Left Universal Basic Income
$ ./nom --help
Usage: nom [OPTIONS]
Defaults to using 32 bytes of entropy.
hash representation - hex, base58, bip39 or proquint (default "hex")
read the bytes to hash as the parameter of this argument
read the bytes to hash from stdin rather than as an argument
$ ./nom --rep hex
$ ./nom --rep base58
$ ./nom --rep proquint
$ ./nom --rep bip39
sheriff core resemble talent service sword warfare offer boil vibrant uncover leisure circle pupil cattle prize cherry joke social daring media nurse primary chuckle
nom is a command line tool to generate names (identifiers).
It’s written in go. You can grab the source here:
Problems to be Isolated, Described and Discussed
The Universal Basic Income proposed by the Left is different from that proposed by the Right. Rather than replacing the welfare state it is a supplement to it.
As Srnicek & Williams note in “Inventing The Future”, 2015 (p.297):
The conservative argument for a basic income – which must be avoided at all costs – is that it should simply replace the welfare state by providing a lump sum of money to every individual. In this scenario, the UBI would just become a vector of increased marketisation, transforming social services into private markets. Rather than being some aberration of neoliberalism, it would simply extend its essential gesture by creating new markets. By contrast, the demand made here is for UBI as a supplement to a revived welfare state.
In the footnote to this, they quote Alyssa Battistoni, “Alive in the Sunshine”, Jacobin 13, 2014 (p.4):
A UBI programme would ideally involve a transformation of the welfare state. Programmes that provide services must be kept and expanded – for example, healthcare, childcare, housing, public transport and internet access. All of these should be immediate goals of the left, not only for their inherent good but also because expanding public services is necessary for reducing overall energy consumption.
And in response to the question of why the rich should be given money as well as the poor, they respond (p.296):
As there would be no means-testing or other measures required to receive the UBI, it would break free of the disciplinary nature of welfare capitalism.
It is perfectly possible to disagree with any or all of this. That does however first require acknowledging it. And there’s a lot more where this came from…
A & L developed slowly and untidily around a consensus that there were historical and objective problems which could be isolated and described, and thus discussed. This is what distinguished and distinguishes A & L from other artists or artistic formations. A & L saw these problems as matters to be articulated by work, rather than as professional aspects of their social lives to be adopted only once they had left the studio. Conversation, discussion, and conceptualisation became their primary practice, as art.
– p22, “A Provisional History of Art & Language”, Charles Harrison & Fred Orton.