[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

This larger issue of problematic sources for good ideas came up again the other night when someone chastised me for owning a Ford, because, you know, he donated to Hitler's campaign. It was the opposite of my argument that attacking a brand isn't attacking the person. In his case, he was attacking Ford the person, not Ford the brand. I feel the same way about HP Lovecraft, I guess. But it's even more complicated because Lovecraft's "horrors" were a direct description of his prejudices. Can we separate anarcho-syndicalism from Chomsky? I'd like to think we can.

But the [im]practicality of anarcho-synicalism reared its head (in me) the other day in response to a union lobbyist who represents prison guards. Our local brewery is a member of the Local 66, a sheet metal union. They had a May Day celebration. That's fantastic. But how can we draw the line between syndicates that support the abuse of an oppressed caste (prisoners) and syndicates that support the freedoms (making enough money to live where they work, taking time off to birth a kid, etc.) of an exploited caste (service industry staff who mostly work those jobs because they can't find other work).

I'm 2 episodes into "Exterminate All the Brutes" <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8396314/> and Raoul's hypnotic narration has drawn me into the most objective-feeling [⊥] long-arc-of-history state of mind I've ever been able to achieve. I came close during the interview of Kehinde Andrews, whose criticism of the Enlightenment gave some flesh to Raoul's, wherein I regretted my lack of experience with alternate canons. *Almost* made me wish I were a "voracious reader". >8^D Alas, I can't even competently parse 't Hooft's or EricS' papers, much less wade through piles of Persian or African literature. Back when my eyeballs worked well, maybe. Not anymore.

EricS' reframing of the means of production into tools was welcome, though. It bent my lens just slightly in:

1) considering the Facebook Oversight Board's recent ruling on Trump's *indefinite* ban. I'm staunchly anti-Facebook. But talking about N-ary contracts in light of anarcho-syndicalism shows their oversight board *concept* approaches social responsibility so much better than, say, socially responsible stock funds <https://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2020/07/06/guide-to-socially-responsible-funds-23-best-buys/?sh=4ecf8ab64ceb>, which I support in concept, if not in practice. I can't help but wonder if the other members of MAGA (microsoft, amazon, apple, google) will either a) follow suit and create similar structures or b) following Nick's idea, join Facebook in using the oversight board as a kind of "digital court".

and 2) the recent uptick in social media re: Right to Repair, e.g. <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-06/right-to-repair-movement-gains-momentum-as-states-consider-bills>. Software as a Service (SaaS - and all the other *aaSes) have always irked me. That my new truck helps the cops spy on me isn't a good thing <https://theintercept.com/2021/05/03/car-surveillance-berla-msab-cbp/>. Thank the gods that I'm white and middle class. Otherwise, I'd be fscking stupid to drive such a vehicle and hook my phone up to it. But, oh. my. god. does modern radio suck. I have no choice but to hook my phone to any rental car just to stay sane, giving the cops full access to everywhere I go and everything I do.

Oh, never mind. I forgot what I was talking about.


[⊥] Is that a contradiction? Can one feel objective? Is it even possible to have an objective perspective? What hellish nonsense am I even saying, here?

On 5/6/21 4:21 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Hi Pieter,
> 
> Not that it matters (to anything), but No, zero support for Chomsky from me.
> 
> He is the archetype of a bully and a demagogue.  It was his MO in linguistics his entire career, a field that was susceptible to that sort of thing, and to which he has done great harm.  It’s a shame, too, because as you say, he is smart, and some of his early ideas were interesting and insightful.  
> 
> That is not an ad hominem to the side, it is a propos de his political writing.  I do think some of his criticisms of the predatoriness of the American system are correct, and they benefit from his intelligence and energy.  But I think your criticism that all he does is stand in judgment from the sidelines and not bear human responsibility for what happens when you get things wrong is just the right one.
> 
> Have you noticed that there are some people who seem deeply grounded in a concern for others’ wellbeing, and seem to work tirelessly to help?  I have the impression that, for instance, Karen Bass (a US congresswoman who was for a time considered for Vice President) is such a person.  The best kind of people who rise within civil rights movements and causes.  I am struck by how often they have no interest in blaming and judging; it is a distraction from the work they are trying to do.
> 
> On the other side, there are people who choose causes that may have righteous elements, but seem to choose them for the reinforcement of identity it gives them to stand in condemning judgment on others.  That is all I can see in Chomsky.  It doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong, and criticisms have a place.  But a premise that there is any kind of anarchism that doesn’t instantly get taken over by gangs seems way too anti-empirical to be claimed as a “smart” position.
> 
> But fair enough to argue the claims,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 6, 2021, at 4:28 PM, Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za <mailto:pieters at randcontrols.co.za>> wrote:
>>
>> I have a little book On Anarchism by Noam Chomsky. 
>>
>> Chomsky is IMO a very smart person and it's maybe worthwhile to pay attention to his ideas?
>>
>> Although I don't want to reject his ideas, my mind is open, I'm not convinced it will work out as intended. The problem is he offers anarchism as an idea without specifics of how to implement it and how the valid concerns about it can be addressed.
>>
>> At least, Chomsky's abhorrence of capitalism will maybe find fertile ground among some members of this group?
>>


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