/liberty/ - Liberty

>>99096

Maybe I'll read your post at some point in its entirety, but not today. Instead I'll repeat myself.

>however these tests are what you call research where you isolate a controlled environment to minimize outside variables, and apply your experiment to see what happens. It's how you find out if you're wasting your time or if it's beneficial to look into larger and more varied experiments.

Addendum: While I hate the terms macroeconomics and microeconomics because it's Keynesian shit, the only difference between a small-scale economy and a large-scale economy is scale, just as a "complex machine" is just a bunch of simple machines working in tandem to produce a result, so too is a "large-scale economy" just a bunch of smaller samples of the economy working in tandem to produce a bigger result.

>It seems to me that in your effort to sperge out over UBI, you're pulling the whole "not REAL socialism" argument out of your ass

>>99097

>REE-al socialism

While I said this or that is "not UBI" semantics is not as significant part of my argument as I may have made it seem and which I'll break down further

>isolate

>controlled environment

>minimize outside variables

If you have a economic environment, say even a smallish city with 200,000 inhabitants, and in that city you have a thousand "UnIvErSaL BaSiC InCoMe" recipients geographically scattered amongst them, can you not see how you as a researcher have already failed spectacularly at minimizing outside variables? You have created an "experiment" that is far less representative of UBI than existing public assistance is.

The average SNAP recipient gets around $300 a month. How are these experiments, like the Stockton California model which offers $500 a month, supposed to give us different information than that which we already have through social security, SNAP etc. that are granted to tens of millions of people?

The question should never have been "how will people act if you give them free money" because we already know that-that's already happening! It should be "how will giving every person free money affect prices, wages, purchasing power and so on", and none of these experiments will ever be able to do that on as small a scale as they are on.

I don't think any Marxist / Leftist is genuinely advocating the concept of a Unirversal basic income

Infact leftists have historically been pretty big opponents of this policy since its modern inception with the Chicago school in the 60s-70s

We more or less view basic income as just another Capitalist reform to preserve the system at best and a literal trick to justify removal of other reforms at worse

The Yang Gang memes are mainly ironic and mocking from what I've seen

>>99096

I'm not really into arguing about the UBI but I'm not sure how that image somehow shows china "Becoming Capitalist"

Deng Xiapings reforms did increase manufacturing along with GDP and the standard of living

This is obvious and a clear success of China's socialist economy

Obviously the Pro-Market nature of these reforms did increase the Level of "Inequality" as the National-Capitalist class was exapanded and allowed greater freedoms within Chinese society for the sake of development

Finally I'm not sure how china having a low tax rates (As Socialist states have historically had) somehow causes it to be considered a capitalist economy

Other countries close to china on that list like Turkmenistan and Belarus are also heavily regulated (Though not socialist) State-Capitlaist economies

>>99099

Maybe read the Kenya example since it's literally entire villages and not this meme you're spouting. Or consider that a negative income tax is in fact a pre-trial of a UBI system since UBI is designed for the lowest and second lowest quintile of people in any country with the other three quintiles seeing marginal gains at best.

>>99112

The courting of a national-capitalist class and the influx of foreign capital for the purpose of development was part of Deng Xiaopings reforms to the economy and don't contradict with the outlined parameters of the PRC's Socialist economy

>60 year flatline under Mao

The CCP Has longed admitted to some of Mao's worst fuck ups (4 pests / backyard molten metal / Cultural-Rev etc) and have reformed their Socialist model to prevent it occurring again and repair the damages caused by them (Which has been successful through the 80's - 90s - 20/10's)

>State Enterprises in China

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that state run enterprises were unique to china or even socialist countries in particular

But the state does still directly control / Indirectly guide production more then in almost any other country except other Socialist ones (Vietnam / Laos etc)

>Vietnam

Apply all my arguements listed above

>>99114

>The courting of a national-capitalist class and the influx of foreign capital for the purpose of development was part of Deng Xiaopings reforms to the economy and don't contradict with the outlined parameters of the PRC's Socialist economy

Allowing a capitalist class to exist, become the main drivers of economic growth and have direct control of the vast majority of the capital in a nation is not socialism. The end goal of DX's policies may be to generate enough capital so as to make a future socialist revolution possible, but the policies themselves are at best a tacit admission that Socialism is incapable of generating said capital, and at worst a desperate attempt by the CCP to retain power by improving living standards while avoiding loss of face.

