No god > No afterlife > These X years are it > Best invest in becoming happy > Happiness is not joy or money > Most Human happiness is in rich social interactions and feeling safe > Rich social interactions and a big family means dying with a lot of grand children, this would make most people happy > Feeling safe is about not leaving your relatives in debt or having to cook meth to pay for cancer treatment > Socialism (which I would argue is the American word for what most "socialist" countries call "common sense" -society).
Yeah, I just loved the American dream that Breaking Bad portrays, I feel like Walter White's actions are justified and his slow corruption seems almost inevitable. Can we blame the man? He starts out as a victim, then heads down a path of power induced corruption. What a story.
I just re-watched breaking bad and I really don't think the show justify at any point Walter actions.
From the beginning Walter has solutions, people offer him several ways. But he decline all of them because of his ego and turn more and more to criminality to satisfy his hunger for power.
Their is a harsh criticism of the US medical insurance system since every time someone need care in the show, either insurance decline coverage or provide a subpar one. But thats about it, Walter slow descent into a evil power junky is mostly describe as a result of his own character and decision. A simple chemical-teacher that missed his big break and live a fairly bland suburban life and finally get to break this and feed the frustration he had all along.
You'd accept money from friends? Where does that stop?
At some point he wields real power. It corrupts him, I wonder how many people would not be corrupted and just pay their cancer bills and move on (like any normal person would think they would do.)
In that case, I disagree! I love capitalism, I'd argue it's just ill and it's illness is called "lobbying, misinformation and companies' involvement in politics". We can, as free humans, choose to build a society where one is helped when one needs help.
So instead of right wing liberalism and authoritarian left, something in the libertarian left. Freedom, decentralization, support for all. Whoever you are, you are welcome to the anarchy movement. No capitalism here though, you are no going to pay for the help you need.
Because no where in the article does the main thrust of religion--personal responsibility for doing good in the world--enter into the discussion.
It begs the question by trying to show that obviously doing good to get to Heaven is really about the community, therefore we should all be Marxists. Being a good person will have a positive effect on the community in which you live, but the point is not about how high your utility to the community is. The point of being a good person is that it reduces suffering, or at the least makes it meaningful.
But individualism, in this formal sense, is anathema to such discussions.
The only issue is that even "common sense" socialism doesn't work in the long run. All generous welfare systems run on unfunded liabilities. That amounts to a Ponzi scheme, which will collapse along with the birthrate.
If all these goals were attainable at the same time, capitalism would happily sell it to people.
Keep in mind, in the US, there's neither capitalism nor socialism. There's the worst of both worlds. Virtually all political reform can be sabotaged by crying "socialism!", but corporate welfare goes through unchallenged.
There's a halfway house. Give everybody a basic living wage. If somebody wants to do more, sich as being a doctor, engineer or farmer, then pay them commensurately more. Change taxation to suit.
No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to. I already pay almost good portion of my earnings to the government to see it squandered on nonsense (e.g. look up the HS2 project in the UK). I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.
Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle.
I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
> No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to.
It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. Most money goes to corporate welfare to maintain jobs that should not exist. I'm not just talking about taxes, I'm talking about government debt, which dwarves tax revenue.
It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.
> I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.
If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.
> I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
This amounts to a huge bureaucracy to determine who and who isn't entitled. Inevitably, some people fall through the cracks. Other people game the system.
It's not going to be fair either way. Just incentivize people to work and they will work.
If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, they will be able to take risks. They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. They will not be put to shame standing in line at the unemployment office.
> It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario.
I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.
> It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.
I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc.
People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them.
> If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.
There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me.
> If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income,
I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
>They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them.
I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
> I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.
That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
> I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
> I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
> You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.
Get rid of corporatism as well. Any politicians to be seen to be paid off (and I don't doubt there are quite a few) should be locked up. Corporations can that are inefficient can only survive because there isn't a fair market place and this is facilitated by politicians.
> That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
At the moment it is getting taken from me. I can see it in my accounting. So don't tell me it isn't when it very clearly is.
> Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
Oh please. This is ridiculous. I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong to allow those that do not want to work to do nothing and be supported by those that do do the work. Doing something on principle isn't fairness. I don't like corporatism and those politicians that sold us down the river should be rotting in a prison cell.
>That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
Claiming survivorship claim is a bit of a meme on here and your usage is utterly ridiculous, in fact it must be some sort of fallacy to claim this every-time someone simply say "You can do this without the government" they parrot survivorship bias because they read the wikipedia entry the week before.
I am a contractor (and I sub-contract to others). There are plenty of small businesses that do fine and it is trivial to setup a pension and investments through you business (took me an afternoon on the phone). This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.
> If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate. There are some thing that you won't like doing. I don't like working with legacy systems but most of the work involves working with them.
> I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
"I am not arguing for socialism. I am arguing for redistributing wealth by taxing the upper-middle class further". The elites never pay these taxes (I wouldn't if I was soo rich I could pay an army of accountants to work out how to move my wealth to a tax haven).
Also when people say "corporate welfare. I am starting to suspect that it means "I don't like my boring job at global-corp, therefore if we had UBI I could read reddit at home instead and post pictures on r/unixporn instead of having to pretend to be working".
> You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the pro...
> At the moment it is getting taken from me. I can see it in my accounting. So don't tell me it isn't when it very clearly is.
I didn't say that. Read the sentence again. It is not only taken from you. Sure, you pay taxes, but the government is also getting deeper and deeper into debt, because your taxes aren't enough. Who is going to pay for that? Well, you, as long as your alive, then your children, if you have any. Or maybe you'll be poorer through inflation. You need to look beyond taxes and start looking at debt. Taxation is (politically) hard, debt is easy.
> I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong....
It's only wrong because it is unfair. Same difference.
> This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.
Oh sure. Most likely, you'll be wiped out easy as soon as some minor crisis shows up at the door. There's a major recession unfolding right now, perhaps it hasn't hit you yet. You'll lose all your money, your pension, and then you'll wish you had your protected salary at some "too big to fail" company, or maybe some government desk job. You can barely afford real estate, so the risk you are taking is in no proportion to the reward. I wish it'd be different, but I didn't make the rules.
> The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate.
Dude, you're from the UK, your worst case scenario is being on unemployment benefits. You effectively have a social safety net, you can just stop pontificating about the people who don't have one. If your options are "be out on the street" or "work 60hrs in a dead-end job for the rest of your life", it's a little bit different.
> No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the problem will resolve itself as eventually businesses will have to innovate their processes if they want to stay competitive.
The whole argument to keep these companies alive is to protect jobs. If we have it your way, a lot of people will be unemployed. Maybe in the UK that's not such a big deal, but only because there is a welfare system.
Just admit that your idea of good politics is putting people out in the street and let them figure it all out. Apart from that, we're probably on the same page.
> Just admit that your idea of good politics is putting people out in the street and let them figure it all out. Apart from that, we're probably on the same page.
When people like yourself start putting words into my mouth. It is time not to bother conversing any longer. Goodbye.
In the Netherlands we basically have UBI. at least when you are judged unfit for work (i.e. because of mental issues) you loose the obligation to apply for jobs when receiving welfare. It keeps people from becoming criminals, it keeps people from ending up in the streets and avoid healthcare. In the end it saves money and makes for a more pleasant society. Most people are nice and motivated to good you know, it does hurt to make them feel like they have some kind of safety net, in fact it motivates them even more. I think in the end it is about how you judge others: Are they motivated like you or are many people lazy unethical scammers? This is a nice book on the topic by the way: [0] (Humankind (2020)), I highly recommend it for people cynical about other people, like you seem to be (in Dutch the book is called: Most people are nice ("De Meeste Mensen Deugen", allthough "Deugen" is more like "Ethical" in this case).
It's nice if you are rich, but you're going to have to build a big wall around your house and stay inside if you let inequality go rampant.
As I said previously it is a matter of principle. UBI takes from those willing to work and gives to those that are unwilling. I am not talking about people that are unable to work.
I don't care if someone or some studies say that it works out cheaper or it maybe nicer. It is simply not ethical. However I am someone that given the choice between Monarchy and Democracy, Monarchy is the better choice.
> UBI takes from those willing to work and gives to those that are unwilling.
When I read stuff like this I think of the couple of thousand a year I pay in taxes that gets handed over to defense contractors in return for nothing of value.
That is wrong as well. Just because huge amounts of money is spent somewhere else, it suddenly doesn't make it okay to give money away to those that are unwilling to work. In short: two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who work wouldn't necessarily be taxed, so they don't need to support those unable or unwilling to work. The world today has the wealth to pull this off. The government (or some other entity) could employ people to generate wealth like traditional corporations do today. And use that to benefit all. So the billions tied up in mega corps could be used for something that actually moves us on as a civilization.
> Those who work wouldn't necessarily be taxed, so they don't need to support those unable or unwilling to work.
We all know that those who work will be taxed more highly as that is the simplest way. It will have to be quickly as it has to be done within a few years (because that is a term limit of most politicians).
> The world today has the wealth to pull this off.
No the world today is very good at printing money, which destroys the middle class (as their savings and investments become increasingly worthless). Without the middle class you typically don't have people with disposable income which is normally used on goods and services, so you end up with less actual wealth in the economy.
> The government (or some other entity) could employ people to generate wealth like traditional corporations do today.
Governments do not generate wealth (it only takes from others and enriches the bureaucracy). Why would another entity freely give away its money?
> So the billions tied up in mega corps could be used for something that actually moves us on as a civilization.
Demonstrate that you're open to another way and I'll happily debate this. For example saying that the employed would be taxed because it's easy is based on what, exactly? There are economic models that support a variety of liberal crackpot and old school approaches plus everything in between. There MUST be a better alternative to what we have today.
Why do I have to demonstrate anything? I've made my argument and nobody has refuted anything I've said. They've just kept on with their post-hoc rationalisations. Tell me why it is okay to take from those that do work and fund those that won't?
> There are economic models that support a variety of liberal crackpot and old school approaches plus everything in between.
More economic models. That have that never work. When are people going to learn that you cannot make wealth out of thin air?
> There MUST be a better alternative to what we have today.
There is. But what I consider better alternatives are very different from what you would consider better alternatives and you definitely won't like what I would propose.
You could also see unwillingness to work as a disease, like some countries do with drug abuse. Assign a coach, see what's wrong. Sure, being jobless doesn't have to be a pony camp but to have a miserable, debt building life without a paid job is certainly unnecessary at our current level of civilization (but perhaps not in our current economy/political system).
I don't see it that way though. I have many relatives that are government scroungers. Some of them are criminals. These people just don't want to work and will do anything they can to not work. No amount of coaching will help them. They spend their time getting drunk and high (usually around their own children) which will produce another generation that think it is okay to be scroungers.
I understand these people very well (I grew up with them). I find that those that advocate for these types of programs that you refer to, to be very naive or willingly ignorant.
They probably get their money and food from petty crime? Like some of my family at some point. Would be nice if that could be avoided by giving them some money instead of them taking it from random shops. We should bare the burden together.
It's not altruism, I'm being perfectly rationally selfish, I just prefer to help those in need and give the bad people money to stay away from me while not wasting any time and money to make the distinction.
I love how people can post-rationalise that right is wrong. It is very clever, but you are being dishonest with yourself.
It is simply wrong to take from others who work to those who cannot be bothered to work. Everything you do afterwards is trying rationalise your desire for UBI because you believe it to be virtuous.
They can find another job, they can start their own business, they can get contracts for their labour, if they are talented they can get patrons. There are alternatives, just because you have fallen for the siren song of UBI doesn't mean it is the only way.
> Neither does getting money without labour mean that a UBI is wrong in principle.
Yes it is. Because they are taking wealth from people who do work. Everyone sidesteps this and tries to justify it as being virtuous by citing things that are post rationalisations.
It will also make people more dependent on the government which gives more power to politicians (those who will want to be elected will simply promise to increase the UBI) and we go further down the road to tyranny.
Unless you are arguing that taxation per se is unjust (which I'd disagree with), I don't see how you can argue that a UBI is wrong in principle, seeing that taxation of work is not the only way to finance a UBI.
