Wayward Bodhisattva🔰🈷️☸️🏳‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

D66's Rise on Social Liberal Platform Sparks Debate on Shifting Political Labels The Hague - The strong performance of the Dutch political party Democrats 66 (D66) in the general election on October 29, 2025, where they tied for the most seats, has ignited a conversation about the evolution of political ideologies. Running on an explicitly social liberal platform, D66's success, which included a proposal for an "individual basic amount" akin to a Universal Basic Income (UBI), has led many to observe a notable shift in how such policies are framed – from being decried as "Socialist" just a few years ago to now being considered "pragmatic centrism." In the recent election, D66, led by Rob Jetten, secured 26 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, a significant gain that positioned them as a major force in the coalition negotiations.[1][2] Their campaign was characterized by a positive and forward-looking message, with analysts noting that voters were drawn to their "stable, centrist coalition" appeal.[3] A key plank of their platform was the introduction of an "individual basic amount," a policy aimed at simplifying the current complex benefits system.[4] This proposal is seen by many as a form of UBI, an idea that has been debated in the Netherlands for decades. Historically, the concept of a basic income has seen support from various corners of the Dutch political landscape. As far back as the 1990s, figures within D66 publicly favored the idea.[4] The GreenLeft party (GroenLinks) has also previously endorsed a form of negative income tax with the long-term goal of a basic income.[4] However, mainstream parties, including the Labour Party (PvdA) and the conservative VVD, have historically been more hesitant or outright opposed, often raising concerns about the work ethic and the underlying principles of the existing social security system.[5] The recent success of D66's proposal has prompted reflection on a potential shift in the political discourse.

D66's "Individual Basic Amount": A Closer Look at the Proposal The social-liberal party D66 has centered its successful 2025 election campaign on a significant overhaul of the Dutch social security system, introducing a proposal for an "individual basic amount" for every adult citizen. This plan, a cornerstone of their manifesto, aims to replace the current complex web of benefits and allowances with a single, more direct form of income support. Core Principles of the Proposal: The fundamental idea behind the "individual basic amount" is to provide a foundational income floor for all adults in the Netherlands.[1][2] This would function in two primary ways: For those with sufficient income: It would act as a tax credit, reducing their overall tax burden.[3][4] For those with little to no income: It would be disbursed as a direct cash payment.[3][4] This system is designed to simplify the current labyrinthine benefits system, which D66 argues is overly bureaucratic and often difficult for citizens to navigate.[1] The party's manifesto explicitly states the goal is to move towards a system that offers more financial security and simplicity. Phasing Out Existing Benefits: A key component of the proposal is the gradual elimination of several existing allowances. The health and childcare allowances are specifically targeted to be eventually scrapped and integrated into the new "individual basic amount."[5] This consolidation is intended to streamline support and reduce the administrative overhead associated with the current multi-benefit system. Funding the Transition: D66 plans to finance this ambitious overhaul through a broader restructuring of the tax system. One of the primary funding mechanisms outlined is the phasing out of the existing mortgage interest tax relief.[6] Additionally, the party has proposed increasing taxes on wealth and introducing a "millionaire's tax" to generate further revenue. This approach signals a shift in the tax burden...

This just happened in the The Netherlands today. The centrist "D66" party, running on a platform that includes a universal basic income, won the most votes, positioning its leader to become the new PM. You heard that right, UBI is now a moderate position there and seen as a pragmatic solution to AI.

Taxation is Theft A Dialectical Libertarian Perspective

My latest blog post, where I hash out the tension between my more libertarian and social-democratic tendencies.
ekklesiagora.medium.com/taxation-is-...

We need a one-time capital levy of 100% on all billionaires.

Bought a 100-billion dollar Zembabwean note. Gonna start adding "billionaire" to my resume.

The hardest part would be getting everyone identified and banked.

It's more valuable to do a nationwide UBI pilot for a poor country than for a developed country. The United States should pick some place like South Sudan and say "OK, we're doing a $10/mo UBI for five years" and just distribute cash. It would cost less than the Argentina bailout we did.

"Actually, socialism is when government does good things like fight poverty and provide people with access to healthcare. As a conservative, I believe government should only do bad things, like murder people off the coast of Venezuela, facilitate genocide, and terrorize and kidnap immigrants."

