Universal Basic Income

[CoccoBill]

It might be different in the US if in places like Scandinavia, the general population are big proponents of authoritarianism and social justice. I'm not sure that's true though.

How did you draw that conclusion? My personal opinion is that those who are better off are able to behave altruistically and not just struggle to make ends meet. Hence, you're poor you vote for anyone that you perceive could make your family's life easier. You're well off and doing fine, why not try to help others too, at least to soothe your conscience and to be able to say that's how you roll.

In the US, those who are big proponents of authoritarianism and social justice tend to be people who don't bear a more full weight of their actions and who tend towards ignorance of and insulation/isolation from the real world.

So what you mean is that lazy and poor people support leftist views since they don't have skin in the game? Wouldn't they be the beneficiaries of social welfare policies, aren't you leaving out half of Taleb's definition of SITG, which is as much incentives and disincentives?

FWIW, our previous parliament elections had the following results:

Keskusta (centrist, mainly rural folks vote for them) 21.1%
Kokoomus (right wing) 18.2%
Perussuomalaiset (some fucked up nationalist socialist mixed with right wing rhetoric) 17.7%
SDP (social democratic party) 16.5%
Vihreät (the green party) 8.5%
Vasemmisto (left wing) 7.1%
RKP (the swedish party, yeah ikr) 4.9%
Kristilliset (christian democratic party, zealots) 3.5%
Piraattipuolue (the pirate party, lol) 0.8%

If we look at just the capital city, things are quite different, here's top3:

Kokoomus 26%
Vihreät 18.8%
SDP 15.5%

So, from what I understand, not too surprising that the right wing, eco-hippies and social democrats dominate the major cities, the overall winner pigfarmer-Keskusta was 7th among city folk.

[BananaStand]

How did you draw that conclusion? My personal opinion is that those who are better off are able to behave altruistically and not just struggle to make ends meet. Hence, you're poor you vote for anyone that you perceive could make your family's life easier. You're well off and doing fine, why not try to help others too, at least to soothe your conscience and to be able to say that's how you roll.

almost no one thinks 'altruistically' like that. Even people who probably do have enough, and aren't struggling to make ends meet, still feel like they should have more. And they usually have a point.

[BananaStand]

the right wing, eco-hippies and social democrats

Isn't that everyone??

[CoccoBill]

Isn't that everyone??

I do realize it's hard to wrap your head around, maybe one day you'll have more than 2 options.

[BananaStand]

I do realize it's hard to wrap your head around, maybe one day you'll have more than 2 options.

Not sure that would be a good thing.

2 feels like enough.

[wufwugy]

How did you draw that conclusion? My personal opinion is that those who are better off are able to behave altruistically and not just struggle to make ends meet. Hence, you're poor you vote for anyone that you perceive could make your family's life easier. You're well off and doing fine, why not try to help others too, at least to soothe your conscience and to be able to say that's how you roll.So what you mean is that lazy and poor people support leftist views since they don't have skin in the game? Wouldn't they be the beneficiaries of social welfare policies, aren't you leaving out half of Taleb's definition of SITG, which is as much incentives and disincentives?

I think this is confusing what the SITG is for. An example is how Marxists do not have SITG regarding Marxism but they do have SITG regarding things that emerge from their lack of SITG of their Marxism beliefs. A Marxist might have incentive to argue in favor of Marxism because it might benefit him in the eyes of his peers. But that's not SITG of the Marxist beliefs; it's instead SITG for his interaction with his peers. SITG for Marxism would be if the Marxist lived in a Marxist society.

[CoccoBill]

An example is how Marxists do not have SITG regarding Marxism but they do have SITG regarding things that emerge from their lack of SITG of their Marxism beliefs. A Marxist might have incentive to argue in favor of Marxism because it might benefit him in the eyes of his peers. But that's not SITG of the Marxist beliefs; it's instead SITG for his interaction with his peers. SITG for Marxism would be if the Marxist lived in a Marxist society.

What you're saying seems to be that noone having political beliefs has skin in the game, or how do capitalists have SITG supporting capitalist ideas per your analogy? Someone supporting x economic policy has SITG in the sense that if it works, they benefit since the economy does better, and if it doesn't they lose. Isn't that the same for any belief?

[wufwugy]

What you're saying seems to be that noone having political beliefs has skin in the game, or how do capitalists have SITG supporting capitalist ideas per your analogy? Someone supporting x economic policy has SITG in the sense that if it works, they benefit since the economy does better, and if it doesn't they lose. Isn't that the same for any belief?

SITG problems are rampant in democratic voting. The problems are probably the chief effect too. Most voting is telling others what to do without the teller having SITG. It's bad news and why we should vote for as few things as possible while making as many things that impact people as individual to each respective person as possible.

[Savy]

SITG problems are rampant in democratic voting. The problems are probably the chief effect too. Most voting is telling others what to do without the teller having SITG. It's bad news and why we should vote for as few things as possible while making as many things that impact people as individual to each respective person as possible.

Yet if you take this away from people what tends to happen is you have one person with lots of power making the decisions who has by far the least SITG.

[wufwugy]

Yet if you take this away from people what tends to happen is you have one person with lots of power making the decisions who has by far the least SITG.

Maybe. I'm not sure if the dichotomy is democracy or no democracy. There may be other options.

A constitution is supposed to bypass this, which it quite effectively does on a handful of issues. It may just be that we're in a time where constitutional prohibitions on government power are more necessary.

When I say that we're better off if we use the vote less, my thinking includes a constitution. For example, we would be better off if the constitution prohibited government from conducting any domestic welfare. That would reduce the relevance of democratic voting while also warding off the problem of dictatorship that you mention.