> The only issue is that even "common sense" socialism doesn't work in the long run. All generous welfare systems run on unfunded liabilities. That amounts to a Ponzi scheme, which will collapse along with the birthrate.
I am not sure I understand your point. "common sense" socialism has been more or less in use in Europe for decades. It does evolve from time to time and depending on the political climate and economy, it can face some financial issue, but it has been in used for at least as long as the end of WWII.
I think that one needs to be careful to use names that describe political systems to refer to things that are philosophical.
Systems are judged historically and empirically, and that is why communism is bad. Ask people who grew up in the USSR, especially from their "republics". Similarly, one should be careful to parade your philosophy under the umbrella of "socialism".
No God, no afterlife, time being important has absolutely nothing to do with political systems. If it has, then you have a hidden agenda.
Try the audio version :) the reviewer here does take the slow burn approach on this, but it's worth it.
I'm reading the book currently and am really enjoying it so was excited to see it get such a comprehensive and ultimately glowing review. But tbh I was a bit annoyed at how long this review takes to get going :)
since people are having trouble with the wall of text, the bit that gets to the "argument" of it pretty quick without having to read all the article
"Savagely compressed, Hägglund’s argument goes something like this: If what makes our lives meaningful is that time ends, then what defines us is what Marx called “an economy of time.” Marx is, in this sense, probably the most secular thinker who ever lived, the one most deeply engaged with the question of what we do with our time. He divided life into what he called the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. Hägglund adopts these categories: the realm of necessity involves socially necessary labor and the realm of freedom involves socially available free time. Rationally, Hägglund says, we should strive to reduce the realm of necessity and increase the realm of freedom. But capitalism is systemically committed to exploiting most of us, and to steadily increasing the amount of labor at the expense of our freedom. Capitalism treats the means of economic life, labor, as though it were the purpose of life. But, if we are to cherish this life, we have to treat what we do as an end in itself. “The real measure of value,” Hägglund says, “is not how much work we have done or have to do (quantity of labor time) but how much disposable time we have to pursue and explore what matters to us (quality of free time).”
In a working capitalist system, where prices are not artificially held high (zoning laws etc), the cost of living is low enough that even that average worker can trade off working time for leisure time.
That just means giving up on more consumption, or funding one's own retirement. It's evident though that most people prefer consuming over anything else. They buy shiny things, go into debt for it, then are forced to work off the debt.
Thinkers like Marx may feel different about the whole thing, they need their time off to do what fulfills them. Most workers, even those performing hard manual labor, feel empty if they don't work.
This is such a naive and bourgeois argument isn't it? Free time is only valuable or meaningful if you have the means to make it so, and have been given opportunities to cultivate interests. If you're living in poverty, the quantity of disposable time will not make up for the lack of cash.
There is definitely a trade-off between the two, though. There is a freedom in poverty (no assets to look after, no job to go to, no-one telling you what to do or who to be). I was definitely more miserable earning a good salary in a 9-5 job that I hated than when I was homeless and penniless.
I think it shows the problems of trying to boil down things such as "what makes life worthy?" to a very simplified rule. I think if we look at other disciplines other than philosophy, like psychology to look at the things that give people a sense of well being, we get more nuanced answers that while influence the kinds of political systems we should have, don't dictate what exactly it should be.
> But capitalism is systemically committed to exploiting most of us, and to steadily increasing the amount of labor at the expense of our freedom.
It was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week. In fact, the history of capitalism over the last 150 years shows a trend of decreasing time working. So I'm not buying this point in the argument.
We have a 40-hour work week because of labor unions. Saying that "it was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week" is like saying it was under Christian leadership that we got same-sex marriage. Both statements are true but misleading.
I acknowledge the union involvement. And yet, I deny that it is the whole story. For example:
"Over the 20th century, work hours shortened by almost half, mostly due to rising wages brought about by renewed economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions, collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about 40 hours after World War II."
"Mostly due to rising wages brought about by economic growth." Without the economic growth, we're left with the choice of longer hours or a painfully reduced standard of living.
