4 ms·

financial responsibility cannot be bought with UBI. ignoring how incredibly unlikely it is we would ever cancel social programs on a mass scale, let’s say we di

financial responsibility cannot be bought with UBI. ignoring how incredibly unlikely it is we would ever cancel social programs on a mass scale, let’s say we did. your example of people starving is good. in that world you get to eat only if you are financially responsible. in the current world everyone gets to eat (or we try to feed the hungry) i think the current model is way more humane. and we will never cancel social programs to have a less humane society

graylights 8y ago
UBI is stuck in extremes. Libertarians want to cancel social programs and replace with UBI so individuals determine how to spend their benefits. Socialists want to guarantee everyone a living wage but also want the safety nets. Policy needs to be in middle. You need to enable people to self-manage. Must be ready to help them when there is a bad turn events. But you also need to have a humane way to deal with people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness. The way to handle that is guardianship, not other government programs that can also be individually mismanaged. Guardianship will surely be more expensive then UBI but it is the humane thing to do.
- tathougies 8y ago
  > incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness On this point, I agree 100%, but UBI programs are not really focused on the mentally ill. As is, disability is a fraction of what we traditionally think of as welfare (and it's already neglected in our current society). Most welfare are food stamps, health services, etc, for people that would otherwise be perfectly capable on their own. A UBI does not mean getting rid of programs for people that cannot actually help themselves like the severely disabled or foster children. It means not treating grown adults like children or wards of the state

graylights 8y ago

UBI is stuck in extremes. Libertarians want to cancel social programs and replace with UBI so individuals determine how to spend their benefits. Socialists want to guarantee everyone a living wage but also want the safety nets. Policy needs to be in middle. You need to enable people to self-manage. Must be ready to help them when there is a bad turn events. But you also need to have a humane way to deal with people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness. The way to handle that is guardianship, not other government programs that can also be individually mismanaged. Guardianship will surely be more expensive then UBI but it is the humane thing to do.

tathougies 8y ago
> incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness On this point, I agree 100%, but UBI programs are not really focused on the mentally ill. As is, disability is a fraction of what we traditionally think of as welfare (and it's already neglected in our current society). Most welfare are food stamps, health services, etc, for people that would otherwise be perfectly capable on their own. A UBI does not mean getting rid of programs for people that cannot actually help themselves like the severely disabled or foster children. It means not treating grown adults like children or wards of the state