5 ms·

imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc. You're right that it'll re

imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc. You're right that it'll require a pretty fundamental shift in attitude. Some folks will still think people like that are losers. That's fine. But maybe we'll get to a point where they won't think such people, losers that they may be, are doing anything they're not entitled to be doing. That's the kind of shift in perception that's required to make it work. We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices.

baumy 7y ago
This comment is very weird to me. The hypothetical group of stoned gamers being discussed are certainly entitled to choose to spend their time smoking weed and playing games. I don't see how it follows that they're entitled to me subsidizing their choices with my tax dollars. I think people who are capable of holding a job / productively contributing to society but choose not to are indeed losers, and I will continue to think that way because it seems to me to be an obvious truth. I truly hope that does not change. Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. I realize this is just a hypothetical but I can't imagine anyone having any sympathy for those people. There's also an argument to be made that enabling them is hurting more than helping, but I'm leaving that aside entirely for the moment. People have choices, and choices have consequences.
- dionidium 7y ago
  Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. Others have made the case far better than I could here. I wasn't actually trying to argue for or against it, just noting that 1) social perception of "freeloaders" is indeed a barrier to acceptance of UBI (as you succinctly demonstrate); but 2) relatively small shifts in perception could open a path for it, anyway.
tucaz 7y ago
They are 100% entitled to those choices. I can't disagree there. The only thing I disagree with is that I should have the choice to not pay for other people's choices of not doing nothing. If they want to be like that, they can as long as they don't interfere with everyone else's choice.
0x4477 7y ago
> We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices. I agree with the sentiment that everyone is entitled to do as they wish, even if I don't like it. This includes the choice to do nothing. What I do not agree with is their choice to do nothing being subsidized by myself and everyone else who works and contributes to the economy and tax revenue. You are entitled to do whatever you want, but not on someone else's dime. No one is entitled to things merely by virtue of existing, doubly so if they are able to work or provide for themselves and choose not to.

baumy 7y ago

This comment is very weird to me. The hypothetical group of stoned gamers being discussed are certainly entitled to choose to spend their time smoking weed and playing games. I don't see how it follows that they're entitled to me subsidizing their choices with my tax dollars. I think people who are capable of holding a job / productively contributing to society but choose not to are indeed losers, and I will continue to think that way because it seems to me to be an obvious truth. I truly hope that does not change. Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. I realize this is just a hypothetical but I can't imagine anyone having any sympathy for those people. There's also an argument to be made that enabling them is hurting more than helping, but I'm leaving that aside entirely for the moment. People have choices, and choices have consequences.

dionidium 7y ago
Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. Others have made the case far better than I could here. I wasn't actually trying to argue for or against it, just noting that 1) social perception of "freeloaders" is indeed a barrier to acceptance of UBI (as you succinctly demonstrate); but 2) relatively small shifts in perception could open a path for it, anyway.

tucaz 7y ago

They are 100% entitled to those choices. I can't disagree there. The only thing I disagree with is that I should have the choice to not pay for other people's choices of not doing nothing. If they want to be like that, they can as long as they don't interfere with everyone else's choice.

0x4477 7y ago

> We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices. I agree with the sentiment that everyone is entitled to do as they wish, even if I don't like it. This includes the choice to do nothing. What I do not agree with is their choice to do nothing being subsidized by myself and everyone else who works and contributes to the economy and tax revenue. You are entitled to do whatever you want, but not on someone else's dime. No one is entitled to things merely by virtue of existing, doubly so if they are able to work or provide for themselves and choose not to.