Is the New Yorker utilizing a voting ring of some kind here? This article seems uninteresting to the HN audience, yet it got a lot of upvotes quickly, and comments which would discourage people from clicking through have been swiftly downvoted.
Can confirm I'm not part of a voting ring! I am a newyorker subscriber and I'm currently reading this book so was excited to see it reviewed.
I actually feel like there is a large cross over between software and politics. Look at the foundations of the free software movement. When I was a young idealist this was one of the things that drew me to the profession.
Those posts (including yours) are getting downvoted because they are against the HN guidelines:
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data.
Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."
A shout out for including Marx, I had to actually read his work and it's mostly not about Marxism etc. He was very detail orientated but could also step back to see the big picture and try to understand the human side of Economics. Don't let his expectations about the rise of the proletariat put you off!
I have a major problem with the idea that death makes life precious. As if the value of something was determined by its inevitable demise. As if being everlasting made it worthless. This reeks of post-hoc rationalisation to me: we believe we can't avoid this Absolute Horror, so we embrace outright.
Sorry, no. Death does not make life precious. It just forces us to make the most of what little remaining time we have. We then concentrate as much value as we can in our first 80 years or so, since those are the only years we get.
A more distant death may dilute that effect, but not entirely: with more time, we get to do and experience more things. Thus, the value of life increases as it lengthens. Perhaps not linearly, but it's not at all clear there's an upper bound.
Yes it does. Especially if you're the one living it.
Even if it's a lifeless object - the rareness of something easily makes it more valuable. For instance, diamonds would be worthless if DeBeers didn't artificially constrict the supply.
> ...with more time, we get to do and experience more things. Thus, the value of life increases as it lengthens.
You're confusing quantity with quality. As if a human with 80 years of being catatonic would be more valuable than someone who lived, loved and adventured for only 40 years.
> Yes it does. Especially if you're the one living it.
So, you want to die. More precisely, you want a limit on your lifespan. Not just so you give your place to the youth or avoid over population. No, you want your life to be limited, because if it wasn't, it would be worthless.
I can accept that. But then you should be able to answer this: when do you want to die? Where's the limit?
> Even if it's a lifeless object - the rareness of something easily makes it more valuable.
The value of one diamond decreases as we have more total diamonds. But it doesn't decreases so fast that the total value of diamonds also decreases as the total amount of diamonds increases. Value may increase sub-linearly with quantity, but there's no way it decreases.
The same goes for lifespan. If you genuinely think the value of an entire life decreases with its length at some point, then there is an ideal lifespan. Life should be no shorter, and no longer than this ideal duration (on average).
I ask again: do you have any idea what this duration might be?
> You're confusing quantity with quality
And you are assuming we couldn't have quality in quantity. Couldn't we possibly live, love and adventure for 80 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
How much life has to offer, really? How much can we experience, how much can we learn, before life stops being worth living? When do we start hitting diminishing returns, for reasons other than bad health? (Just to get that out of the way: we probably agree that it's better to live 80 healthy years and die of a sudden stroke, than live 60 healthy years, then gradually decline until we hit 80 and finally die.)
Hägglund's argument falls apart once one recognizes that a judgment occurring after death is just as terminal an event for the believer as death is for the unbeliever. This, of necessity, means that for the believer, one's time before death is also everything, and thus the premise of his argument collapses. How one views that time, of course, is radically different for both parties, but the outcome is not necessarily different. For the believer attempting to escape eternal damnation, socialism could be an equally valid means of serving one's neighbor.
Also, because that judgement involves our choices, thoughts, words, & actions; I personally think that forced kindness is inadequate in many ways including effectiveness in helping others and for the effects it has on the heart of the giver. More on that (if one cares to read & drill in a bit) at maybe here
81 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] thread.. and reading ..
.. and reading ..
.. and still no point made, so I gave up.
No god > No afterlife > These X years are it > Best invest in becoming happy > Happiness is not joy or money > Most Human happiness is in rich social interactions and feeling safe > Rich social interactions and a big family means dying with a lot of grand children, this would make most people happy > Feeling safe is about not leaving your relatives in debt or having to cook meth to pay for cancer treatment > Socialism (which I would argue is the American word for what most "socialist" countries call "common sense" -society).
