No OP. But if it’s similar to what I believe in, it’s free-market capitalism for business (with provisions for market failure, e.g. antitrust and utility regulation), redistribution of wealth for individuals, strong individual investor and consumer rights, and the state providing the bare basics through the market (housing voucher, food voucher, public education or an education voucher, electricity voucher, water voucher, internet voucher, and public healthcare).

▲

bpt3 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn't sound all that similar on the surface to OP's response based on my initial read of both.

It seems like you're proposing a regulated free market in parallel with a highly regulated UBI?

▲

JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> a regulated free market in parallel with a highly regulated UBI?

No UBI. Just basics for survival guaranteed. You should not starve if you can't find work. That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure. (Which, in our current model, occurs at both ends of the income spectrum.)

▲

bpt3 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> No UBI. Just basics for survival guaranteed.

That's why I called it a "highly regulated UBI", which might not have been clear. You're proposing that all citizens receive the basics for survival in kind instead of the cash equivalent (which is how a UBI would work).

I think I prefer this model over what the OP ended up suggesting, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be in practice in the US.

> That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure.

Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system?

	▲	JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system? I suppose so, given they’re subsisting. It should not luxurious, however, and would probably carry with it a modicum of indignity. (Which is fine as long as they aren’t discriminated against.)