Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thursday1 said:
When you can replace a person with a machine, you don’t need to hire a person. That is one less job available. The only purpose of a company is to make a profit, so the large companies will replace as much of their expensive human workforce as possible with machines that work 24/7. Sure some new jobs get created: service technician, robotics engineer, etc, but those are specialized jobs that will take longer to replace (though with general AI, even they will be replaced, an AI will design and service it’s own robots).

I don’t know what your profession is, but I can almost guarantee you it will be replaced by either a machine with simple programing, a specific AI that only know how to do your job, but does it better than any human, or a general AI that can do anything we can do. Are you prepared to support a family when there is literally 1 job per 1,000 people?

What will happen first is that human labor will be eliminated from entire “blue collar” job market. There won’t be people in factories, it will all be automated.
Transportation won’t be far behind as autonomous vehicles become safer and cheaper to operate than human driven ones. Do you think a trucking company that hires human drivers that have to eat and sleep will be able to compete with a firm that has it’s AI controlled fleet moving 24/7?
Then will come the service industry. There won’t be people working at McDonalds or any other chain restaurant, or entertainment venue.
Lastly, the specialized fields will be replaced first by specific AI, and eventually by general AI. Why hire a fallible CPA or lawyer when you can get a 100% accurate computer to do the work for a fraction of the cost?

The industrial revolution was awful for the working class. Many did starve, which led to rioting and sabotage (see the luddites for an example). And, because we adapted slowly to this change, we ended up with the communist revolutions and the untold millions of deaths that came along with them.

As to where the money is going to come from, that is a good question. A change like this is probably going to usher us into a post scarcity economy. What does money mean when you have AI driven mines and factories running 24/7 producing everything the human race needs for less than we spend running 1 factory today? At this point capitalism won’t work, because it requires scarcity to assign value to labor and materials. AI will make labor “un-scarce”, and material scarcity will probably follow soon after as AI takes over mining and fabrication planning. In the end we probably will have a planned economy, but one planned by AI, optimally efficient, and lacking the shortcomings of any human attempts at planning.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in 1000 years.

I hadn’t looked at this thread in a few days. It seems to have taken on a life of it’s own. Here we are talking about making the entire human workforce redundant and we haven’t even invented warp speed yet. 🤷
 
AdamPeter said:
Perhaps in 1000 years.

I hadn’t looked at this thread in a few days. It seems to have taken on a life of it’s own. Here we are talking about making the entire human workforce redundant and we haven’t even invented warp speed yet. 🤷
Click to expand...
LOL.

Unsurprisingly, predicting the future is not easy. But I think a very careful watching brief is appropriate. It seems conceivable to me that the future (way less than 1000 years) will simply require less paid work and workers than the past. There may need to be some transition of the economic system necessary to accommodate that. On the bright side, it ought not be fatal - fundamentally there is enough earthly resource to go around and sustain us all, it is “simply” a matter of how to disburse it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is well established in Catholic doctrine that legitimate governments with authority do exit, so calling a government a mob is the non sequitur.
Click to expand...
A group of people who threaten you with kidnapping if you do not hand over money fits the definition of a mob quite well.
No one is trying justify the acts of government by the ends it accomplishes. So that does not apply. And it is well established in Catholic doctrine that governments may levy taxes, and calling them acts of theft and extortion does not change that teaching.
Click to expand...
The government is allowed to raise money for its legitimate operations, the Catholic Church does not authorize a specific method.
The difference Jon and I were discussing was between sales tax and income tax, not between taxes and civil debts. But you are wrong to think that all civil debts are the result of a freely made contract. If you accidentally destroy some property of your neighbor’s, you have incurred a debt without intending to do so.
Click to expand...
In that case, you still acted. You did not have your debt decided arbitrarily by a mob. So the distinction still stands.
…in your opinion. And maybe the opinion of the men who wrote the US Constitution. But that’s all.
Click to expand...
No, this is an exercise in simple logic. Government draws its authority from the consent of the governed. An individual may only use force in defense of life, liberty or property. Therefore, the government made up of individuals and acting on their behalf may also only use force in defense of life, liberty and property.
Everyone knows it is not reasonable to murder your neighbor. So why doesn’t the free market take care of that too, making prosecution for murder superfluous?
Click to expand...
Do not change the subject, we were discussing using the state to enforce Rau’s “utopia” of behavior he deems “reasonable”. As you just conceded, murder is irrational and the only way to deal with irrational people who cannot be dissuaded is the use of force something governments have excelled at historically.
 
