What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[Trez-Nem]

SHUT UP ABOUT COMMUNISM, it's not what this thread is about.

You must be new here.

I know that people tend to argue about communism whenever they are able to. But I kindly asked you to stop.

[Alice Gardens]

You must be new here.

I know that people tend to argue about communism whenever they are able to. But I kindly asked you to stop.

It's because the subject of your topic so similar to communism, it was only natural someone would bring it up. But since there's nothing more to add to the subject we can leave it for now. But if the thread stays alive someone will bring it up again. Guaranteed.

And on the subject of your original post, I don't think it would work. Some asked where the money would come from and you said taxes but they wouldn't be much higher. How come? If you had to pay for all that you'd need extremely high taxes or where would the money come from? The government needs to get its money somewhere.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Great, why don't you single-handedly go rewrite the world's dictionaries and history textbooks then?

Why don't you read the ones written by respected academics with actual knowledge on the subject? Or simpler still, look at communist theory and then see why the USSR isn't it?

You're just a fanatic

Ad hominem.

who sees some sort of utopian vision in Marxism.

Marxism does not equate to all communists.

It's the same as Mein Kampf, it might sound great to some but in the end it's just a recipe for disaster.

Please tell me about the bit where Marx calls for totalitarianism, genocide and neo-colonialism. Must have missed that bit.

Also, these are some of the biggest and most-used dictionaries on the web.

And the crowd gives an appreciative cheer as argumentum ad populum walks into the debate arena!

Buy a modern dictionary and you'll see that all of the above are valid definiton.

Did you miss the bit where someone else pointed out the opposite?

Some raving dude on the internet with fringe ideas

Ah hominem!

claiming they are wrong doesn't make it so.

But actual in-depth analysis of communist theory coupled with a basic examination of the USSR's nature, government and structure does make it so.

---

If life's basic necessities were free, then we'd live in a better, less poverty-stricken world. Which would be nice.

[Zaras]

Great, why don't you single-handedly go rewrite the world's dictionaries and history textbooks then?

Pay me!

---

I agree with OTFST. It'd be a nice step towards a better world.

[Alice Gardens]

Great, why don't you single-handedly go rewrite the world's dictionaries and history textbooks then?

Pay me!

---

I agree with OTFST. It'd be a nice step towards a better world.

No way, you'd do it for free, wouldn't you? You communist!

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I know that people tend to argue about communism whenever they are able to. But I kindly asked you to stop.

It's because the subject of your topic so similar to communism, it was only natural someone would bring it up. But since there's nothing more to add to the subject we can leave it for now. But if the thread stays alive someone will bring it up again. Guaranteed.

And on the subject of your original post, I don't think it would work. Some asked where the money would come from and you said taxes but they wouldn't be much higher. How come? If you had to pay for all that you'd need extremely high taxes or where would the money come from? The government needs to get its money somewhere.

He's basically changed his position to proposing a system that exists already, more or less. So we know that it can work.

[Crogach]

Great, why don't you single-handedly go rewrite the world's dictionaries and history textbooks then?

Pay me!

---

I agree with OTFST. It'd be a nice step towards a better world.

It would, and what I'd be most interested in is seeing a couple of really thorough evaluations of possible implementations for the US. I ran some quick and dirty numbers on that earlier in the thread (spoilered below), and I'm curious if anyone has questions, comments, criticisms, or better ideas:

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with having a guaranteed national income that provides enough for a single person to rent an apartment and live a fairly spartan working- to lower middle-class life; it would certainly simplify our welfare system and solve the "welfare queen" problem (whether you define that problem to be the existence of people who don't belong receiving benefits milking the system for extras or the use of pejorative terms and ugly stereotypes to justify throwing the poor out in the cold). From where I stand that sort of reform would effectively make welfare like Social Security (something that comes with being an American citizen rather than a handout that can be used to play wedge politics down the line) and that would be good for everyone.

The only problem I see with this is that there's no way to do this in the US without dramatic tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere. As it stands now, the US spends approximately $878 billion on old-age pensions, $422 billion on welfare, and $900 or so billion on defense. If we cut the defense budget by 30 percent, cut federal pensions in half, and redirect all current welfare spending, then that gives us $270B+$422B+$439B = $1.131 trillion in savings, while a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (237 million people aged 18 or older multiplied by $22500 per person per year, or 112.5% of the poverty line) gives us expenditures of $5.333 trillion right off the bat. That's a $4.2 trillion hole that would have to be filled, and the current total revenue of the US government is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.5 trillion; we'd need to increase revenues by 80 percent or so in order to cover the costs of a guaranteed annual income.

I'd be damn curious to see the CBO or someone else do a study on possible means of phasing in a guaranteed annual income over a period of years; it's an idea that I think would be awesome to have, but somebody with a lot more free time, a lot more training, and a lot better numbers than I have would need to make the math work before it could go anywhere.

[Zaras]

No way, you'd do it for free, wouldn't you? You communist!

We're in a capitalist society.

Plus, I remind you, while from each according to their ability, to each according to their need is the end-goal, the socialist transitional period's principle is to each according to their contribution.

[Evil Lord Bane]

What if the basic necessities of life were free?

No one would work, there be no reason to.
Nothing would get produced of no one worked.
If nothing was produced, there would be no food, clothing or shelter, the basic necessities of life.
Everyone would die.
The End.

[Zaras]

What if the basic necessities of life were free?

