Instigator / Pro
0
1518
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Topic
#1214

A Citizen's Dividend

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1687
rating
551
debates
68.24%
won
Description

Short description again, in case someone clicks on this without having read it:

"We will be arguing over whether it is beneficial to society and moral to have a citizen's dividend, a type of universal basic income, funded by a land value tax. "

For this debate, "beneficial to society" will mean any number of things ranging from whether it promotes more freedom, improves lives, improves the economy, etc. It will be left to voters to decide which of those types of arguments are most convincing in terms of whether it indicates a citizen's dividend is beneficial.

"Moral" will be the standard definition, or "the right thing to do" so to speak.

"Citizen's dividend" is a universal basic income that is funded by a land value tax. A universal basic income is money given to every person in a country, no questions asked, no qualifications, usually on a monthly basis.

A land value tax is a tax on the unimproved value of the land. While similar to a property tax, it differs in that it doesn't tax buildings or other human improvements to the land. It only taxes the value of the resources of the land and the market value of the land itself.

For this debate, round 1 will be used for acceptance, defining terms, and stating one's position clearly. My opponent may define any term they feel would come up in the debate that may raise arguments over semantics. I'm not generally interested in semantics debates, so I will cater to my opponent's definitions of such terms should they define them, just as my opponent is expected to accept the definitions I've provided above.

-->
@RationalMadman

Just to let you know, I'll have my argument up no sooner than ~16 hours and no later than probably 36 hours from the time of this comment.

Just in case you're not aware, our other debate has been passed onto your concluding round.

Also, I seemed to have mixed up Murray Rothbard with Von Mises when stating who Doug French studied under. The article on him I provided has Rothbard mentioned. Apologies. For whatever reason I tend to mix the two up.

Man, it seems no matter how many times I read over my arguments, there are still some mistakes like this in them :P I kid you not, I did read over it at least 3 times before publishing, and I corrected many mistakes I saw, but somehow this one and the one below I missed.

Hopefully that won't be too big of an issue. I'll correct it officially in the next round.

Ok, so I'm not sure how this happened, but I didn't catch that I used the wrong term here. Where I say:

"I remind us, however, that people generally have low time preference..."

I meant to say "high time preference". Given this statement is contradictory with what I state after it, I made a clear error here with the choice of words. I could have sworn I wrote high time preference, but oh well. I'll correct it officially in the next round if my opponent points out the contradiction.

-->
@Cogent_Cognizer

I'll be responding

-->
@Christen

Is this a debate you'd be interested in participating in and arguing for con? It looks like RationalMadman may not respond in time, though they do have ~11 hours left now. Should that happen, I'm still interested in debating this, and I'd be willing to debate you if you want the con position.

-->
@RationalMadman

I hope you haven't forgotten. Less than 12 hours remain for your first round which is just an acceptance round.

This youtuber make a pretty good video explaining the benefits and downsides of a universal basic income. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XjHXYt8wQ

-->
@RationalMadman

Also, just to clarify, I've purposely not stated what the rest of the rounds are used for. So, you may use them in any way you feel is fair, logical, whatever. So, for example, I have us both state the reasons for our position in the first round for a purpose.

Should either of us want to pre-emptively argue against the contentions one has raised in round 1, that is permitted in round 2. You can do a combination of that along with supporting evidence for your position.

The last round, while usually thought of as concluding statement, you don't have to use it for that, but it may be a point where voters could vote against conduct if they view it unfair if you rebut what I say in the last round since I'd have no opportunity to respond. But, that's a risk I'm allowing you to take, and perhaps voters won't see it that way. It is indeed a risk.

-->
@Christen

In a way, yes. If someone is content with merely living, then I suppose they wouldn't need to work. I think most people want to do more than merely live. As an absurdist, I'd contend we are all looking for a purpose in life and a career is usually something that people feel gives them a purpose. Not all people, certainly, will find purpose in a career. But many other things give people the feeling of purpose that would require a career, such as the pursuit of material wealth. That kind of needs a career usually. I don't think anyone actually is content with merely living though. We usually all want to do something more than just survive in today's world.

-->
@RationalMadman

Feel free to make that a point of contention. While I'm tempted to address that point here, I would want it in the debate so that it counts lol. But I'll certainly address that should you formally present it in a debate round.

-->
@TheAtheist

the flaw isn't in the notion of caring for the poor, it's in ensuring it's the poor you're sending the money to.

UBI is utterly flawed at detecting wealth in possessions and estate.

-->
@Christen

It doesn't mean that people wouldn't have to work. Take Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend, for example. It only pays each citizen $1,000 a month. Would $12,000 a year be enough for you not to work for the rest of your life? Obviously not. So the Freedom Dividend ensures that people do not die of homelessness and starvation, but it is still very small and covers only the most basic and vital human requirements.

Wouldn't a universal basic income mean that people get free money every month and thus don't have to work?