It occurred to me today that the social value of the open-source work I do in my free time has probably been an order of magnitude more useful to the world than everything I've ever done as a paid employee. Needing to seek a wage almost certainly makes me a less productive member of society than I would otherwise be.

@jsbarretto

a perfect case in point for #UBI (Universal Basic income)

@HistoPol @jsbarretto that and universal basic services

@tshepang
I would need to give this idea some more thought.

You see, if a service does not cost anything at all, there tends to be waste and abuse.

If everyone is given a basic income to cover their (basic) needs, this would solve that problem too, don't you think?

In any event, public goods should be held by a (non-corrupt) state and not by private citizens or corporations (e.g. water rights).

@jsbarretto

@HistoPol @jsbarretto institutions managing such services could be corrupt indeed, but there are solutions to that, like reducing movement of money (where, for example, governments would not contract private companies to do the work)

@tshepang @jsbarretto

(1/n)

Very interesting. You thought of corruption by administrators (and rightly so, see my posts, e.g., about NestlΓ© and water-rights abuses, e.g., in the US and elsewhere.)
I thought more of abuse by citizens. People tend to value services that are free of charge low.

Regarding the showcase of #Scandinavian countries, they cannot be the benchmark. I'm no #anthropologist but I'd suspect that the following factors influence this result:

1) relatively...

@tshepang @jsbarretto

(2/n)

small, and until recently, a fairly
homogeneous population.

2) Rich and highly educated populations.

3) Centuries of common enterprise (e.g. #Viking raids.) Mist other countries lack such characteristics.

Very different: Native American tribes.

There might be other factors.

People, generally, tend to be ill-disciplined in huge crowds where individual stakeholdership and malfeasance don't lead to ostracism, as in ancient times. (My hypothesis)

Therefore,...

@tshepang @jsbarretto

(3/3)

...even public goods must have a monetary, and not just an intrinsic value. This can be offset by #UBI.

It's a zero-sum game, really, but leads to significantly different results, IMHO.

//

@HistoPol
To augment this thought, making people pay for stuff tends towards making apparent how important that stuff is. If you give a UBI and then charge park admissions for example you could find out how much people prefer the beach park to the garden park... Or whatever. When you provide a variety of free services there isn't a way for the public to vote "a lot more of this and less of that"
@tshepang @jsbarretto
@dlakelan @HistoPol @jsbarretto you could simply witness what people prefer, no need for money exchange

@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto

You can't witness the degree of preference though. Suppose you have two beaches, one has better surfing. On any given day 1000 people go to both beaches. Both beaches are "equally good" right? What if I told you that the 1000 surfers would pay $40 to park there, but the 1000 other beach goers would only pay $5. It's not enough to see how many people go where to give you good information about how to allocate resources.

@dlakelan @HistoPol @jsbarretto to help clarify, what information does this give (about where to allocate more resources)

@tshepang
My impression would be that it generates more resources, as more money is generated.
@dlakelan @jsbarretto

I have to head out. Was great chatting with you all. πŸ˜€

I will check back to this convo. Have a nice eve.