Your attempts to claim this admission of defeat as a victory are nothing short of hilarious.

>>99030

>$800 a gallon

And this is how I know you've never seen the inside of a business school.

>being told you're responsible for yourself

UBI is a cheque you moron, it's "Free Money" for people who underachieve.

>>99116

The CCP and the DotP remains the guiding hand of the Chinese economy

The National-Capitlaist class is constantly kept under check by the goverment to ensure it Dosent gain dominance in society

This is similar to Lenin's policy of NEP and does not contradict with Marxism nor Leninism in any real way

The only difference is instead of their economy being a transitional stage of state capitalism such as Lenin's NEP the Chinese claim the current economy to be their socialist model

>>99120

Reply to my arguements instead of a reply to me

>>99140

> CCP and the DotP remains the guiding hand

>National-Capitlaist class is constantly kept under check

So its state capitalism then. Great, glad that's settled.

I mean it might just be me but I thought OWNERSHIP OF THE MOP BY THE WORKING CLASS was kinda a requirement for something to be considered socialism.

>This is similar to Lenin's policy of NEP and does not contradict with Marxism nor Leninism in any real way

The question isn't "is this compatible with Marxism-Leninism" because obviously it is.

Dialectical Materialism is based around the idea that systems follow each other in a logical progression. You can't have Communism emerging from Feudalism; it must emerge from the contradictions inherent in Capitalism.

But that doesn't mean that capitalism is socialism because some day it will become socialism. It's still capitalism.

This is your own ideology. Maybe you're some wacky revisionist or maybe you're just a tad daft and believe averything you read in leftypol but what you're saying makes no sense from a Liberal or a Marxist perspective.

>>99119

>There is no practical reason

<A WELL REGULATED MILITIA

<BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

<THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

<SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Death to all those who insult the Founders or their works.

>>99119

>Guns are more deadly than cars

1.3 million people die in car accidents per year. The number of violent deaths, with and without guns, is around half a million. A gun is deadlier than a car? Only because it isn't used with lethal intent. If everyone stopped using cars for driving and started driving them into crowds of people, they'd be far deadlier.

So, nice rhetorics, but ur a retard.

Here is a scam number and I just tell them I want to order some food and they get mad. 18887890942

>>98873

UBI isn't actually a bad idea if it were to replace all other forms of welfare. The problem with Yang's proposed solution is that it's supposed to coexist with existing welfare programs, which means that in addition to all of the inefficiencies of those programs, there's an added layer of inefficiency in determining who is eligible for UBI. The whole reason why UBI works is because it has extremely low overhead: just write a (virtual) check for every living citizen each month.

UBI seems like the ultimate example of the broken window fallacy. it's adovactes say it will create employment but all it does is transfer money from one pocket to another

>rich guy that was gonna spend money to expand operations of his businesses has less money to do so because more was taken away by some tax for UBI

>now the poor guy has more money to spend to create jobs

it's nothing but wealth redistribution

>>99230

Government is wealth redistribution. Everyone* pays taxes to have their property protected, but only a tiny handful have enough property to justify that protection. The entire existence of a government is predicated on subsidizing the protection of trillions of dollars of assets belonging to wealthy individuals and corporations with trillions of dollars of taxes from the other 99%. Why is wealth redistribution only acceptable when it goes from poor to rich?

>>99233

>Why is wealth redistribution only acceptable when it goes from poor to rich?

I'm not in favor of wealth distribution. all the arguments for it are emotionally founded

>>99237

Okay, so you don't think we should have a government to guarantee property rights? And so you don't believe in property beyond what you can protect or personally pay to have protected? And therefore if someone were able to take it from you by force, it wasn't actually your property in the first place?

>>99259

Not the one you are replying to but property rights are founded on first principles (self ownership) and exists whether protected or not. Government is no guarantee of protection but a security risk to property (civil asset forfeiture, taxation, imminent domain, etc.).

>>99260

>>99261

In a way, the guy you're responding to is right in that the govt. currently subsidizes illegitimate and absurd property claims that would be unsustainable in a voluntary society; but principles exist because they evolved as the best rules to regulate interpersonal relationships, so it stands to reason that property rights would be respected in said society anyway.

>>99260

>>99261

Without an authoritative third party, in what sense do you own a thing that's in the possession of someone else and you don't have the ability to take it from him? Possession is 10/10ths of the law in ancapistan.

>>99270

Private arbitration already exists in the current market, and it's easily implementable standalone. If you have proof that you are the original owner or proof that the theft took place, you can settle the matter through a private McCourt™. The threat of blacklisting acts as an authority all on its own without bringing coercion into the mix. There are even historical examples, the British merchant courts operated completely without input from the state and used blacklisting as their primary enforcement mechanism up to the turn of the century.

https://mises.org/library/possibility-private-law

>>99140

Kys commie faggot

>>99271

That's fine as long as both parties respect the decision of the court. If not, then someone has to enforce the court's decision. With force. Then we're right back where we started: if you can enforce your property rights over a thing, then it's yours. If you can't, then it's not.

>>98873

Assuming that eliminating the government entirely isn't an option and we have to work within the existing framework, UBI isn't actually a terrible idea and there's ways to balance the books at least as well as they are right now.

Current US public and private healthcare spending: $3,373,000,000,000

US healthcare spending with a universal healthcare system at a spending level equal to that of the next most costly OECD country: 2,326,000,000,000

Current US spending on social security + welfare programs: 1,258,000,000,000

Cost of UBI at $8000/yr: 2,286,000,000,000

Cost reduction of universal healthcare: 1,050,000,000,000

Additional cost of UBI: 1,030,000,000,000

That said, I understand that all UBI proposals that will ever get anywhere will be in addition to welfare instead of replacing it, so it's pointless to defend the idea.

>>99274

>That's fine as long as both parties respect the decision of the court.

Reread the post and pay attention to the part regarding blacklisting. You can create incentives to respect the court's decision without resorting to force, it's been done before and continues to be done today.

>>99283

Yeah, except I can give you plenty of current examples like John Hennessey, who's a pretty well known scumbag in the car tuning community who will "misplace" your car or tens of thousands of dollars of parts, and yet stupid boomers trip over each other to throw literally millions of dollars at him.

Certainly private courts will exist, will be used, and will be beneficial to the community, but they are by no means a guarantee of property rights.

>>99283

And what if the oligopoly has decided not to blacklist each other no matter how much they screw over everyone else as long as they don't screw each other over?

>>99284

Doesn't this come back to the age-old argument of "but what if AnCapistan is wrong and a government forms!?"

>>99285

You mean like the corporate media? You mean like social media platforms? Tell me how that's going. Fewer Americans trust corporate media than almost ever before, and people are turning away from social media by the millions right now.

>>99287

>>99285

As a side note, when the government isn't involved to enforce their continued existence, what's stopping a prisoner's dilemma where X realizes that W, Y, and Z are all fucking scumbag liars who are destroying the industry, giving X a good reason to say "I want out" or to just betray them for the profits? If your only argument is "but X could get pulled down with W, Y, and Z, then the problem is still self-correcting, but the point is, when people are acting immoral, they will not agree to have morals between each other, or at least, they will not keep those morals indefinitely- only as long as it is beneficial to them.

>>99287

>Corporate media is going down

And it only took 200 fucking years!

>>99286

Not really. My point is closer to "but what if your conception of what Ancapistan looks like is wrong?" I would suggest that because it becomes untenable to protect immense amounts of wealth from people who don't recognize your claim to it, Ancapistan won't have the towering captains of industry you imagine, creating jobs and dispensing wealth, but will mostly consist of cottage industries where most products are made by small businesses with maybe a dozen employees, and business with over 200 employees will be practically nonexistent.

