[ExI] Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 08:51:02 UTC 2017

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ### In UBC the income is a side effect of investment, with
> government-provided UBI the income is produced through theft.

Even if the UBI is exclusively provided from dividends on an
investment the government makes?

Which, I'll grant, is unlikely; it's far more likely UBI would simply
come from taxes.  I'm just saying, "investment-derived source" and a
few other limits but otherwise UBI seems to be essentially what you're
describing as UBC.  Certainly, being managed by a trust (which may as
well be part of the government) and being untransferable (short of
death), the UBC does not actually directly belong to its beneficiary.

> ### The UBC is inalienable - you are not allowed to sell or otherwise
> transfer it to others, unless you die first. So you always have enough money
> to pay for necessities, including insurance against medical problems, which
> would be much cheaper to treat given robot doctors. But you can always
> choose to limit your consumption and contribute to your (or another
> person's) UBC, thus increasing your future income stream.

Just making sure (and since, if you develop this concept further, this
question will come up eventually): "inalienable" includes prohibitions
against selling or transferring more than a certain portion of the
income you derive from it, such that a dumb citizen can't be made to
sign over all such income rendering the "ownership" of the UBC a moot
point, right?

And the "inalienable" is of the "any contract that would induce such a
situation is automatically null and void", so that any attempt to
enforce such a contract on someone who could not pay would be tossed
out upon examining the defendant's finances, right?  (Echoing the
recent RL situation where far too many mortgage companies tricked
people into signing mortgages they could never pay, foreclosing when
they did not pay, and winding up owning lots of pricey real estate for
prices discounted by whatever their "customers" contributed.)

> the UBC is held in trust for the individual, and the trust's
> beneficiaries are not allowed to dispose of it. The UBC would be also
> protected from debt collection.

Which means the trusts actually own the UBC.  This makes them powerful
enough that they practically are the government, and should be
recognized as such so people don't try to ignore the abuses that come
with this sort of power.

> The fraudsters in the government are now quaking in their boots. Once the
> glorious Trumpian revolution is in full swing, they'll be booted by the
> hundred thousands.

Really?  I see many of them shivering in anticip

(Yes, I really am using that joke.)

ation, as they wait for bosses who'll open the floodgates for them.
Many of them are among Trump's most ardent supporters, because they
know how Trump has always operated.  Just look at his Cabinet picks -
and that Trump wants their approvals rushed before the mandated ethics
investigations can complete (lest said investigations turn up things
that might trouble some members of Congress) - if you want official
pre-inauguration action on his part.

If you thought he was anti-corruption, you've been had.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list