7 ms·

Social Security is an example of a welfare that has run fine without politicians making anyone dance and beg for it. I don't think a lot of other people are goi

by guelo 10y ago

Social Security is an example of a welfare that has run fine without politicians making anyone dance and beg for it. I don't think a lot of other people are going to be fine living in permanent poverty and feudalism while seeing extravagant wealth nearby. A revolution is coming, Trump's promise of making America great again by kicking out Mexicans and restricting trade is just the first salvo in the revolution. It's not going to be pretty but it could have been different if the wealth had been redistributed fairly.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Social Security has one of the most powerful lobbies in the country defending it. Politicians who eagerly take on the NRA won't even mention cutting SS.
- skybrian 10y ago
  It seems likely that basic income would have a similar lobby, once it's been around for a while.
- tornadoboy55 10y ago
  That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit. If you really believe that, compare/contrast most dictatorships with the United States, Switzerland, and Israel. Gun control is something that oppressive rulers always try to implement as soon as possible.
    - doubleplusgood 10y ago
      Gun control in Israel is pretty strict for civilians but you make a good point.
    - beat 10y ago
      This logic is countered by the many peaceful, democratic nations with strong gun control laws - the majority of them, really.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        No, I'm saying that weak gun control is not a complete bad. A lot of functional states have all sorts of gun control laws. However, all (as far as I know) totalitarian states have strong gun control laws. I can't think of a single one which had a permissive attitude toward the civilian ownership of guns. I'm speaking of course of de jure gun control laws, not the de facto possession of guns by the population.
    - aanm1988 10y ago
      I for one am glad we have not gone down the path of the hellhole that is Australia.
- isleyaardvark 10y ago
  It also hasn't stopped being universal or basic or perverted with exceptions.
concinds 10y ago
Because Social Security is hard to attack, and easy to defend. The "moochers" attack has been ridiculed enough. But if everyone receives UBI, soon you'll have mobs campaigning for: "felons shouldn't receive UBI", "rapists shouldn't receive it", etc. A good question is: if asked, would 50+% of the US population support Richard Spencer receiving UBI? The "anti" argument is strong ("my tax dollars shouldn't fund bigotry") and the "pro" argument is very weak, since it's only based in ideological principles ("everyone should get it"), and most voters are not ideological and do not vote according to principles.
- dv_dt 10y ago
  I think one thing America needs to re-learn is how to apply principles equally to everybody. I would support felons receiving UBI, because, like everybody else, if you are on hard times, the UBI is the best (and least discriminatory) opportunity to become a more productive member of society.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Felons shouldn't. This will provide a strong incentive to not commit crime. Or at least felons may get reduced BI. Think of it like a probation (maybe reduced for a period of time as it relates to the severity of the crime). This is a carrot and stick approach to social order.
  - ericd 10y ago
    This will greatly increase the recidivism rate.
    - chillwaves 10y ago
      Why is that? Does probation also increase the recidivism rate?
      - ericd 10y ago
        Because it increases the chance that they'll need to resort to crime to survive. It's the same reason that the pervasive policies against hiring felons increase recidivism rate. Once they've paid their debt to society, we need to actually forgive them, or it's much harder for them to rehabilitate.
lscore720 10y ago
If you step back and take a look at the history of wealth distribution & revolutions, maybe your outlook will be more optimistic. Today's inequality is troubling, but doesn't nearly compare to situations in the past. Revolution will enter the discussion once the masses are struggling for food.

by guelo 10y ago

CapitalistCartr 10y ago

Social Security has one of the most powerful lobbies in the country defending it. Politicians who eagerly take on the NRA won't even mention cutting SS.

skybrian 10y ago
It seems likely that basic income would have a similar lobby, once it's been around for a while.
tornadoboy55 10y ago
That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit. If you really believe that, compare/contrast most dictatorships with the United States, Switzerland, and Israel. Gun control is something that oppressive rulers always try to implement as soon as possible.
  - doubleplusgood 10y ago
    Gun control in Israel is pretty strict for civilians but you make a good point.
  - beat 10y ago
    This logic is countered by the many peaceful, democratic nations with strong gun control laws - the majority of them, really.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      No, I'm saying that weak gun control is not a complete bad. A lot of functional states have all sorts of gun control laws. However, all (as far as I know) totalitarian states have strong gun control laws. I can't think of a single one which had a permissive attitude toward the civilian ownership of guns. I'm speaking of course of de jure gun control laws, not the de facto possession of guns by the population.
  - aanm1988 10y ago
    I for one am glad we have not gone down the path of the hellhole that is Australia.
isleyaardvark 10y ago
It also hasn't stopped being universal or basic or perverted with exceptions.

concinds 10y ago

Because Social Security is hard to attack, and easy to defend. The "moochers" attack has been ridiculed enough. But if everyone receives UBI, soon you'll have mobs campaigning for: "felons shouldn't receive UBI", "rapists shouldn't receive it", etc. A good question is: if asked, would 50+% of the US population support Richard Spencer receiving UBI? The "anti" argument is strong ("my tax dollars shouldn't fund bigotry") and the "pro" argument is very weak, since it's only based in ideological principles ("everyone should get it"), and most voters are not ideological and do not vote according to principles.

dv_dt 10y ago
I think one thing America needs to re-learn is how to apply principles equally to everybody. I would support felons receiving UBI, because, like everybody else, if you are on hard times, the UBI is the best (and least discriminatory) opportunity to become a more productive member of society.
chillwaves 10y ago
Felons shouldn't. This will provide a strong incentive to not commit crime. Or at least felons may get reduced BI. Think of it like a probation (maybe reduced for a period of time as it relates to the severity of the crime). This is a carrot and stick approach to social order.
- ericd 10y ago
  This will greatly increase the recidivism rate.
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Why is that? Does probation also increase the recidivism rate?
    - ericd 10y ago
      Because it increases the chance that they'll need to resort to crime to survive. It's the same reason that the pervasive policies against hiring felons increase recidivism rate. Once they've paid their debt to society, we need to actually forgive them, or it's much harder for them to rehabilitate.

lscore720 10y ago

If you step back and take a look at the history of wealth distribution & revolutions, maybe your outlook will be more optimistic. Today's inequality is troubling, but doesn't nearly compare to situations in the past. Revolution will enter the discussion once the masses are struggling for food.