4 ms·

Instead of all the fuckery, imagine if the government just sent everyone a monthly cheque with the only criteria that they are a living breathing adult with a U

by rapind 7y ago

Instead of all the fuckery, imagine if the government just sent everyone a monthly cheque with the only criteria that they are a living breathing adult with a US address. Universal trickle up.

_curious_ 7y ago
Imagine if you lived with an attitude like this...entitled to something just for being born. Genuinely curious: where does this come from?
- MiroF 7y ago
  Most theories of the good hold that you are certainly entitled to things just for being born - take your life for instance. Your alternative conception is far outside the norm.
  - i_am_nomad 7y ago
    Fundamentally, your retort to the parent’s (poorly expressed and now dead) reply is sound, though I believe they might have been circling the concept of negative vs. positive rights. It’s an interesting topic and one worthy of debate, though sadly that debate has become fraught with emotion and passion, to the point that it’s on a level with abortion - it just can’t be discussed in most circles.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      Maybe, although I believe that it's not too hard to have a basic argument about negative v. positive rights. Some people debate and feel passionately about the things they believe. As long as they're making arguments, I am not sure what the problem is. I oftentimes find that good debates are more often disrupted by the person who insists on this mythic ideal of "unemotional" & civic & rational debate than the person who feels strongly about the issue.
  - _curious_ 7y ago
    "Most theories of the good hold that you are certainly entitled to things just for being born - take your life for instance." Where can more information be found about "theories of the good"? What about this thing we call money - how much are we entitled to and from who? Can anyone explain what the benefit is of living an existence feeling entitled to something tangible such as money?
    - MiroF 7y ago
      Sure, you can examine moral and political philosophy. Nozick has some writing about it, Rawls does, Mill, etc. - it's a whole branch of thought. The benefit of shaping society in a way that you think is good is that you end up with a better society. I don't really think you're discussing in good faith, so I'll end it here - but I think this is a very interesting line of discussion.
      - _curious_ 7y ago
        I'm open to learning about moral and political philosophy. I will check out Nozick, Rawls and Mill - thanks for the pointers. Meanwhile I am failing to grasp how feeling (worse yet acting) entitled to something (in this case money) from someone else or society at large is beneficial. Anyone I've ever met or interacted with IRL with this disposition is perpetually unfulfilled and extremely ungrateful for very gift of life they have been given. Have you ever met a successful, happy, healthy and/or otherwise admirable individual who feels or acts entitled?
        rapind 7y ago
        If we can acknowledge that societie's rewards aren't directly proportional to work ethic (Bezos works hard sure, but 5,000 times harder?), and yet everyone participates in a society that enables these rewards. Think of every civil service, roads, consumers buying your stuff, the fact that brigands aren't simply looting your factories and stores etc. Fortunes are built on the shoulders of everyone who does and has contributed to society. So if you accept the above statement we can discuss what people are entitled to coming from the same place. If you don't accept the above (many don't, not judging) then we we'll be stuck on that and won't get any further discussing entitlement. It's not about doling out money to lazy people. That's become a bit of a trope. The American dream is dead. If you are born into poverty then the odds of you getting out of poverty, regardless of how hard you work, is vanishingly low. Sure there are lazy people but I would argue that it's impractical to try and figure out a system that weeds them out at scale, and then you're stuck with half assed policy that does nothing or benefits a bunch of smart greedy pricks instead.
danesparza 7y ago
When you believe that all humans will act in an honest and moral way, this is certainly the solution that appears to work best. Full disclosure: I'm with you, I think this is probably what will need to be seriously considered in the future. Counter argument: Won't this just encourage fuckery from the citizenry? Won't they just be encouraged to game the system (have more kids, take care of people to intercept their checks, etc)?
- rapind 7y ago
  Yes of course. No matter what you do some percentage will try to game it, however the simpler the system the less complexity there is to hide in (fewer attack vectors to protect). There are likely a finite, very small, number of ways to game this that we'd need to guard against. Let's start a list, because I really don't think there's that much to worry about! - More kids? OK that's probably good for an aging society, but do we even dole out money based on dependents? Should the government be in the position of subsidizing people having kids in the first place? Since it's adults who are directly impacted (losing income from a job) that's who we target. We can always address dependents through another program if needed, but that'll require a whole other level of complexity. - Intercepting cheques? Are we talking about a subset of elderly or disabled who can't cash their own cheques? How do we handle social security cheques today? Maybe we would need more measures to handle this issue due to scale? - Illegal immigrants? This one is a political quagmire. In my opinion they deserve the same benefits, but that's a very controversial opinion, and not something I'd want bogging down immediate assistance to everyone else. Ideally this is something the entire country would get to vote on, understanding that it will have a huge impact on a lot of industries.

by rapind 7y ago

Instead of all the fuckery, imagine if the government just sent everyone a monthly cheque with the only criteria that they are a living breathing adult with a US address. Universal trickle up.

