and digitally for free.

If you have the income to cover your monthly debt payment, you will get approved. If you do not have the income, you will get denied.

As you can see, it does not say you can get an unlimited size loan.

188

ulrichPf said: “So please hire me, I do not plan to do anything, will insult you and probably screw your wife, but you need to hire me it is my right so must everyone else hire me, even if that was my attitude.”

Just because you screwed someone’s wife does not mean you lose your rights as a citizen.

You do, how else could you give them all $20 000 for doing nothing ??? In your early posts you claim that government will not be a big factor, now you need it to enforce all your plans.

The $20k is paid for with taxes. It does not require a star trek replicator. Since tax funds are sent directly to you instead of government, the size of goverment is reduced.

“I am still waiting for you to explain your $30 000 threshold problem.”

If you make $10k, you get a $10k dividend instead of a $30k dividend. So if you make less than $30k, your dividend will equal whatever your income is.

189

Mises Pieces said: "So you are justifying theft and usurpation of private property based on an imaginary implicit social contract?

How is this different from state communism?"

A tax or a homeowners association fee is a fee you agree to pay in order to live within that community. It is not theft. You can’t live in a vacated apartment and then say the landlord is trying to steal your money by demanding rent.

And a tax or a homeowners association fee is not state communism. What school did you go to that taught you this!? :slight_smile:

State communism, if you mean what was practiced by the USSR, is not charging a tax. It is a state owned monopoly of every single business in the economy where the entire economy is centrally planned by the state. You are not allowed to own property or a business.

190

“A tax or a homeowners association fee is a fee you agree to pay in order to live within that community. It is not theft. You can’t live in a vacated apartment and then say the landlord is trying to steal your money by demanding rent.”

I signed a rental agreement with my landlord. When did I sign a taxation agreement with government? If someone breaks into my house and demands $1000 cash or else he’ll kill me, is that considered a legitimate association fee? How is this fundamentally any different from taxation? Both are expropriations of my private property and done against my will. The robber could just as easily argue that I can move away if I don’t like being robbed as the taxing state can.

191

Nice strawman, I said not about losing ones citizenship, I said YOU must hire me even if tell you in your face I am a lazy git. It was you that openly stated one has the right to get a job, even if no one wants to hire that person. So please answer the very simple question, you have a business you must be forced to hire me, that is what you said. Or does your manifesto not apply to yourself ?

You seem to flip flopping from supportiing a big government to not, WHO is collecting the taxes other than the government ? If 80% were not doing any work who are you taxing then ?

Another strawmen, your manifesto states any worker gets $30 000, your words not mine, If a sexy women sells a single slice of toast of profit, which will be easy to do, she is a worker. Unless you create a government worker measurement department, which defines what is work and what is not, or is the computer calculate what counts as work and what does not ?

192

Mises Pieces said: "I signed a rental agreement with my landlord. When did I sign a taxation agreement with government?

You don’t need to sign an agreement with the government. You are obligated to know the law of the place you live in. If you think the only enforcable agreement is a contract that you sign, you are wrong.

But most likely you signed an employment agreement which stated your obligation to pay income taxes when you got hired at your job.

If someone breaks into my house and demands $1000 cash or else he’ll kill me, is that considered a legitimate association fee?

That would be the collection of a fee that you didn’t pay. If you refused to pay your homeowner’s association fee eventually someone will break into your home and force you to leave. You cannot continue to use a product or service without paying, that is stealing.

If you don’t want to pay a homeowner’s association fee, you have to live where there are no homeowner association fees. If you don’t want to pay a tax, you have to live where there are no taxes.

“How is this fundamentally any different from taxation?”

The collection tactics used when you refuse to pay an association fee is the same as the tactics used when you refuse to pay a tax fee.

“Both are expropriations of my private property and done against my will. The robber could just as easily argue that I can move away if I don’t like being robbed as the taxing state can.”

But where does all this ridiculous logic come from!?! You are knee deep in the propaganda!

A robber who breaks into your home is NOT the same as a homeowner’s association or government telling you to pay your fees for the services they provided.

193

First off, you “know” something that is patently false. I have read the entire manifesto. I suspect you realize that this is true, and are simply being disingenuous or deceptive.

On first glance, you also seem to have not read mattm’s, Matt’s, or my last posts. But on second glance, given the above, I think you’re simply ignoring what we wrote, as it clearly highlights the egregious contradiction within the manifesto. Do I really need to point out again that “automatically and instantly get all the credit you want” is in direct contradiction to what you quote above? I find it hard to believe that you could be so blind to simple logic. So I conclude instead that you are trying to hide the legitimate contradiction. It won’t work, and it only further undermines your credibility.

Let me know when you wish to engage in honest, logical debate. Yes, I am calling you out as deceptive.

194

ulrichPf said: “Nice strawman, I said not about losing ones citizenship, I said YOU must hire me even if tell you in your face I am a lazy git.”

There will be civic organizations and charities that you will be able to volunteer for which would qualify you for the $30k dividend. It doesn’t force a private company to hire you.

“You seem to flip flopping from supportiing a big government to not, WHO is collecting the taxes other than the government ?”

The government can distribute the dividends. But the reason why it is not a big government is because you are spending the dividend, not government.

“If 80% were not doing any work who are you taxing then ?”

