4 ms·

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

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.

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.