_curious_ 7y ago

Imagine if you lived with an attitude like this...entitled to something just for being born. Genuinely curious: where does this come from?

MiroF 7y ago
Most theories of the good hold that you are certainly entitled to things just for being born - take your life for instance. Your alternative conception is far outside the norm.
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  Fundamentally, your retort to the parent’s (poorly expressed and now dead) reply is sound, though I believe they might have been circling the concept of negative vs. positive rights. It’s an interesting topic and one worthy of debate, though sadly that debate has become fraught with emotion and passion, to the point that it’s on a level with abortion - it just can’t be discussed in most circles.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Maybe, although I believe that it's not too hard to have a basic argument about negative v. positive rights. Some people debate and feel passionately about the things they believe. As long as they're making arguments, I am not sure what the problem is. I oftentimes find that good debates are more often disrupted by the person who insists on this mythic ideal of "unemotional" & civic & rational debate than the person who feels strongly about the issue.
- _curious_ 7y ago
  "Most theories of the good hold that you are certainly entitled to things just for being born - take your life for instance." Where can more information be found about "theories of the good"? What about this thing we call money - how much are we entitled to and from who? Can anyone explain what the benefit is of living an existence feeling entitled to something tangible such as money?
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Sure, you can examine moral and political philosophy. Nozick has some writing about it, Rawls does, Mill, etc. - it's a whole branch of thought. The benefit of shaping society in a way that you think is good is that you end up with a better society. I don't really think you're discussing in good faith, so I'll end it here - but I think this is a very interesting line of discussion.
    - _curious_ 7y ago
      I'm open to learning about moral and political philosophy. I will check out Nozick, Rawls and Mill - thanks for the pointers. Meanwhile I am failing to grasp how feeling (worse yet acting) entitled to something (in this case money) from someone else or society at large is beneficial. Anyone I've ever met or interacted with IRL with this disposition is perpetually unfulfilled and extremely ungrateful for very gift of life they have been given. Have you ever met a successful, happy, healthy and/or otherwise admirable individual who feels or acts entitled?
      - rapind 7y ago
        If we can acknowledge that societie's rewards aren't directly proportional to work ethic (Bezos works hard sure, but 5,000 times harder?), and yet everyone participates in a society that enables these rewards. Think of every civil service, roads, consumers buying your stuff, the fact that brigands aren't simply looting your factories and stores etc. Fortunes are built on the shoulders of everyone who does and has contributed to society. So if you accept the above statement we can discuss what people are entitled to coming from the same place. If you don't accept the above (many don't, not judging) then we we'll be stuck on that and won't get any further discussing entitlement. It's not about doling out money to lazy people. That's become a bit of a trope. The American dream is dead. If you are born into poverty then the odds of you getting out of poverty, regardless of how hard you work, is vanishingly low. Sure there are lazy people but I would argue that it's impractical to try and figure out a system that weeds them out at scale, and then you're stuck with half assed policy that does nothing or benefits a bunch of smart greedy pricks instead.

danesparza 7y ago

When you believe that all humans will act in an honest and moral way, this is certainly the solution that appears to work best. Full disclosure: I'm with you, I think this is probably what will need to be seriously considered in the future. Counter argument: Won't this just encourage fuckery from the citizenry? Won't they just be encouraged to game the system (have more kids, take care of people to intercept their checks, etc)?

rapind 7y ago
Yes of course. No matter what you do some percentage will try to game it, however the simpler the system the less complexity there is to hide in (fewer attack vectors to protect). There are likely a finite, very small, number of ways to game this that we'd need to guard against. Let's start a list, because I really don't think there's that much to worry about! - More kids? OK that's probably good for an aging society, but do we even dole out money based on dependents? Should the government be in the position of subsidizing people having kids in the first place? Since it's adults who are directly impacted (losing income from a job) that's who we target. We can always address dependents through another program if needed, but that'll require a whole other level of complexity. - Intercepting cheques? Are we talking about a subset of elderly or disabled who can't cash their own cheques? How do we handle social security cheques today? Maybe we would need more measures to handle this issue due to scale? - Illegal immigrants? This one is a political quagmire. In my opinion they deserve the same benefits, but that's a very controversial opinion, and not something I'd want bogging down immediate assistance to everyone else. Ideally this is something the entire country would get to vote on, understanding that it will have a huge impact on a lot of industries.