I don’t think it will create 80% unemployment. The goal is to get people out of jobs and into productive leisure activities.

But whatever the amount of employees there is, they will be taxed along with all the businesses.

“Another strawmen, your manifesto states any worker gets $30 000, your words not mine, If a sexy women sells a single slice of toast of profit, which will be easy to do, she is a worker. Unless you create a government worker measurement department, which defines what is work and what is not, or is the computer calculate what counts as work and what does not ?”

What gets taxed is your income. It does not matter how you earned that income. So even a woman with a toast making business can qualify, so long as she is not committing fraud. And her dividend amount will be equal to her net income up to $30k.

195

Autokylos said: “I think you’re simply ignoring what we wrote, as it clearly highlights the egregious contradiction within the manifesto. Do I really need to point out again that “automatically and instantly get all the credit you want” is in direct contradiction to what you quote above?”

That is funny and ironic because this post directly contradicts what you said in your first post. In your first post you said your gripe with the plan is that it would not work because you cannot give someone unlimited credit.

Then I pointed out that if you actually read the manifesto you would learn that you could get all the credit you want within your ability to repay.

So you responded by saying you did in fact read the manifesto. But now your new gripe is that the bullet point is deceptive because within that single sentence it doesn’t describe how the entire credit system works.

So which is it? Is it that the bullet point is deceptive or is it that you didn’t really read the manifesto unlimited credit is impossible?

“Let me know when you wish to engage in honest, logical debate. Yes, I am calling you out as deceptive.”

I’m not interested in debating whether a bullet point is deceptive. And I’m not interested in debating whether unlimited credit is possible. But I will gladly debate on any other topic.

196

So a business will be exempt but for some reason charities will be forced to hire somebody they do not want and will cause problems for their organisations. If YOU were the manager for a civic organization and I told you I am going to make work difficult for YOU, must YOU be FORCED to hire me. Simple question.

What are these productive leisure activities exactly, if 20% want to watch porn and another 20% want to play computer games the whole day, which they are getting for free, how is that productive ?

Why $30 000 ? Where exactly do you come up with any of these numbers, what calculation do you use to get to $30 000 ? Or 50% unemployment other such numbers ?

197

This is what your manifesto states:
“$30,000 Worker Bonus
And in addition to that $20,000 basic income, we will also be able to pay every worker another $30,000 per year on top of whatever salary they earn.”

Now you are stating something completely different. You making new ideas as you go along.

198

This is what your manifesto states:
“$30,000 Worker Bonus
And in addition to that $20,000 basic income, we will also be able to pay every worker another $30,000 per year on top of whatever salary they earn.”

Now you are stating something completely different. You making up new ideas as you go along.

199

"But where does all this ridiculous logic come from!?! You are knee deep in the propaganda!

A robber who breaks into your home is NOT the same as a homeowner’s association or government telling you to pay your fees for the services they provided."

LOL… oh the irony.

It seems to me that the only difference between your plan and the status quo statism is that I will now be made to pay bums cash not to work instead of benefits in-kind.

Good luck trying to persuade people to substitute the current morally bankrupt and economically illetarate state system with another that’s even more so. The only people who could get behind something like this are those who value naked handouts over freedom and are at the same time ignorant and gullible enough to believe in these kinds of magical snake oil get-rich-quick ethically-backwards utopian fantasies that completely ignore economic incentives and human nature. No offense.

200

ulrichPf said: “So a business will be exempt but for some reason charities will be forced to hire somebody they do not want and will cause problems for their organisations. If YOU were the manager for a civic organization and I told you I am going to make work difficult for YOU, must YOU be FORCED to hire me. Simple question.”

You are a smart guy, how do you think a situation like that would be handled?

“What are these productive leisure activities exactly, if 20% want to watch porn and another 20% want to play computer games the whole day, which they are getting for free, how is that productive ?”

A leisure activity is somethnig you naturally like to do, what you do on your free time, something you would do even if you weren’t getting paid.

There are unproductive leisure activities which is not considered work: playing video games, vacation, watching tv.

And there are productive leisure activities which is work: making music, making movies, writing books, raising a family, furthering basic science, finding cures to diseases, playing baseball, building robots, reverse engineering the human being, programming open source software, studying the night sky, designing stuff and developing new inventions.

Why $30 000 ? Where exactly do you come up with any of these numbers, what calculation do you use to get to $30 000 ? Or 50% unemployment other such numbers ?"

It is all in the manifesto. I go through the calculation in one of my responses. I’ll see if I can find it.

Here:

$18 trillion: Total National Income
$6.3 trillion: Total Revenue Raised From 35% Income Tax (6.3 = 18 * 35%)
$2.7 trillion: Total Revenue Raised From 15% FICA Tax (2.7 = 18 * 15%)
$9 trillion: Total Revenue Available To Pay Out In Dividends (9 = 6.3 + 2.7)

$4.4 trillion: Cost of Paying $20,000 To All 220 Million Adults
$3.8 trillion: Cost of Paying $30,000 To All 126 Million Workers
$0.3 trillion: Cost of Paying $30,000 To All 10 Million Unemployed Volunteers
$0.5 trillion: Cost of Paying $30,000 To All 18 Million Students
$9 trillion: Total Cost Of Dividends