I'm writing an expanded chapter on democratic socialism for the second edition of my book. I'm re-reading Eduard Bernstein, Anthony Crosland, and James Meade. Also reading Karl Kautsky, Michael Harrington, and Eugene V. Debs. Also incorporating some ideas from Paul Lafargue and Aaron Bastani.

Also worth noting that this is a violation of the Hatch Act.

This alone is disqualifying. If this schmuck is gonna LEAVE THE CITY if he loses, he doesn't love the city enough to deserve to win.

If you want to study Kropotkin, this is the anthology you want to get. "Direct Struggle Against Capital" is better for deeper study. If you just want to get the gist of Kropotkin, this is a better place to start.

Campaign Stream #8: Embroidery with our Neighbors!! Stray later!! YouTube video by Kat Abughazaleh

They talk about universal basic income.
www.youtube.com/live/XOzeJN4...

Thank you, Chicago.

That's otterly ridiculous.

I'm just hoping we get an extreme leftist as President in 2028 and they prosecute all the ICE agents and soldiers that followed Trump's illegal orders and go to great lengths to ruin the lives of all the members of Trump's administration.

Did you know that if we did a universal basic income, life would probably suck a lot less for a whole lot of people?

So, like, where does Kat Abughazaleh stand on universal basic income, negative income tax, and the basic income type policies? I saw there was something where she was gonna talk about UBI but I can't find it now.

Liberal-Anarchism . . . or “The Theory of Libertarian Social Democracy” Liberalism, properly understood, is not merely a justification for free markets or negative liberty. It is, at root, a philosophy of emancipation....

"Liberal-anarchism invites us to reimagine freedom not as isolation or license, but as non-domination and mutual respect." - Wesley Whitman

c4ss.org/content/60717

I still support a UBI or NIT to guarantee income to all. I think we should guarantee income to all, regardless of whether or not people work. But I think guaranteeing jobs and pushing more economic growth might also be desirable. These are complimentary plans, not antagonistic ones.

As a techno-optimist that looks forward to a fully-automated futurist utopia, I think employing all resources available to grow the economy and, eventually, to get us into asteroid-mining, consuming mostly lab-grown meat, and pushing the limits of the possible... yeah, FJG might be desirable.

I do see something compelling in the idea of a federal job guarantee (FJG) and universal basic services (UBS). Unlike UBI, which doesn't necessarily increase productivity (though it may), an FJG-UBS scheme would increase economic growth by employing all resources towards production.

Well, the cost of NIT is about 3% of GDP, about the same cost as a federal job guarantee to provide universal basic services. And NIT is equivalent to UBI mathematically, just one doesn't delete in-and-out transactions that balance to zero from the spreadsheet. So UBI also costs 3% of GDP.

A Negative Income Tax (NIT) is a way of doing basic income that avoids the clawback by making the income conditional, with it only going to those who need it rather than to everyone. From an accounting perspective, NIT and UBI are basically the same, only NIT erases in-and-out transactions.

So, while everyone gets a UBI, only the people at the bottom get to keep it. People in upper income brackets would have it clawed back through higher taxes. E.g. a millionaire receives $10k/mo in UBI but sees a tax increase equivalent to or exceeding that.

This book argues for Universal Basic Services (UBS) over Universal Basic Income (UBI) but it makes a fundamental error in it's argument against UBI. It estimates the cost of UBI as 30% of GDP but overlooks that UBI proposals are always linked to tax increases that clawback the UBI from the well-off.

Why's it suddenly so cold? BRB. Gonna go set my furniture on fire to keep warm.

"We're starting to recognize that the more directly your work benefits others, the less you're paid and worse you're treated. With the pandemic, we see that these 'essential' or 'front-line' workers are also those expected and willing to risk their lives for the sake of others, though, what is less often remarked is how much this is the case even in ordinary circumstances. Not only is work which most benefits others less compensated, it's almost always more dangerous." – David Graeber

One of the key elements of the book Bullshit Jobs, is that many jobs are not Bullshit and essential.

Those jobs are the pillars of the economy. Just the jobs are not well paid and the workers not well appreciated.