[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[Russ Abbott]

Sounds utopian: from everyone according to his abilities; from everyone
according to his meds.

On Sun, May 9, 2021, 2:47 PM ⛧ glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 ⛧
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210509/5a1e39f0/attachment.html>