Basic income program saves village

[IcarusAngel]

Instead of a 'free-market' approach, this village decided to try a collective, democratic approach, exercising their rights as citizens to deal with whatever problems are facing the majority of the members of their community. A free-market solution would be to wait until the rich land ownerships themselves set up a charity.

The fact that many of these 'bottom up, communist utopia' schemes seem to be working prove that right Libertarian ideology is not only a failure, it's a failure that continues to kill millions of people around the world, like in India.

It sounds like a communist utopia, but a basic income program pioneered by German aid workers has helped alleviate poverty in a Nambian village. Crime is down and children can finally attend school. Only the local white farmers are unhappy.

The basic income scheme," says Haarmann, "doesn't work like charity, but like a constitutional right." Under the plan, every citizen, rich or poor, would be entitled to it starting at birth. There would be no poverty test, no conditions and, therefore, no social bureaucracy. And no one would be told what he or she is permitted to do with the money.


Of course, it would be better if workers themselves were in charge but to me this is a good first tip.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,642310,00.html

[Dejavu]

Instead of a 'free-market' approach, this village decided to try a collective, democratic approach, exercising their rights as citizens to deal with whatever problems are facing the majority of the members of their community. A free-market solution would be to wait until the rich land ownerships themselves set up a charity.

The fact that many of these 'bottom up, communist utopia' schemes seem to be working prove that right Libertarian ideology is not only a failure, it's a failure that continues to kill millions of people around the world, like in India.

It sounds like a communist utopia, but a basic income program pioneered by German aid workers has helped alleviate poverty in a Nambian village. Crime is down and children can finally attend school. Only the local white farmers are unhappy.

The basic income scheme," says Haarmann, "doesn't work like charity, but like a constitutional right." Under the plan, every citizen, rich or poor, would be entitled to it starting at birth. There would be no poverty test, no conditions and, therefore, no social bureaucracy. And no one would be told what he or she is permitted to do with the money.


Of course, it would be better if workers themselves were in charge but to me this is a good first tip.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,642310,00.html


1. This was a private charity that funded this.
2. There is nothing non-libertarian about this nor is it anti-free market
3. There is no force of hand by any government, there is a way to opt out.
4. Your spewing ideology makes you sounds stupid because you are using a non governmental charity in Namibia ( somehow free markets oppose this??)and, therefore, concluding libertarian ideology has killed millions around the world??Seriously, do you really believe this or are you just intentionally playing the role of a fool?
5. Even people like Mises said socialism or communism is possible in a very small subsistence economy.
6. You seem to be suggesting that the 'free market' was tried there first and failed. I can't find any evidence of this but rather the opposite. (State subsidized white farmers , intl foreign aid not filtering down to the people from government.) Of course these can be symptoms of capitalism but I think you might be sneaking in an Orwellian slip and calling something something else when you feel like it as if to lend weight to your 'argument'
7. You seem to be suggesting a free economy opposes social safety nets. Or , you reject the idea that social safety nets can be provided by voluntary means and must be applied through force. But then , if you take that line of reasoning , the article you posted here would suggest that you might be wrong.

So one of my friend spotted you on RichardDawkins.net. You were spewing the same ideology there instead of explaining what was going on.

Icarus' love affair with libertarians and austrians does not stop here folks. :)

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=89846

[IcarusAngel]

It wasn't funded by a 'private charity' - it was funded by several aid organizations (who take in millions from the government and receive special privileges from governments around the world) and foreign aid. Furthermore it was only set up by foreign investors, the funding for the 'basic income' comes from tax revenues. The reason that the 'rich' land owners oppose the system is because their income taxes are going to increase if it is implemented throughout Namibia.

There is nothing free-market in the plan, which is what I pointed out at Dawkins forums. The free-market plan is to do nothing and charge $100 for generic drugs to third worlders who otherwise could be cured for a couple of cents on the dollar - that is the laissez-faire plan that has killed millions in the third world that economists tell us not to 'interfere with' because it violates the principles of the free-market.

I see no reason why large scale, free systems - based on democracy and freedom rather than market principles - would fail. They have always been crushed by outside forces. That doesn't mean that they would fail if they were continued to be allowed to thrive. All these experiments, all the experiments with simulations and so on (see Dawkins book on cooperation), point to the fact that cooperative, egalitarian societies are the freest and most successful, and the fact that the government has to set up alternatives within the market system (like publicly funded research programs) proves the market is a failure.

And who's you're friend at Dawkins forums who 'spotted' me? I've already mentioned that I posted on Dawkinsforums several times, the last time when Olaf was talking about how smart the 18 year olds at Mises forums are. There are several socialists who post there: Sandinista, 'tonyman', quill, me, and a few others. There were a few anarcho-capitalists and people from Mises forums, although most of them were banned for trolling (revleft austrian trolls should be thankful you get to post here). There is no need to 'stalk' me at other forums - if you want to know where I'm at on the internet, just ask :).

[Dejavu]

Where does the 'tax revenue' come from? Even the white farmers would get paid the benefit anyway. Most major charities get tax credit but not direct money from the government unless it is an officially government sponsored scheme ( I still recognize it as a subsidy though). If people had more than enough surplus to supply the taxes necessary for the program then the program would not make any sense, or at the very least , it would be conditional and not applicable to the rich benefiting from it too.


The free-market plan is to do nothing and charge $100 for generic drugs to third worlders who otherwise could be cured for a couple of cents on the dollar - that is the laissez-faire plan that has killed millions in the third world that economists tell us not to 'interfere with' because it violates the principles of the free-market.What is this dribble? How is this even connected? So the manufacturing of drugs are not regulated here and competition is allowed with no barriers to entry? Are you going to make another Orwellian slip and argue that the Big Pharma is now 'free market?'
I think its obvious to most observers ( wherever they are politically) that government aid to Africa has been a catastrophic failure and that foreign state involvement has did more to prop up dictators and murder millions than the opposite.
And excuse me! , Am I supposed to believe they are getting all the medicine and medical care they need under massive state intervention? Is this why the poverty rate keeps on going down significantly and there is no more increase in hunger? Sarcasm ( Not including charities-because charities are everywhere there)

[Dejavu]

The reason that the 'rich' land owners oppose the system is because their income taxes are going to increase if it is implemented throughout Namibia.

Then they'll probably leave or produce far less which has a universal effect on the economy. Then what happens?

[Skooma Addict]

I've already mentioned that I posted on Dawkinsforums several times, the last time when Olaf was talking about how smart the 18 year olds at Mises forums are.

I disagree with just about every single person on the Mises forums on most issues. Particularly when it comes to property rights and ethics.

[Dejavu]

I disagree with just about every single person on the Mises forums on most issues. Particularly when it comes to property rights and ethics.

Icarus is alright but he tends to mix a lot of strawmen into his posts. It's his style just get used to it. :rolleyes: