[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[⛧ glen]

But reciprocity need not be merely dyadic, as I tried to point out with my post about N-ary contracts in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Dave alludes to such a legal system by using the term "balance". Defectors in a multidimensional "market" are *easier* to coerce than in a unidimensional "market". To boot, the coercion can be even more adaptive. So your assertions of indoctrination or harsh punishment is an artifact of the overly reductive system we currently have.

On May 9, 2021 10:18:44 AM PDT, Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com> wrote:
>Dave, Very interesting example. As you said, "the "economy" of these
>cultures is based on a mixture of balanced and general reciprocity."
>
>That works only if there are no (or very few) free-riders. How can that
>rule be enforced? (It's certainly not "natural.") Either it's enforced
>individually, i.e., everyone was "indoctrinated" to believe it through
>strict training, or society came down strongly (either by normative
>practice or by formal enforcement authorities) on those who violated
>the
>rules.
>
>In either case, some societal structure eliminates the need for a more
>market-oriented mechanism for allocating resources.
>
>On Sun, May 9, 2021, 8:14 AM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>wrote:
>
>> With one slight modification, I agree completely with glen's five
>> principles. The exception: *"there is nothing supernatural, so all
>> solutions have to be built on science."* The closest thing to a
>"cultural
>> universal" (a practice, norm, technology, custom, etc. that is shared
>by
>> all cultures) is a belief in a *supernatural*. I see no problem in
>basing
>> a "solution" — a non-money-based social structure — on such a belief.
>>
>> The most prominent examples of societies/cultures that do not use
>money
>> internally, would be the Mennonites and the Amish. Both do use money
>> externally, i.e. for interactions with outsiders. An example that I
>am more
>> familiar with is the *United Order* established by Brigham Young.
>>
>> Orderville is a small town about 20 miles south of where I live and
>was
>> the last community to practice the United Order. Just before its
>demise,
>> the community numbered in several thousands and engaged in
>enterprises that
>> included mining, ranching, lumber mill, textile and garment
>manufacturing,
>> cotton growing, mercantile and trade, etc. The geographic range of
>the
>> community covered all of Arizona north of the Grand Canyon, as far as
>> present day Las Vegas, and the southern third of Utah.
>>
>> It was a Mormon community and all shared a common belief in a
>> 'supernatural' and that belief played an integral role in the
>organization
>> of the community. For example, the Bishop's Storehouse — both literal
>and
>> metaphorical — was the repository of all goods and produce from the
>> community and the Bishop, a religious leader, was charged with
>protection
>> and distribution of contents among the populace according to need.
>But a
>> Bishop is not a full-time religious figure — the church, even today,
>has
>> less than 100 people who are 'paid clergy' — and not an authoritarian
>> figure. Although there was a division of labor (men seldom worked in
>the
>> communal kitchen and women seldom engaged in ranching or mining) it
>was
>> primarily an egalitarian society. Women also tended to exert civil
>and
>> social authority over the community while men exercised religious
>authority.
>>
>> Everyone, including children from age 8 and older (age of baptism),
>had
>> direct access to the supernatural (to God) and was expected to use
>that
>> access to determine correct actions and make decisions with regard
>every
>> aspect of life.
>>
>> All of this functioned (internally) without any form of money (or
>similar
>> abstraction).
>>
>> Orderville was disbanded when the US Government took control of Utah,
>took
>> away women's right to vote, confiscated property of anyone with any
>> connection to polygyny, and imposed a Washington-based civil
>authority.
>>
>> Because the "economy" of these cultures is based on a mixture of
>balanced
>> and general reciprocity, there is no need for money within the
>society.
>>
>> There is no reason that these cultures could not scale to at least
>> 'national' scales except, perhaps, those like the Amish that eschew
>> technology and the "modern."
>>
>> for what it is worth,
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 5:27 AM, ⛧ glen wrote:
>> > It's not clear to me why my attempt to answer hasn't impacted the
>way
>> > you repeated the question. So I've copied it below. What I outline
>is a
>> > hand wave at a future structure not entirely without money, but
>with an
>> > augmented money.
>> >
>> > I think these 5 principles also model the non-moneyed organizations
>> > Dave references.
>> >
>> > I understand that these answers aren't *complete*. But your
>repeating
>> > your same question without incorporating the attempts to answer it
>is
>> > worriesome.
>> >
>> >
>> > On May 5, 2021 5:17:00 PM PDT, "uǝlƃ ↙↙↙" <gepropella at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> > >Well, there are smarter people than me, who know more about
>Marxism
>> > >than I do, on this list. But it seems there are ~5 principles to
>guide
>> > >it:
>> > >
>> > >• civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a
>matter
>> > >of cooperation's extent/ubiquity
>> > >• there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built
>on
>> > >science
>> > >• innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by
>nature; so
>> > >in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as
>big
>> > >and complex as the natural world
>> > >• class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can
>eliminate
>> > >it
>> > >• the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in
>nature and
>> > >should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes,
>small
>> > >world networks, etc)
>> > >
>> > >None of this implies the elimination of money. Reduction to a
>single
>> > >dimension is just fine *when* it works. But when it doesn't work,
>it
>> > >has to be "fleshed out" with other structure. Contracts are such a
>> > >structure. We use contracts all the time to flesh out our
>money-based
>> > >transactions. And contracts need not be simply pairwise (as Pieter
>> > >seemed to imply with his conception of a free market). Contracts
>can be
>> > >between any number of groups or individuals ... they nest.
>> > >
>> > >The trick is with the legal system and spatiotemporal extension.
>When
>> > >the lawyers draw up a contract and the courts judge an alleged
>breach,
>> > >there's spatial extent that we can't codify (unintended
>consequences,
>> > >externalities). And do contracts have higher order effects (extend
>to
>> > >descendants, siblings, business partners, etc.)? Designing a legal
>> > >system to align with the 5 basic principles above would, I think,
>> > >produce something very unlike capitalism ... but maybe not
>whatever it
>> > >is the Marxists imagine would emerge.
>> > >
-- 
glen ⛧