From the beginning Walter has solutions, people offer him several ways. But he decline all of them because of his ego and turn more and more to criminality to satisfy his hunger for power.
Their is a harsh criticism of the US medical insurance system since every time someone need care in the show, either insurance decline coverage or provide a subpar one. But thats about it, Walter slow descent into a evil power junky is mostly describe as a result of his own character and decision. A simple chemical-teacher that missed his big break and live a fairly bland suburban life and finally get to break this and feed the frustration he had all along.
At some point he wields real power. It corrupts him, I wonder how many people would not be corrupted and just pay their cancer bills and move on (like any normal person would think they would do.)
Before I start a meth lab.
It begs the question by trying to show that obviously doing good to get to Heaven is really about the community, therefore we should all be Marxists. Being a good person will have a positive effect on the community in which you live, but the point is not about how high your utility to the community is. The point of being a good person is that it reduces suffering, or at the least makes it meaningful.
But individualism, in this formal sense, is anathema to such discussions.
If all these goals were attainable at the same time, capitalism would happily sell it to people.
Keep in mind, in the US, there's neither capitalism nor socialism. There's the worst of both worlds. Virtually all political reform can be sabotaged by crying "socialism!", but corporate welfare goes through unchallenged.
Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle.
I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. Most money goes to corporate welfare to maintain jobs that should not exist. I'm not just talking about taxes, I'm talking about government debt, which dwarves tax revenue.
It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.
> I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.
If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.
> I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
This amounts to a huge bureaucracy to determine who and who isn't entitled. Inevitably, some people fall through the cracks. Other people game the system.
It's not going to be fair either way. Just incentivize people to work and they will work.
If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, they will be able to take risks. They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. They will not be put to shame standing in line at the unemployment office.
I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.
> It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.
I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc.
People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them.
> If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.
There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me.
> If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income,
I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
>They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them.
I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.
That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
> I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
> I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
Get rid of corporatism as well. Any politicians to be seen to be paid off (and I don't doubt there are quite a few) should be locked up. Corporations can that are inefficient can only survive because there isn't a fair market place and this is facilitated by politicians.
> That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
At the moment it is getting taken from me. I can see it in my accounting. So don't tell me it isn't when it very clearly is.
> Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
Oh please. This is ridiculous. I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong to allow those that do not want to work to do nothing and be supported by those that do do the work. Doing something on principle isn't fairness. I don't like corporatism and those politicians that sold us down the river should be rotting in a prison cell.
>That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
Claiming survivorship claim is a bit of a meme on here and your usage is utterly ridiculous, in fact it must be some sort of fallacy to claim this every-time someone simply say "You can do this without the government" they parrot survivorship bias because they read the wikipedia entry the week before.
I am a contractor (and I sub-contract to others). There are plenty of small businesses that do fine and it is trivial to setup a pension and investments through you business (took me an afternoon on the phone). This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.
> If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate. There are some thing that you won't like doing. I don't like working with legacy systems but most of the work involves working with them.
> I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
"I am not arguing for socialism. I am arguing for redistributing wealth by taxing the upper-middle class further". The elites never pay these taxes (I wouldn't if I was soo rich I could pay an army of accountants to work out how to move my wealth to a tax haven).
Also when people say "corporate welfare. I am starting to suspect that it means "I don't like my boring job at global-corp, therefore if we had UBI I could read reddit at home instead and post pictures on r/unixporn instead of having to pretend to be working".
> You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the pro...
I didn't say that. Read the sentence again. It is not only taken from you. Sure, you pay taxes, but the government is also getting deeper and deeper into debt, because your taxes aren't enough. Who is going to pay for that? Well, you, as long as your alive, then your children, if you have any. Or maybe you'll be poorer through inflation. You need to look beyond taxes and start looking at debt. Taxation is (politically) hard, debt is easy.
> I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong....
It's only wrong because it is unfair. Same difference.
> This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.
Oh sure. Most likely, you'll be wiped out easy as soon as some minor crisis shows up at the door. There's a major recession unfolding right now, perhaps it hasn't hit you yet. You'll lose all your money, your pension, and then you'll wish you had your protected salary at some "too big to fail" company, or maybe some government desk job. You can barely afford real estate, so the risk you are taking is in no proportion to the reward. I wish it'd be different, but I didn't make the rules.
