4 ms·

All Western countries (including the US) do some kind of wealth distribution and it clearly works. Societies without any form of wealth distribution don't work.

All Western countries (including the US) do some kind of wealth distribution and it clearly works. Societies without any form of wealth distribution don't work. Or do you have an example? I can't think of any.

folkhack 7y ago
It's a pretty horrible argument unless they come back through to actually explain what they mean. > Wealth redistribution doesn't work and never has. Is a HUGE sweeping generalization that has literally zero substance in a discussion - and technically it's false off-the-bat because I'm certain almost anyone can think of at least ONE example where the "redistribution of wealth" has worked to lessen human suffering. Also, don't let someone come through here and try to redefine what they meant by those words - they mean that they don't believe in wealth re-distribution plain and simple. When you see binary arguments like that it's a flag to run for the hills.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- insickness 7y ago
  Try responding to the logic of my argument rather than phrase 'wealth redistribution.' What's to stop this universal income from being pushed higher and higher to the point where it is a large fraction of income for most people rather than a small fraction of income? Do you really think that UBI will replace welfare?
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    the logic of your argument was " Wealth redistribution doesn't work and never has.". there wasn't much subtlety in that. Are you saying that Western societies don't work and never have worked?
  - folkhack 7y ago
    > Try responding to the logic of my argument rather than phrase 'wealth redistribution.' When y'all land it with "Wealth redistribution doesn't work and never has" as the last sentence, I'm left to think that may have been your overall point! Respectfully, I'm not going to respond to the rest of it because I do not think we would be able to effectively communicate on the topic.
    - insickness 7y ago
      Exactly. You have no response to my arguments.
      - maxxxxx 7y ago
        You have stated no arguments.
        folkhack 7y ago
        That's the point - they won't respond to the "Western society" common sense because they'll just ignore facts and move the goalpost. Which is pretty convenient when you want to win an argument! In their eyes, they've won because I won't engage them further when in all reality no one wins because no one is willing to give up their stance. You can't nail these folks down on anything - they argue in almost pure logical fallacy, and the last thing they want is to concede to how the world _actually_ works... That's why the "fake news" thing was so incredibly damaging - if anything it signal virtues to everyone to just make up their own narrative =(
insickness 7y ago
So you're saying that the $1000 dollars won't go up? Are you saying that we will eliminate current welfare by using UBI? Never going to happen. Go ahead and keep attacking a straw man.

folkhack 7y ago

It's a pretty horrible argument unless they come back through to actually explain what they mean. > Wealth redistribution doesn't work and never has. Is a HUGE sweeping generalization that has literally zero substance in a discussion - and technically it's false off-the-bat because I'm certain almost anyone can think of at least ONE example where the "redistribution of wealth" has worked to lessen human suffering. Also, don't let someone come through here and try to redefine what they meant by those words - they mean that they don't believe in wealth re-distribution plain and simple. When you see binary arguments like that it's a flag to run for the hills.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
insickness 7y ago
Try responding to the logic of my argument rather than phrase 'wealth redistribution.' What's to stop this universal income from being pushed higher and higher to the point where it is a large fraction of income for most people rather than a small fraction of income? Do you really think that UBI will replace welfare?
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  the logic of your argument was " Wealth redistribution doesn't work and never has.". there wasn't much subtlety in that. Are you saying that Western societies don't work and never have worked?
- folkhack 7y ago
  > Try responding to the logic of my argument rather than phrase 'wealth redistribution.' When y'all land it with "Wealth redistribution doesn't work and never has" as the last sentence, I'm left to think that may have been your overall point! Respectfully, I'm not going to respond to the rest of it because I do not think we would be able to effectively communicate on the topic.
  - insickness 7y ago
    Exactly. You have no response to my arguments.
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      You have stated no arguments.
      - folkhack 7y ago
        That's the point - they won't respond to the "Western society" common sense because they'll just ignore facts and move the goalpost. Which is pretty convenient when you want to win an argument! In their eyes, they've won because I won't engage them further when in all reality no one wins because no one is willing to give up their stance. You can't nail these folks down on anything - they argue in almost pure logical fallacy, and the last thing they want is to concede to how the world _actually_ works... That's why the "fake news" thing was so incredibly damaging - if anything it signal virtues to everyone to just make up their own narrative =(

insickness 7y ago

So you're saying that the $1000 dollars won't go up? Are you saying that we will eliminate current welfare by using UBI? Never going to happen. Go ahead and keep attacking a straw man.