back
1 comments
I only read a few paragraphs... I doubt I need to read further. The writer, who obviously is rather self-assured that he sports an IQ higher than 95% of the rest of the population, is clearly falling short on a few vital aspects of the human condition. Redistributing wealth to those with high IQ's does not ensure ethical use of capital, and will only serve to widen the income gap. If severe enough this will eventually lead to the poor rising up against the "smart people". It doesn't take a high-IQ to kill.

The author also misses the fundamental point of a basic income, which is equal distribution. Providing income to one group over another based on means testing undermines the entire concept. And there is no need to do so. Smart people will use the money they receive wisely, which is great for the economy. Others will use is less wisely, but that is okay. As long the the Basic Income isn't artificially inflated that will have little negative effect on the economy. The point is to give all human beings a modicum of dignity to at least have the opportunity to conduct their lives in a productive manner. Starving and homeless people have little chance to make something of themselves regardless of their IQ's.

If we wish to ebb the world toward higher IQ's -- and I agree that is noble pursuit -- the best policy is to curb population growth via a policy of two children per parent, and provide special allowances to those who demonstrate exceptional talent. Many people will find that objectionable at first. But if considered carefully, it is the least offensive means of achieving this laudable goal.