Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game.
Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade.
Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere.
Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.
I would argue that wealth redistribution (which UBI absolutely is) is not a zero sum game.
First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth.
Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum.
It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.
> The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units.
Are you taking into account the fact that 10 people now have a means to convey to entrepreneurs that some new product or service would solve a problem they have? Does doing this on a larger scale increase the ability of an entrepreneur to bootstrap a company through revenue rather than acquiring capital from now-poorer millionaire (whom we'll assume was an investor)?
I generally agree with this reasoning. You'll notice each member of society had their ability to contribute go up by 2 units. So the overall gain was 20 units, and the overall loss was 10 units, for a net gain of 10 units of "ability to contribute".
There's too much to unpack in what you wrote. Again, define "efficiency", and while you're at it, define "utility" too and what it means that it's "non-linear" for capital.
Non-Linearity: This suggests that the utility that someone derives from wealth is not linearly proportional to their wealth. A simple example may demonstrate this more clearly: We give both an extremely wealthy person and an extremely poor person $10. The poor person will get more utility out of that $10 than the rich person will.
You're talking about something like marginal utility. The first $10 used towards satisfying a certain want are more effective than the next $10.
For example, if you're really hankering for an apple and you eat one, that apple will be more satisfying than the second one, because the first apple satisfied your strongest craving.
The same can be applied to resources etc.
But more importantly, why would anyone else have the right to decide how your property is allocated or used, even if you do happen to be rich?
Besides, even if you redistribute people's property based on the idea that the end justifies the means, what if the poor people you're helping through harming others don't use the money wisely? What if someone gets $10 and uses it to maintain his alcoholism? -Did your grand vision of increased Societal Utility come true?
Even disregarding morality, which would be.. rather psychopathic, how can you know if people will use the money wisely? What about Rational Actors® and Efficiency®? :)
> "You're talking about something like marginal utility."
No, I was using marginal utility to demonstrate that the relationship between total wealth and the utility provided by that wealth is non-linear.
To complete the full thought: Marginal utility is the first derivative of utility. If marginal utility is constant, then overall utility is linear. If marginal utility trends downward then the overall utility is non-linear. Since we appear to agree that marginal utility tends to decrease, then calculus forces us to agree that the utility that someone derives from wealth has a non-linear relationship with that wealth.
> "what if the poor people you're helping through harming others don't use the money wisely"
I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used".
However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1]. Certainly there will be some people who choose not to use redistributed income well, just as there are some people who have lots of capital who choose not to use their income well.
> "why would anyone else have the right to decide how your property is allocated or used"
This one you'll have to take up with the Supreme Court, Congress, the United States Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service who all take it as a given that the United States Government has the right to decide how your property is allocated or used.
Again, as mentioned in our other comment thread, since you seem to be advocating for zero taxes and zero government spending, I don't think we can come to any meaningful resolution on these issues in a text-format over the internet.
I think this is the critical point of our disagreements over UBI — you find all government spending to be theft and morally wrong. This isn't an argument against UBI, but an argument against the entire system of governance that the world has adopted. That's totally fine, but it's not an argument that I'm prepared to consider on this particular forum. If you want to continue this discussion, let's do so in person or over the phone sometime.
Yeah, we can agree that utility is non-linear. What we haven't established yet is: "so what?" :)
> I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used".
Why would it be hypocritical? I'm not advocating for someone else using your property, nor for helping some through harming others.
> However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1]
Didn't we already conclude that evidence is really quite meaningless in this discussion? It's not difficult to find statistics and articles to support the idea of redistribution.
It is difficult, however, to explain why anyone's money should be "redistributed" away from him, considering it's his property. If a rich person's kid has a shitload of Lego bricks, should some of them be taken away from him to be redistributed to poor people's kids?
> Certainly there will be some people who choose not to use redistributed income well, just as there are some people who have lots of capital who choose not to use their income well.
What does it mean to use one's income well? Who decides if my use of my income is acceptable? Why would anyone be in a position to decide that for me?
If I want to buy my seventh Ford Fiesta because it will bring me immense joy, can you claim I'm not using my capital or income well?
> This one you'll have to take up with the Supreme Court, Congress, the United States Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service who all take it as a given that the United States Government has the right to decide how your property is allocated or used.
Well no, I don't "have" to, and that would be roughly as worthwhile as writing to your representative, asking not to get shafted by SOPA/CISPA/PIPA/NDAA/PATRIOT ACT/etc.
Instead, I brought it up with you, as part of OUR discussion here, which you're perfectly capable of continuing by answering my question.
I realize that I am capable of continuing this discussion on this forum but I'm not going to. I do not consider the comment thread on this article on Hacker News an appropriate venue for an extended debate on moral absolutism, the value of the existence of government, and the ethics of taxation and robbery.
I would be happy to continue the debate in a different venue — a thread with the ethics of taxation as it's core concept, a different website, an e-mail thread, a phone call, or an in-person meeting. Let's take this to a more appropriate place, and I'll happily continue the discussion as long as it remains productive.
Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade.
Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere.
Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.