> The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate.
Dude, you're from the UK, your worst case scenario is being on unemployment benefits. You effectively have a social safety net, you can just stop pontificating about the people who don't have one. If your options are "be out on the street" or "work 60hrs in a dead-end job for the rest of your life", it's a little bit different.
> No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the problem will resolve itself as eventually businesses will have to innovate their processes if they want to stay competitive.
The whole argument to keep these companies alive is to protect jobs. If we have it your way, a lot of people will be unemployed. Maybe in the UK that's not such a big deal, but only because there is a welfare system.
Just admit that your idea of good politics is putting people out in the street and let them figure it all out. Apart from that, we're probably on the same page.
When people like yourself start putting words into my mouth. It is time not to bother conversing any longer. Goodbye.
I'm only replying in kind. Haven't you noticed?
It's nice if you are rich, but you're going to have to build a big wall around your house and stay inside if you let inequality go rampant.
[0] https://www.rutgerbregman.com/books/
I don't care if someone or some studies say that it works out cheaper or it maybe nicer. It is simply not ethical. However I am someone that given the choice between Monarchy and Democracy, Monarchy is the better choice.
When I read stuff like this I think of the couple of thousand a year I pay in taxes that gets handed over to defense contractors in return for nothing of value.
We all know that those who work will be taxed more highly as that is the simplest way. It will have to be quickly as it has to be done within a few years (because that is a term limit of most politicians).
> The world today has the wealth to pull this off.
No the world today is very good at printing money, which destroys the middle class (as their savings and investments become increasingly worthless). Without the middle class you typically don't have people with disposable income which is normally used on goods and services, so you end up with less actual wealth in the economy.
> The government (or some other entity) could employ people to generate wealth like traditional corporations do today.
Governments do not generate wealth (it only takes from others and enriches the bureaucracy). Why would another entity freely give away its money?
> So the billions tied up in mega corps could be used for something that actually moves us on as a civilization.
Pure utopianism.
> There are economic models that support a variety of liberal crackpot and old school approaches plus everything in between.
More economic models. That have that never work. When are people going to learn that you cannot make wealth out of thin air?
> There MUST be a better alternative to what we have today.
There is. But what I consider better alternatives are very different from what you would consider better alternatives and you definitely won't like what I would propose.
I understand these people very well (I grew up with them). I find that those that advocate for these types of programs that you refer to, to be very naive or willingly ignorant.
No. I am fed up of this pathological altruism. They should be looking for employment. End of discussion.
It is simply wrong to take from others who work to those who cannot be bothered to work. Everything you do afterwards is trying rationalise your desire for UBI because you believe it to be virtuous.
In that context, a UBI isn't just a support mechanism.
Neither does getting money without labour mean that a UBI is wrong in principle.
Yes it is. Because they are taking wealth from people who do work. Everyone sidesteps this and tries to justify it as being virtuous by citing things that are post rationalisations.
It will also make people more dependent on the government which gives more power to politicians (those who will want to be elected will simply promise to increase the UBI) and we go further down the road to tyranny.
Private property takes wealth out of the commons.
I am not sure I understand your point. "common sense" socialism has been more or less in use in Europe for decades. It does evolve from time to time and depending on the political climate and economy, it can face some financial issue, but it has been in used for at least as long as the end of WWII.
Systems are judged historically and empirically, and that is why communism is bad. Ask people who grew up in the USSR, especially from their "republics". Similarly, one should be careful to parade your philosophy under the umbrella of "socialism".
No God, no afterlife, time being important has absolutely nothing to do with political systems. If it has, then you have a hidden agenda.
I'm reading the book currently and am really enjoying it so was excited to see it get such a comprehensive and ultimately glowing review. But tbh I was a bit annoyed at how long this review takes to get going :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Savagely compressed, Hägglund’s argument goes something like this: If what makes our lives meaningful is that time ends, then what defines us is what Marx called “an economy of time.” Marx is, in this sense, probably the most secular thinker who ever lived, the one most deeply engaged with the question of what we do with our time. He divided life into what he called the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. Hägglund adopts these categories: the realm of necessity involves socially necessary labor and the realm of freedom involves socially available free time. Rationally, Hägglund says, we should strive to reduce the realm of necessity and increase the realm of freedom. But capitalism is systemically committed to exploiting most of us, and to steadily increasing the amount of labor at the expense of our freedom. Capitalism treats the means of economic life, labor, as though it were the purpose of life. But, if we are to cherish this life, we have to treat what we do as an end in itself. “The real measure of value,” Hägglund says, “is not how much work we have done or have to do (quantity of labor time) but how much disposable time we have to pursue and explore what matters to us (quality of free time).”
That just means giving up on more consumption, or funding one's own retirement. It's evident though that most people prefer consuming over anything else. They buy shiny things, go into debt for it, then are forced to work off the debt.
Thinkers like Marx may feel different about the whole thing, they need their time off to do what fulfills them. Most workers, even those performing hard manual labor, feel empty if they don't work.
I got an involuntary [citation needed] mental response at this. Anyone know if this is a quote from the book, or the author's opinion?
It was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week. In fact, the history of capitalism over the last 150 years shows a trend of decreasing time working. So I'm not buying this point in the argument.
"Over the 20th century, work hours shortened by almost half, mostly due to rising wages brought about by renewed economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions, collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about 40 hours after World War II."
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#History )
"Mostly due to rising wages brought about by economic growth." Without the economic growth, we're left with the choice of longer hours or a painfully reduced standard of living.
I actually feel like there is a large cross over between software and politics. Look at the foundations of the free software movement. When I was a young idealist this was one of the things that drew me to the profession.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data.
Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."
Sorry, no. Death does not make life precious. It just forces us to make the most of what little remaining time we have. We then concentrate as much value as we can in our first 80 years or so, since those are the only years we get.
A more distant death may dilute that effect, but not entirely: with more time, we get to do and experience more things. Thus, the value of life increases as it lengthens. Perhaps not linearly, but it's not at all clear there's an upper bound.
Some would re-word that as "those 80 years are precious" ;)
Yes it does. Especially if you're the one living it.
Even if it's a lifeless object - the rareness of something easily makes it more valuable. For instance, diamonds would be worthless if DeBeers didn't artificially constrict the supply.
> ...with more time, we get to do and experience more things. Thus, the value of life increases as it lengthens.
You're confusing quantity with quality. As if a human with 80 years of being catatonic would be more valuable than someone who lived, loved and adventured for only 40 years.
> Yes it does. Especially if you're the one living it.
So, you want to die. More precisely, you want a limit on your lifespan. Not just so you give your place to the youth or avoid over population. No, you want your life to be limited, because if it wasn't, it would be worthless.
I can accept that. But then you should be able to answer this: when do you want to die? Where's the limit?
> Even if it's a lifeless object - the rareness of something easily makes it more valuable.
The value of one diamond decreases as we have more total diamonds. But it doesn't decreases so fast that the total value of diamonds also decreases as the total amount of diamonds increases. Value may increase sub-linearly with quantity, but there's no way it decreases.
The same goes for lifespan. If you genuinely think the value of an entire life decreases with its length at some point, then there is an ideal lifespan. Life should be no shorter, and no longer than this ideal duration (on average).
I ask again: do you have any idea what this duration might be?
> You're confusing quantity with quality
And you are assuming we couldn't have quality in quantity. Couldn't we possibly live, love and adventure for 80 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
How much life has to offer, really? How much can we experience, how much can we learn, before life stops being worth living? When do we start hitting diminishing returns, for reasons other than bad health? (Just to get that out of the way: we probably agree that it's better to live 80 healthy years and die of a sudden stroke, than live 60 healthy years, then gradually decline until we hit 80 and finally die.)
Also, because that judgement involves our choices, thoughts, words, & actions; I personally think that forced kindness is inadequate in many ways including effectiveness in helping others and for the effects it has on the heart of the giver. More on that (if one cares to read & drill in a bit) at maybe here
http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581821.html
...and http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581757.html .