starshiptrooper said:
A group of people who threaten you with kidnapping if you do not hand over money fits the definition of a mob quite well.
Click to expand...
When legitimate authority punishes you for failure to conform with the law, this is not normally regarded as the action of a mob. Anarchists may see it that way.
 
starshiptrooper said:
… Government draws its authority from the consent of the governed. An individual may only use force in defense of life, liberty or property. Therefore, the government made up of individuals and acting on their behalf may also only use force in defense of life, liberty and property.
Click to expand...
The consent of every individual is not required - that is the nature of “society”. Your theory of “force” is your invention, nothing more. Is unwelcomed punishment (typically entails some “force”) not permitted unless life, liberty or property is in need of immediate defence? Hardly.
 
JonNC said:
A death tax has one purpose: to take money from the family of the deceased. That’s all. Its sole purpose is wealth redistribution.
Taxation’s only purpose should be to fund the legitimate function of the level of government levying the tax. Not to redistribute wealth. Not to encourage or discourage behaviors. Not to be a weapon to bash unfairly particular income levels
Click to expand...
The sole purpose of any tax is to take money from people. Taxes are designed to hurt. The death tax hurts the least.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
The sole purpose of any tax is to take money from people. Taxes are designed to hurt. The death tax hurts the least.
Click to expand...
No. The sole purpose of taxation is to fund the legitimate functions of government (in the U.S. that woul be the enumerated powers).
Sales tax, properly done, hurts the least because it occurs only at the choice of the consumer.
Please the the family of the deceased that the death tax doesn’t hurt.
 
starshiptrooper said:
A group of people who threaten you with kidnapping if you do not hand over money fits the definition of a mob quite well.
Click to expand...
Calling legal incarceration “kidnapping” makes no more sense that calling legal taxation “theft”. It is just mislabeling.
The government is allowed to raise money for its legitimate operations, the Catholic Church does not authorize a specific method.
Click to expand...
Nor is any specific method prohibited.
In that case, you still acted. You did not have your debt decided arbitrarily by a mob. So the distinction still stands
Click to expand...
Rather than argue the point, I challenge the whole notion that the only legitimate taxes are those that are preceded by an action.
No, this is an exercise in simple logic. Government draws its authority from the consent of the governed. An individual may only use force in defense of life, liberty or property. Therefore, the government made up of individuals and acting on their behalf may also only use force in defense of life, liberty and property.
Click to expand...
You appear to be relying on a misconception that since government draws its authority from the consent of the governed, that the government can only do what an individual can do. That is clearly wrong. An example is execution for murder. As an individual, you are allowed to use force to defend yourself while being attacked. But if you should happen to catch a murderer in a trap and hold him there for several months, you may not legitimately take your gun and decide to shoot him in the head - even if you are sure he is the murderer. That is an action that only a legitimate authority acting for the common good can do, and then only rarely. That is just one example. Another example is that no individual can decide on his own to post a speed limit on a public highway. But the government can. So you see that the consent of the governed can confer authority upon a government to do things that no individual may legitimately do.
Do not change the subject, we were discussing using the state to enforce Rau’s “utopia” of behavior he deems “reasonable”. As you just conceded, murder is irrational and the only way to deal with irrational people who cannot be dissuaded is the use of force something governments have excelled at historically.
Click to expand...
I was not changing the subject. I was refuting your point that rational behavior ought to be encouraged by the free market and nothing else. As we see with murder, that is clearly not true. In fact there are many behaviors where the rational choice is legislated and not left up to the free market for resolution. So why object when legislated taxes are used to discourage the irrational choice of smoking cigarettes?
 
