4 ms·

BI is immoral: why should anyone who can work get money for doing nothing?

by haaen 10y ago

Bjartr 10y ago
Serious question: why should everyone work? Followup: why is having some minimum amount of resources to live on immoral as opposed to merely unfair?
- empath75 10y ago
  Why should anyone work?
- haaen 10y ago
  First of all, not everyone should work. Be it a child that lives off of his parents' money, a stay at home mom whose bills are paid by her husband, or a young, poor but promising artist who lives in an apperment from his mecenas. BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. It sends a message to society: laziness pays.
  - avar 10y ago
    Being for or against policy because of the "message" it sends has historically been a pretty bad idea. Just look at the drug war, where we don't want to send the "message" to kids that drugs are OK. There's no telling what incentives people will actually have once BI is implemented. Maybe they'll actually be more incentivised to seek risky and rewarding work because they have a guaranteed safety net.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    If laziness and productivity pay the same BI (that's what a BI is), then it doesn't send a message to anyone in particular. A person with a BI can still gain more by working. The incentive is still there. And that's what it is: an incentive, not a moral. It's not immoral to give people something that benefits them. > BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. Consider that without enough money to live, people will not do nothing. They will steal and riot. Look at it this way: like other social programs, a BI can be thought of as a way for rich people to buy a more stable and peaceful society in which to live. I think the concept of a BI is unnecessary and poorly thought-out, but it's not immoral.
  - Bjartr 10y ago
    >It sends a message to society: laziness pays. What is the underlying reason that laziness is bad?
anonyfox 10y ago
Jobs are for machines. Not so distant future. Only a few percent of people are then needed to do actual work, and mostly because they freely choose to do so... Like agriculture in the past: only .0X of people can feed us all, so to speak. 80% of all Jobs in the western world are already bullshit jobs, that can be eliminated without any disadvantage. Ultimately one is truly free when he can decide what to do with his time on earth without any pressure. Or, to put it into perspective: why bother about funding for a tech startup, when a few friends can choose to Code stuff they want, just for fun, without any risk or have to live on ramen? Its a whole new level of entrepreneurship that would be enabled.
- danielweber 10y ago
  > 80% of all Jobs in the western world are already bullshit jobs, that can be eliminated without any disadvantage. Any disadvantage to whom?
namenotrequired 10y ago
Lack of BI is immoral: why should anyone have to work harder than they need to?
- haaen 10y ago
  Anyone is free to work as hard or as much as he or she wants - of course, this is not about the ill and the disabled - as long as she doesn't come to the tax payer for extra money.
- brbsix 10y ago
  That's like saying: Lack of sex and romance is immoral: why should anyone have to find a consenting partner? The obvious answer is that rape is an initiation of force. It's immoral. Your needs or desires don't change that. Lack of BI is not immoral. It's like saying lack of trust fund is immoral. It makes no sense. People don't have a moral obligation to provide you with things.
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
By the same logic, owning capital is immoral.

BI is immoral: why should anyone who can work get money for doing nothing?

by haaen 10y ago

BI is immoral: why should anyone who can work get money for doing nothing?

Serious question: why should everyone work? Followup: why is having some minimum amount of resources to live on immoral as opposed to merely unfair?

empath75 10y ago
Why should anyone work?
haaen 10y ago
First of all, not everyone should work. Be it a child that lives off of his parents' money, a stay at home mom whose bills are paid by her husband, or a young, poor but promising artist who lives in an apperment from his mecenas. BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. It sends a message to society: laziness pays.
- avar 10y ago
  Being for or against policy because of the "message" it sends has historically been a pretty bad idea. Just look at the drug war, where we don't want to send the "message" to kids that drugs are OK. There's no telling what incentives people will actually have once BI is implemented. Maybe they'll actually be more incentivised to seek risky and rewarding work because they have a guaranteed safety net.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  If laziness and productivity pay the same BI (that's what a BI is), then it doesn't send a message to anyone in particular. A person with a BI can still gain more by working. The incentive is still there. And that's what it is: an incentive, not a moral. It's not immoral to give people something that benefits them. > BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. Consider that without enough money to live, people will not do nothing. They will steal and riot. Look at it this way: like other social programs, a BI can be thought of as a way for rich people to buy a more stable and peaceful society in which to live. I think the concept of a BI is unnecessary and poorly thought-out, but it's not immoral.
- Bjartr 10y ago
  >It sends a message to society: laziness pays. What is the underlying reason that laziness is bad?

anonyfox 10y ago

Jobs are for machines. Not so distant future. Only a few percent of people are then needed to do actual work, and mostly because they freely choose to do so... Like agriculture in the past: only .0X of people can feed us all, so to speak. 80% of all Jobs in the western world are already bullshit jobs, that can be eliminated without any disadvantage. Ultimately one is truly free when he can decide what to do with his time on earth without any pressure. Or, to put it into perspective: why bother about funding for a tech startup, when a few friends can choose to Code stuff they want, just for fun, without any risk or have to live on ramen? Its a whole new level of entrepreneurship that would be enabled.

danielweber 10y ago
> 80% of all Jobs in the western world are already bullshit jobs, that can be eliminated without any disadvantage. Any disadvantage to whom?

namenotrequired 10y ago

Lack of BI is immoral: why should anyone have to work harder than they need to?

haaen 10y ago
Anyone is free to work as hard or as much as he or she wants - of course, this is not about the ill and the disabled - as long as she doesn't come to the tax payer for extra money.
brbsix 10y ago
That's like saying: Lack of sex and romance is immoral: why should anyone have to find a consenting partner? The obvious answer is that rape is an initiation of force. It's immoral. Your needs or desires don't change that. Lack of BI is not immoral. It's like saying lack of trust fund is immoral. It makes no sense. People don't have a moral obligation to provide you with things.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

By the same logic, owning capital is immoral.