Summary

The article calls for a more rational and focused discussion on Basic Income, urging critics to engage with the specific content of articles rather than resorting to unfounded claims and distraction tactics.

Abstract

The author, an economist with extensive writing on Basic Income, expresses a desire for constructive dialogue on the topic. They acknowledge the value of negative comments when they highlight misunderstandings or raise valid concerns. However, the author laments that many negative responses are rooted in prejudice and a lack of willingness to engage with the specific issues addressed in each article. The article provides tips for responding intelligently to Basic Income discussions, emphasizing the importance of addressing the article's actual subject matter, avoiding unjustified claims, acknowledging errors, and not diverting the conversation with additional questions once the original points have been addressed. The author appeals for empathy and maturity in debates, noting that supporters of Basic Income often face repetitive, myth-based criticisms.

Opinions

The author values negative comments that contribute to a better understanding of Basic Income but criticizes those who use them as a means to distract from the actual debate.
Critics should focus on the specific aspect of Basic Income discussed in the article rather than diverting the conversation to unrelated topics.
Unjustified claims about Basic Income, especially from non-experts, are unhelpful and can undermine the credibility of the critic.
Critics should acknowledge their mistakes and show humility when their arguments are proven invalid.
It is important to maintain a clear and focused debate by not adding new questions once the original criticism has been addressed.
The author suggests that maintaining a reasonable and mature approach to the debate, without resorting to distraction techniques, would be more beneficial for all parties involved in the discussion about Basic Income.

It’s Time for a More Intelligent Discussion About Basic Income

Can we please put away those childish distraction techniques?

I’m an economist and I’ve written quite a lot of articles about Basic Income. I welcome people commenting on my articles. Some of these comments are from people who strongly support the idea of having a Basic Income system. And some of them are from people who outright oppose the idea, or who have serious doubts about it.

I don’t have a problem with the fact that some comments are ‘negative,’ because negative comments can sometimes be very helpful. Sometimes they highlight people’s misunderstandings about Basic Income, which I can attempt to correct. Sometimes, they raise perfectly reasonable concerns or questions which I might then be able to answer.

Sadly, however, people who make negative comments often seem disinterested in having a rational, constructive, intelligent discussion. And I’m hardly the only person whose Basic Income articles attract this sort of unhelpfully negative response — usually from people who are deeply prejudiced against the whole idea.

So, if you want to respond to a Basic Income article negatively, but intelligently, please avoid some of the most common mistakes, by taking note of the following tips.

1. Please make sure you’re addressing the specific issue the article is actually about — and not just having a general rant against Basic Income.

Usually, each article I write addresses one particular aspect of the larger Basic Income debate. Sometimes I write about the affordability of Basic Income. Sometimes I write about the ethics of a Basic Income system. Sometimes I write about work incentives, inflation, automation or housing.

And yet, when I write about affordability, some people may attack my article for not discussing ethics. And when I write about ethics, some people may complain that I’ve not addressed whether Basic Income is affordable. It’s as if some people don’t want to grasp the idea that not every article about Basic Income has to address every issue related to Basic Income.

So please; if you can’t fault the specific argument that’s actually being made in the article, please don’t try to distract the debate by bringing in other issues. And don’t criticise an article for not being a completely different article about something else.

If you want to debate whether Basic Income is affordable, please respond to an article that’s actually about affordability. That’s the sensible place for that discussion — after you’ve actually read that article, of course.

2. Please don’t base your criticisms upon unjustified claims about what is ‘obviously’ true or ‘obviously’ untrue.

So often, I see people making claims which are totally unjustified and based on their lack of understanding about Economics. But what seems ‘obvious’ to a non-economist might not actually be true and an economist may easily be able to see how naive or misguided it is.

It’s OK that you’re not an expert in Economics. But please don’t go around arrogantly assuming you know better than people who are experts in the subject. Please don’t make a fool of yourself by going online and lecturing an economist about how he’s an idiot because he doesn’t realise that <insert untrue claim here>. Please preserve your dignity by showing a little humility and recognising that someone who has spent the last 30 years studying Economics might possibly understand the subject a little better than you do.

3. If you criticise an article and your assumptions or arguments are shown to be invalid, please don’t try to distract from your errors by making fresh claims, which you also can’t justify.

Please acknowledge your errors, say ‘Thank you’ and take a deep breath. Then you might have a better mindset for being able to contribute constructively to future discussions.

4. Please don’t keep adding more questions in an attempt to distract from the fact that your original criticism has been answered.

If your original criticism or question has been answered, try acknowledging that and saying thank you. If you have some additional criticism, it might be best to start off a new thread. That makes things much clearer for anyone else following the debate.

We Basic Income supporters tend to be a patient lot. We basically have to be, because when we advocate for Basic Income, we’re often bombarded with the same myth-based criticisms again and again. Try to show some empathy for what we go through. You can be negative, if you wish, but please try to be reasonable and rational. And try to debate the matter reasonably maturely, without resorting to those ever-so-tempting distraction techniques people commonly use. We’ve seen them all before and we’re not impressed.

Thank you!

My Basic Income ‘Stories’ on Medium.com

Not all my Basic Income Medium articles are in the same place — so you might find these links helpful:

medium.com