7 ms·

once again this is ideology over reality. Yes, at one level there definitely is factual that the top hunters can supply the rest of the tribe with all necessary

by apalmer 10y ago

once again this is ideology over reality. Yes, at one level there definitely is factual that the top hunters can supply the rest of the tribe with all necessary resources. The problem is one of motivation... Why should they? It is the most basic of driving forces behind trade at the conceptual level, and society itself at its most fundamental and basic. IF your world view cannot handle this most basic of questions, it is just ideology and not even a sensible one at that.

FussyZeus 10y ago
You're assuming I mean everyone gets the same amount of food, in other words forced equality of the results of a minority, and that's nothing but slavery under a different guise. No, the idea is that everyone gets a livable wage as a base. You're guaranteed enough money to have a place to live, food to eat, and whatever else the given society thinks is required to "live." To get more than that, you're expected to contribute. The upper economic workers I mentioned would have the same lifestyle they have now, we'd still have the rich as well because they have earned it, even if all they did to earn it was being born in the right family, it's still theirs. What I'm arguing for is not tearing down high earners, it's simply using our resources to uplift those who aren't high earners to a degree where they aren't starving in the street. People starving in the street are very expensive as it is, keeping them in a basic home with running water and food is far cheaper than having them continuously in and out of the ER's which they can't pay for, all for the weird and hand wavy idea of "motivating" people to not end up like them (which is surprisingly easy to do, by the way.)
- apalmer 10y ago
  No, your missing my fundamental argument. Lets break it down to fundamentals. Definition 1) Society at its most fundamental is a group of individuals who enter into some kind of social contract in order to increase their own personal benefit. Definition 2) Trade at its most fundamental is exchange of goods or services in order to increase personal benefit of each party. Scenario) Population is split into two Groups. Group A is small and is responsible for production of all Goods and Services. Group B is large and does not produce or control any Goods and Services but destructively consumes Goods and Services. QUESTION: Why would Group A partake in a social contract with Group B when by Definition 1 this decreases personal benefit for individuals in Group A?
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    This is a very accurate breakdown but the simple fact is Group A is already in that relationship. Whether they choose to subsidize Group B via the hospitals, inefficient social programs, and jails or they choose to subsidize them via basic income is what's to be decided. Group A has already agreed to a subsidy in the form of what I listed above because it's appealing to not have people starving to death in the streets.
FussyZeus 10y ago
On the note about the social issue: I recognize the primary obstacle is the social stigma we attach to "people on benefits" or "the welfare queens" and all that other nonsense, it doesn't make the situation any less clear. We spend vast amounts of money subsidizing through inefficient programs the people who are either incapable or unwilling to take care of themselves. We're going to pay for it either way, either by just giving them what they need to live a relatively healthy lifestyle, or by forcing them to live an incredibly unhealthy one and then subsidize the prisons to hold them or the hospitals to keep them on the edge of life. The question we need to answer as a society is whether the latter option which is much, much more expensive is worthwhile to do just to keep this imagined requirement going. Frankly I think if all the counter arguments boil down to "that's just the way we are" I would reply with "that's not good enough for me, because we can change."
- djrogers 10y ago
  > The question we need to answer as a society The problem is that society is made up of individuals, so if you can't answer the 'why should they' question for the individuals it doesn't matter what society at large decides.
RobertoG 10y ago
"Yes, at one level there definitely is factual that the top hunters can supply the rest of the tribe with all necessary resources. The problem is one of motivation... Why should they?" I don't think that is a good metaphor. It's more like: all our ancestors worked hard to build what the tribe have, but a few people just decide they should have most of it because they know how to hunt a little better. Or, not even that, because they are the grandsons of a guy that, maybe, hunted a little better.

by apalmer 10y ago

FussyZeus 10y ago

You're assuming I mean everyone gets the same amount of food, in other words forced equality of the results of a minority, and that's nothing but slavery under a different guise. No, the idea is that everyone gets a livable wage as a base. You're guaranteed enough money to have a place to live, food to eat, and whatever else the given society thinks is required to "live." To get more than that, you're expected to contribute. The upper economic workers I mentioned would have the same lifestyle they have now, we'd still have the rich as well because they have earned it, even if all they did to earn it was being born in the right family, it's still theirs. What I'm arguing for is not tearing down high earners, it's simply using our resources to uplift those who aren't high earners to a degree where they aren't starving in the street. People starving in the street are very expensive as it is, keeping them in a basic home with running water and food is far cheaper than having them continuously in and out of the ER's which they can't pay for, all for the weird and hand wavy idea of "motivating" people to not end up like them (which is surprisingly easy to do, by the way.)

apalmer 10y ago
No, your missing my fundamental argument. Lets break it down to fundamentals. Definition 1) Society at its most fundamental is a group of individuals who enter into some kind of social contract in order to increase their own personal benefit. Definition 2) Trade at its most fundamental is exchange of goods or services in order to increase personal benefit of each party. Scenario) Population is split into two Groups. Group A is small and is responsible for production of all Goods and Services. Group B is large and does not produce or control any Goods and Services but destructively consumes Goods and Services. QUESTION: Why would Group A partake in a social contract with Group B when by Definition 1 this decreases personal benefit for individuals in Group A?
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  This is a very accurate breakdown but the simple fact is Group A is already in that relationship. Whether they choose to subsidize Group B via the hospitals, inefficient social programs, and jails or they choose to subsidize them via basic income is what's to be decided. Group A has already agreed to a subsidy in the form of what I listed above because it's appealing to not have people starving to death in the streets.

FussyZeus 10y ago

On the note about the social issue: I recognize the primary obstacle is the social stigma we attach to "people on benefits" or "the welfare queens" and all that other nonsense, it doesn't make the situation any less clear. We spend vast amounts of money subsidizing through inefficient programs the people who are either incapable or unwilling to take care of themselves. We're going to pay for it either way, either by just giving them what they need to live a relatively healthy lifestyle, or by forcing them to live an incredibly unhealthy one and then subsidize the prisons to hold them or the hospitals to keep them on the edge of life. The question we need to answer as a society is whether the latter option which is much, much more expensive is worthwhile to do just to keep this imagined requirement going. Frankly I think if all the counter arguments boil down to "that's just the way we are" I would reply with "that's not good enough for me, because we can change."

djrogers 10y ago
> The question we need to answer as a society The problem is that society is made up of individuals, so if you can't answer the 'why should they' question for the individuals it doesn't matter what society at large decides.

RobertoG 10y ago

"Yes, at one level there definitely is factual that the top hunters can supply the rest of the tribe with all necessary resources. The problem is one of motivation... Why should they?" I don't think that is a good metaphor. It's more like: all our ancestors worked hard to build what the tribe have, but a few people just decide they should have most of it because they know how to hunt a little better. Or, not even that, because they are the grandsons of a guy that, maybe, hunted a little better.