Very good post, highly educational, exactly what I love to see on LessWrong.
Regarding the content of the post, I wonder if one helpful attribute of the system is that it makes the proposals concrete. You’re not arguing against “basic income”; you’re arguing against “the current proposal of basic income.”
though together with the other system, you can vote on a vague addition to the constitution knowing that you’ll be able to cancel the law that comes out of it if it’s bad. so I’d say it still in some sense leaves room for the consideration of a specific proposal, even if yet unknown.
Very good post, highly educational, exactly what I love to see on LessWrong.
Regarding the content of the post, I wonder if one helpful attribute of the system is that it makes the proposals concrete. You’re not arguing against “basic income”; you’re arguing against “the current proposal of basic income.”
In this particular case the exact implementation of UBI was left to the government. Here’s how the initiative proposed to change the constitution:
Art. 110a (new) Unconditional basic income:
The Confederation ensures the introduction of an unconditional basic income.
Basic income is intended to enable the entire population to have a decent existence and to participate in public life.
The law regulates in particular the financing and the amount of the basic income.
though together with the other system, you can vote on a vague addition to the constitution knowing that you’ll be able to cancel the law that comes out of it if it’s bad. so I’d say it still in some sense leaves room for the consideration of a specific proposal, even if yet unknown.
> Very good post, highly educational, exactly what I love to see on LessWrong.
Likewise — I don’t have anything substantial to add except that I’m grateful to the author. Very insightful.