The reason is simple: as long as the business owner is present and available and working for the good of the company, everything is fine. But after opening another facility 500 miles away, there's nothing keeping the workers there from deciding that they're better off selling their products directly and declaring themselves independent. So why not cut to the chase and found a separate company? I also find it unlikely that investment will continue to exist as we currently know it. Without arbitrary laws to prevent creditors from chasing down shareholders to pay back a bankrupt company's debts, investing in a stock market would be a truly risky proposition. Business loans and bonds would likely still exist, but without any nominal ownership of the company, and without the expectation of earnings greater than interest agreed on beforehand.

>>99291

>Ancapistan won't have the towering captains of industry you imagine, creating jobs and dispensing wealth, but will mostly consist of cottage industries where most products are made by small businesses with maybe a dozen employees, and business with over 200 employees will be practically nonexistent.

>Implying there's a problem with this

I think 10,000+ companies would be extremely rare outside of conglomerates who owned shares in various businesses, but regional businesses and international trade would most certainly still be a thing, anon. Economies of scale and dis-economies of scale, and all that.

>>99291

>But after opening another facility 500 miles away, there's nothing keeping the workers there from deciding that they're better off selling their products directly and declaring themselves independent. So why not cut to the chase and found a separate company?

Ah, I guess I should have read the second half of your post to realize we were going into CommieShit territory there. I mean, there's technically nothing stopping them from starting their own business immediately while the business owner is still there in the first place. There's nothing stopping them from founding a separate company at any point in this process. The only thing that's stopping them is the long-term effects of their actions. If a worker revolution happened at the company, and we assume that someone else (or a group of someone elses) is willing to lead that revolution, then I guess in theory they could effectively take over that factory, it's just this ties back to the whole idea of reputation and face, which are important concepts that are generally ignored. Namely:

1) The workers there (especially in the age of the internet) would have their names tied to that business. Everyone would know what they did and it would take a lot of convincing for any other business owner to ever bring them on or set up shop in that town since it would grow a reputation of being "those fucks who steal businesses after you invest in them." In fact it might attract a crowd of rent-seekers who do just that unintentionally to the original take-overers.

2) A business is half what it does and half who it knows. The original business owner might tell his business partners what happened and they might cut off all contact with that business, killing their industry. There's plenty of good ideas that would revolutionize the industry through US history that failed spectacularly for one reason or another (tablets are huge now, but microshaft has had tablets since like 2007).

>>99313

You'll still have an economy of scale if you have 50 companies of 200 people each making the same commodity that a single company of 10,000 made previously. Also, companies will tend to be less diverse in their products, with more smaller businesses making fewer different products each. I'm guessing they'll also use brokers and hiring agencies and the like to offload layers of bureaucracy.

>>99314

The fact is that individuals tend to have loyalty to people who are there working with them, and not to abstract overlords. If the head manager of an Amazon facility told all of the workers at that facility that they were now a separate company, but that their hours and pay would remain unchanged, basically no one there would care. You wouldn't get protests and boycotts in support of poor old Mr. Bezos who just had tens of millions of dollars stolen from him. You couldn't do that right now, both because of the vertical integration of Amazon and because of the National Guard, but in Ancapistan, where there is no National Guard (and the warehouse could hire a PMC as well if Amazon decided to take that route), and a less integrated business model (more like eBay or Alibaba than Amazon), there's not really anything stopping them.

>>99316

The point is that it's practically impossible to destroy someone's reputation with a single occurrence of just about anything (at least, that's not sex-related). If you heard some guy claiming that Amazon cheated him out of $50, would you immediately cancel your Prime subscription? What if it was $5,000? How many people would have to get screwed out of $3.50 for you to stop using Amazon entirely?

And let's say you own your house legally, no one else has even the most preposterous claim to it. And yet you're a complete asshole, and everyone on your street hates you with a mad, burning passion. So when some other guy that everyone likes much more than you moves in one day, no one bats an eye. Sure, everyone else knows that if they protect other people's property, other people will protect yours, but you're an utter outsider in the community and even those with misgivings about how it happened are glad you're gone. What use is your claim, even if it's upheld by a court?