No one would work, there be no reason to.

100% wrong. People are motivated to work by things beyond the threat of starvation. If basic necessities were free, people would still work to buy the shiny consumerist crap they want.

How is this so hard to grasp?!

[The Joseon Dynasty]

What if the basic necessities of life were free?

No one would work, there be no reason to.

100% wrong. People are motivated to work by things beyond the threat of starvation. If basic necessities were free, people would still work to buy the shiny consumerist crap they want.

How is this so hard to grasp?!

There would be a considerable disincentive to work if the basic necessities were free. While this wouldn't immediately imply that no one would work (which is wrong), if the extent to which people chose to avoid work was significant enough, the productivity of the economy would suffer remarkably.

[Genivaria]

No way, you'd do it for free, wouldn't you? You communist!

We're in a capitalist society.

Plus, I remind you, while from each according to their ability, to each according to their need is the end-goal, the socialist transitional period's principle is to each according to their contribution.

For you maybe, I'm no anarchist.

[Zaras]

100% wrong. People are motivated to work by things beyond the threat of starvation. If basic necessities were free, people would still work to buy the shiny consumerist crap they want.

How is this so hard to grasp?!

There would be a considerable disincentive to work if the basic necessities were free. While this wouldn't immediately imply that no one would work (which is wrong), if the extent to which people chose to avoid work was significant enough, the productivity of the economy would suffer remarkably.

Because people would be excited about living a life with just the bare necessities and have never wanted to indulge themselves?

Productivity would be answered by increasing automatisation.

[Zaras]

We're in a capitalist society.

Plus, I remind you, while from each according to their ability, to each according to their need is the end-goal, the socialist transitional period's principle is to each according to their contribution.

For you maybe, I'm no anarchist.

Well, you are a social democrat... so that makes sense.

[Raeyh]

What if the basic necessities of life were free?

No one would work, there be no reason to.

100% wrong. People are motivated to work by things beyond the threat of starvation. If basic necessities were free, people would still work to buy the shiny consumerist crap they want.

How is this so hard to grasp?!

I can get by on the public library for entertainment if I really needed to. The main motivation for work is survival no matter what motivational speakers tell you. Plus, there is a bunch of other free stuff you can enjoy if you don't need to worry about dying.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

There would be a considerable disincentive to work if the basic necessities were free. While this wouldn't immediately imply that no one would work (which is wrong), if the extent to which people chose to avoid work was significant enough, the productivity of the economy would suffer remarkably.

Because people would be excited about living a life with just the bare necessities and have never wanted to indulge themselves?

Apparently, yes. This is what economics predicts, and the models that are employed to do so are based on observed, statistical trends in human behaviour.

Think about it intuitively. Not as "work or not work", but as units of work on some arbitrarily long scale. If I am responsible for covering both necessities and luxuries, then I will be at some point on the scale, where I am contributing x units of work. If necessities are no longer considered in my labour choices, then luxuries would be the only determining factor, moving me to some point y on the scale.

Intuitively, y < x.

[Zaras]

The main motivation for work is survival.

Prove it.

Oh wait, you can't.

[Raeyh]

The main motivation for work is survival.

Prove it.

Oh wait, you can't.

I just pointed out that you can just get entertainment from a public library. They even have free Internet access there, so you can post on NationStates if you want. What more do you want?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Prove it.

Oh wait, you can't.

I just pointed out that you can just get entertainment from a public library. They even have free Internet access there, so you can post on NationStates if you want. What more do you want?

Proof would be nice.

Because I don't know about you, but I'm seeing something a teeny bit non sequiturish in "You can get WiFi for free in libraries, so the main motivation for work is survival."

[Raeyh]

I just pointed out that you can just get entertainment from a public library. They even have free Internet access there, so you can post on NationStates if you want. What more do you want?

Proof would be nice.

Proof that public libraries have free Internet access and entertainment? Just go visit one. The have shelves and shelves filled with books for you to read for fun, plus videos and other things.

Because I don't know about you, but I'm seeing something a teeny bit non sequiturish in "You can get WiFi for free in libraries, so the main motivation for work is survival."

They don't have free Wifi, they have free computers for people to use. You don't even need to own your own.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Proof would be nice.

Proof that public libraries have free Internet access and entertainment? Just go visit one. The have shelves and shelves filled with books for you to read for fun, plus videos and other things.

I used to work at a public library. It was awful. Snot on every other page, and all the picture books had penises drawn on the characters. Not even where penises should be. Just arbitrarily. Coming out of ears, flopping on children's faces. Terrible.

[Raeyh]

Proof that public libraries have free Internet access and entertainment? Just go visit one. The have shelves and shelves filled with books for you to read for fun, plus videos and other things.

I used to work at a public library. It was awful. Snot on every other page, and all the picture books had penises drawn on the characters. Not even where penises should be. Just arbitrarily. Coming out of ears, flopping on children's faces. Terrible.

Never seen that before. You must live in the bad part of town.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I used to work at a public library. It was awful. Snot on every other page, and all the picture books had penises drawn on the characters. Not even where penises should be. Just arbitrarily. Coming out of ears, flopping on children's faces. Terrible.

Never seen that before. You must live in the bad part of town.

Nah. Just next to a Secondary School.

[Virginadia]

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Thanks for that salient point based on facts and reasoning and not just misconceptions and preconceptions.

I advise that you learn what socialism is.