4 ms·

You find appealing to use a global pandemic, or any other disaster for that matter, to remove "ideological and structural obstacles" to try new ideas without de

You find appealing to use a global pandemic, or any other disaster for that matter, to remove "ideological and structural obstacles" to try new ideas without debate? I find it totalitarian, and a great way to incentive politicians to declare or even cause "problems" to remove ideological obstacles that block their ideas. Just a four days ago the president of Hungary did exactly this to end legal recognition of trans people.

imartin2k 7y ago
Different things, strange comparison. Taking rights away from a specific group vs providing all people with something. The immediate motivation for Spain’s UBI appears to be easing people’s financial suffering. And as governments are spending gigantic sums to bail out industries, what harm can there be in providing people with direct funds?! If people don’t want it in the long term, they certainly will be able to use democratic means to get rid of it again. There really isn’t anything totalitarian here.
- otherme123 7y ago
  It's a dangerous slippery slope. And you are not providing all people. You are taking from some to give to some others, there's not such thing as a free lunch. And the most probable course is that you get indebted today to pay in the future (i.e. our descendants are going to pay our current UBI), and not that the rich are going to give to the poor. One thing is to say that in this dire situation you opt to give an UBI to everyone, and as soon as the emergency is revoked so is the UBI and all extreme measures. Another thing is to pass the UBI and "if in the long term the people using democratic means" can get rid of it. Just bind the UBI to the Alarm state, so that when the last ends, the former is automatically scrapped (and if anything, approved through democratic means and in a more sane environment). I'm tired of things that are passed through the backdoor in difficult times, and then we can never ever again get rid of it. In Spain, for example, the "Ley Mordaza" is here to stay or even get worse. By "democratic means" the people voted PSOE+Podemos that promised to get rid of it, and here we are debating to make it even worse... ⸮for a good reason, of course⸮

imartin2k 7y ago

Different things, strange comparison. Taking rights away from a specific group vs providing all people with something. The immediate motivation for Spain’s UBI appears to be easing people’s financial suffering. And as governments are spending gigantic sums to bail out industries, what harm can there be in providing people with direct funds?! If people don’t want it in the long term, they certainly will be able to use democratic means to get rid of it again. There really isn’t anything totalitarian here.

otherme123 7y ago
It's a dangerous slippery slope. And you are not providing all people. You are taking from some to give to some others, there's not such thing as a free lunch. And the most probable course is that you get indebted today to pay in the future (i.e. our descendants are going to pay our current UBI), and not that the rich are going to give to the poor. One thing is to say that in this dire situation you opt to give an UBI to everyone, and as soon as the emergency is revoked so is the UBI and all extreme measures. Another thing is to pass the UBI and "if in the long term the people using democratic means" can get rid of it. Just bind the UBI to the Alarm state, so that when the last ends, the former is automatically scrapped (and if anything, approved through democratic means and in a more sane environment). I'm tired of things that are passed through the backdoor in difficult times, and then we can never ever again get rid of it. In Spain, for example, the "Ley Mordaza" is here to stay or even get worse. By "democratic means" the people voted PSOE+Podemos that promised to get rid of it, and here we are debating to make it even worse... ⸮for a good reason, of course⸮