Going into 2017, I am going to focus more attention on Universal Basic Income (UBI) otherwise known as minimum income. Providing everyone with a safety net in the spirit of life, liberty, and happiness. Hopefully, this will take some focus away from or redirect the negativity I am anticipating under the Trump regime, but I make no promises, expressed or implied. I’ll attend to the detractors as well.
Iâve been peripherally aware of the concept of UBI for a couple of years nowâMartin Fordâs Rise of the Robots and Erik Brynjolfssonâs The Second Machine Age, among others. Although I donât envision it as a permanent solutionâafter all, what is permanent? âbut it is a solution that works within the existing (and woefully wanting) economic framework. It does, however, have a way to go relative to the current socio-political constructs.
The solution is not permanent primarily because the current economic system based on markets, supply, demand, income, and production is tenuous, so building on a platform of shifting sand is bound to failânot because it is a bad idea considering the given system, but because the system itself is faulty. Capitalism is a house of cards, a tenuous MacGyver-ed system held together with spit and bubble gum (and who knows what else). I donât have a replacement system in mind, and most people are not quite ready to abandon their cherished ragdoll owing to indoctrination, propaganda, and escalating commitment. Â Entropy is at play, and the establishment needs to apply more and more external force to keep it together. We can look to history and the French revolution of 1789 as a guideâor perhaps the fall of tsarist Russia. These systems were inherently unstable.
Regarding these societies of serfs, the gutting of the middle class and the expanding inequality along with technological trends seems to have a trajectory along a vector to return us there, and the results can be expected to be as disastrous.
The United States was founded during the so-called Enlightenment with dashes of a Calvinistic work ethic and rugged independence, whatever that means. âEnlightenment,â like âmodernâ, is a flattering term given to self-describe a period, but this description is mostly wishful thinking. I am not opposed to much of the thought that came from the Enlightenment, from Diderot to Locke to Montesquieuâthoughts such as freedom and separation of powersâ, hijacked by the likes of Franklin and Jefferson on these shores, but they, too, were built on shaky groundsâthe grounds of gods or God, and natureâ, so our laws are built upon nothing; this is worse than shifting sand: at least there was sand to shift.
Language tries to obfuscate the divine with the euphemism nature. From so-called ânatural lawsâ we derive property rights, but take away the premise of natural law, and we lose the basis for such an assertion. And donât get me started on the further foundationless logical leap to intellectual property rights.
Philosophics 