4 ms·

Yeah, I think this is a commonly-dodged problem that is dodged precisely because the nature of UBI proponents selects for it. But it's a mistake to think one's

Yeah, I think this is a commonly-dodged problem that is dodged precisely because the nature of UBI proponents selects for it. But it's a mistake to think one's personal motivators/use of free time/etc are true of everyone. You cannot extrapolate like that. > Just as you can find Silicon Valley techies who think Soylent is the only sustenance a person will ever need, intellectuals tend to think everyone could be as content as they would be living life in their heads or inventing their own destiny. Most people need to be doing something to feel satisfied and a potential UBI system addresses this need just as inadequately as disability checks do now. Cue drug epidemics. When I wrote this in 2017, the "intellectuals" I was thinking of was Sama specifically. https://medium.com/s/free-money/after-universal-basic-income-the-flood-217db9889c07 https://medium.com/s/free-money/after-universal-basic-income...

ianai 7y ago
Please don’t tie UBI to the failed war on drugs. Alcohol prohibition was ceased for the exact same reason the war on drugs should be ceased. Further, there are even outlawed substances which have anti-addiction affects that are part of the prohibition. It’s the definition of a bad idea insulating itself from better ideas. People need UBI because the purely survival backed capitalistic system harms society too greatly.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  He didn't say anything about the war on drugs, he said it would cause drug epidemics. Getting addicted to drugs has nothing to do with the US' moronic drug policy.
  - ianai 7y ago
    “Most people need to be doing something to feel satisfied and a potential UBI system addresses this need just as inadequately as disability checks do now. Cue drug epidemics.” That’s an emotional trigger with unsubstantiated link to the supposition. The emotional content is from the war on drugs. People turn to drugs because they’re in a tight spot without a seeming way out. Like how a cornered animal is most dangerous. Or physiology. People with a UBI will have the ability to engage in more activities that they find worthwhile but without direct, immediate financial consequences-such as artists and mathematicians.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      Nothing you just said has anything to do with the war on drugs, which is normally a reference to US policy. If you didn't mean to reference US policy then you should be more specific when you say "war on drugs" on anything in the United States (and this is about a US presidential candidate's would-be policies, so it's unreasonable to assume that isn't what you meant).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

ianai 7y ago

Please don’t tie UBI to the failed war on drugs. Alcohol prohibition was ceased for the exact same reason the war on drugs should be ceased. Further, there are even outlawed substances which have anti-addiction affects that are part of the prohibition. It’s the definition of a bad idea insulating itself from better ideas. People need UBI because the purely survival backed capitalistic system harms society too greatly.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
He didn't say anything about the war on drugs, he said it would cause drug epidemics. Getting addicted to drugs has nothing to do with the US' moronic drug policy.
- ianai 7y ago
  “Most people need to be doing something to feel satisfied and a potential UBI system addresses this need just as inadequately as disability checks do now. Cue drug epidemics.” That’s an emotional trigger with unsubstantiated link to the supposition. The emotional content is from the war on drugs. People turn to drugs because they’re in a tight spot without a seeming way out. Like how a cornered animal is most dangerous. Or physiology. People with a UBI will have the ability to engage in more activities that they find worthwhile but without direct, immediate financial consequences-such as artists and mathematicians.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    Nothing you just said has anything to do with the war on drugs, which is normally a reference to US policy. If you didn't mean to reference US policy then you should be more specific when you say "war on drugs" on anything in the United States (and this is about a US presidential candidate's would-be policies, so it's unreasonable to assume that isn't what you meant).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]