In the end, it all comes down to who has the object, and whether they have an army too large to be worth fighting against, whether its paid for with cash or friendship. I know more than one person so utterly unlikeable that no fortune could keep them out of the gutter if it weren't for the police.

>>99338

That's right but i'll add one correction. The warehouse and employees could start their own business but they cannot overtake the warehouse, already existing purchases, shipped goods and other explicitly company's property, as it'd result in a massive theft case. They still can do the same thing they'd do but as a separate company and even out compete their former employer, they'll just have to do that in a more straightforward way.

>>99158

hey retard, thats about 99% of the government

>>99338

>The point is that it's practically impossible to destroy someone's reputation with a single occurrence of just about anything

And? The very fact that you don't tend to see many companies guilty of major fraud, only minor incidents, only serves to prove the efficacy of the market as an enforcement mechanism. Your description just proves that the market puts pressure on producers to to keep inefficiencies (including corruption) to a minimum, not eliminated but below the maximum that consumers are willing to tolerate. No one ever claimed ancapistan is a flawless utopia that would magically eliminate all problems overnight. However, it is far and away more efficient and effective at doing so than any of the possible alternatives. State judges have no market pressure acting on them, as they have both monopoly power and coercive power to maintain that monopoly, something even a free-market monopolist does not have. As a result, consumer tolerance for corruption has to be much higher, because the supply is totally inelastic and they don't have much choice.

>And let's say you own your house legally, no one else has even the most preposterous claim to it. And yet you're a complete asshole, and everyone on your street hates you with a mad, burning passion. So when some other guy that everyone likes much more than you moves in one day, no one bats an eye. Sure, everyone else knows that if they protect other people's property, other people will protect yours, but you're an utter outsider in the community and even those with misgivings about how it happened are glad you're gone.

If he's on your property, just shoot him. It's demonstrably your property, you have every right to do so. Besides, what exactly is the problem here? You've almost perfectly described why community blacklisting is such an effective enforcement mechanism, which only proves my point that market forces are enforcement enough to maintain efficiency. You've also inadvertently described the Hoppean covenant community, thus showing why ancap communities would be extremely homogeneous, high trust, and self-correcting for degenerate, deviant behavior (especially when combined with insurance companies, and perhaps some kind of social credit score). These are points in favor of ancapistan as far as I'm concerned, it eliminates discord within communities and discourages "loners" as you call them.

>>99369

I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing that Ancapistan or private courts or whatever else are a bad idea. I'm not a statist, I don't believe government courts are good or effective, and I don't think that there is really any sense in which Ancapistan *wouldn't* be a utopia compared to the current situation. All I've been saying is that I think you're still thinking of property like a statist, and haven't fully explored the consequences of stateless society. I happen to think that the unimaginable levels of wealth that exist at the highest echelons of society are a result of the state, and that without the interference of the state, there is a practical limit to the amount of wealth that any entity, whether private or corporate, will be able to amass.

Thus my original post was suggesting that because unimaginable wealth is a result of the state, it's not actually a bad idea for the state to make at least a token effort to balance things back out. Not only is it ethical to try to make some money make it back to those it was stolen from, however ineffectively, but UBI is also practically a more effective method than the systems it replaces: not just defective means-tested welfare programs that keep people poor, but also things like minimum wage and medical bills accrued and defaulted on by those without the means for preventative care.

>>99390

>UBI is also practically a more effective method than the systems it replaces

Really? Here: >>98902

UBI won't replace anything. It will be another layer of statism.

>>99396

Yeah, I agree that Yang's proposal is terrible. I admit that most UBI proposals will be terrible. I hold that UBI as a concept is not a terrible idea (or at least not more terrible than any other law or government program). I also think that blowing it off as "it's wealth redistribution, therefore it's evil" as in >>99230 is misguided, since it works directly opposite wealth redistribution programs that are built into the very concept of the state.