JonNC said:
No. The sole purpose of taxation is to fund the legitimate functions of government (in the U.S. that woul be the enumerated powers).
Sales tax, properly done, hurts the least because it occurs only at the choice of the consumer.
Please the the family of the deceased that the death tax doesn’t hurt.
Click to expand...
Tell me, how am I hurt when the government takes my money after I am dead? I do not suffer in any way. My money does not belong to my family. My money belongs to me. If I want my family to have money, I will give it to them. If they get money after I die, it is because I am generous, not because they are entitled to anything. So they are not hurt in anyway because of the estate tax. Because my money does not belong to them, they are losing nothing that they are entitled to.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Tell me, how am I hurt when the government takes my money after I am dead? I do not suffer in any way. My money does not belong to my family. My money belongs to me. If I want my family to have money, I will give it to them. If they get money after I die, it is because I am generous, not because they are entitled to anything. So they are not hurt in anyway because of the estate tax. Because my money does not belong to them, they are losing nothing that they are entitled to.
Click to expand...
If I am a faithful husband and father, I work hard to provide for my family. ALL of my earthly belongings belong to them at my death, unless I have made specific arrangements for a given charity, etc. If I want the government to have some of it, I can bequeath some to it.
Whomever I say my property belongs to belongs to them. Otherwise, it is theft. If I’ve paid my taxes faithfully on my money as I earned it, it is mine, and by extension, my family’s.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
If I am a faithful husband and father, I work hard to provide for my family. ALL of my earthly belongings belong to them at my death, unless I have made specific arrangements for a given charity, etc. If I want the government to have some of it, I can bequeath some to it.
Whomever I say my property belongs to belongs to them. Otherwise, it is theft. If I’ve paid my taxes faithfully on my money as I earned it, it is mine, and by extension, my family’s.

Jon
Click to expand...
Who assets belong to has nothing to do with faithfulness. One can be a completely faithful parent and leave nothing to their children. Now, there is nothing in Church teaching or scripture that says that an estate tax is theft. Like I said, in my opinion, the estate tax is the least painful of all taxes, because money does not do me much good after I am dead. It is the taxes I pay when I am living that are painful.
 
JonNC said:
Of course health care is a right. So is freedom of the press, and the right to arms. That doesn’t mean the government provides them. If government provides one person health care at the involuntary expense of another, it is no longer a right, but a privilege.

OTOH, if these things are earned by labor, then they are no longer privileges, but government has no constitutional mandate to be the employer of last resort, at least in the U.S.
What Congress should do is dramatically lower taxes and spending and allow the principle of subsidiarity take hold.

Jon
Click to expand...
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Who assets belong to has nothing to do with faithfulness. One can be a completely faithful parent and leave nothing to their children. Now, there is nothing in Church teaching or scripture that says that an estate tax is theft. Like I said, in my opinion, the estate tax is the least painful of all taxes, because money does not do me much good after I am dead. It is the taxes I pay when I am living that are painful.
Click to expand...
And the taxes we pay while we are living that are far too high, as well. Who my assets belong to at the time of my death are my choice, because they are my assets.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
And the taxes we pay while we are living that are far too high, as well. Who my assets belong to at the time of my death are my choice, because they are my assets.

Jon
Click to expand...
The government disagrees and while you may not like it, it is not immoral. It’s like chocolate and vanilla ice cream. I would rather pay taxes when I am dead, you would rather pay taxes when you are alive. In addition, whether taxes are too high or not is a matter of opinion, not a moral issue.
 
40.png
PassingSoul:
If you think a family making minimum wage can afford health care without government assistance then you are dreaming. Those people will go to the Emergency Room at public hospitals and get health care for their family at the expense of you paying higher premiums. These people don’t pay taxes now so you can lower taxes all you want and it won’t help these people one bit.
I give President Obama a lot of credit to take on the issue of Health Care. Imperfect as it may be at least he took it on when no one else would.
 
JonNC said:
Minimum wage is not a matter of justice. It is a matter of interference by government with the contractual arrangements between free citizens. What is worse, minimum wages act as much as a ceiling as they do a floor, and systematically eliminate youth employment.

Jon
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your far right opinion of " Let them eat cake " but you are inviting revolution that we are seeing with Trump and Sanders. Don’t think it can’t happen again where the Peasants storm the Bastille. Our economic and political systems are broken. The Congress is broken. The climate is ripe.
 
PassingSoul said:
You are entitled to your far right opinion of " Let them eat cake " but you are inviting revolution that we are seeing with Trump and Sanders. Don’t think it can’t happen again where the Peasants storm the Bastille. Our economic and political systems are broken. The Congress is broken. The climate is ripe.
Click to expand...
That is why I am very enthusiastic about the 2nd Amendment. Let the mob feel the just fury of a free man defending his rights. They will scatter.
 
Hatikvah said:
👍
Click to expand...
I agree no one should not work at all and expect a total free ride. My argument is when they do work and their incomes fall short of basic needs like health care and food assistance. Of course taking it to the extreme should we let them go homeless and starve to death. Yes churches can hit you over the head to donate and help the poor and homeless but Churches can’t do it all. So we have government food stamps to subsidize the poor. When we talk about food stamps, I always hear the case of a person checking out with food stamps buying lobster. I’m sure it happens that some people take advantage of it so should we cut out the government program to kill food stamps for the 98% of the people that need them to get by ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top