6 ms·

> Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not con

> Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. How so? > Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does, for them, not hold a positive result: have to expend energy, have to do something that isn't immediately pleasurable, am not getting huge loads of money and power in return. They politely thank you for the offer but choose to live comfortably off of taxes. > The direct consequence of that behavior is that others have to work more hours per week to pick up the slack. Even if you removed the top 5% and nationalized all companies, you wouldn't change this simple fact. And it will remain exactly the same as long as they are paid to do nothing. UBI is the plan to codify paying them to do nothing. I think that's just you drawing conclusions out of thin air. I don't believe most people would be doing nothing. Why should they? Would you? I wouldn't. Also we could just have contracts saying that if you want receive the benefits of being part of society, you must also contribute at least, say 15 hours a week of work, or whatever we figure out is necessary. If there then ends up being people that don't contribute what they should, people in the immediate community would then, on a case-by-case basic, try to solve the problem by talking with the person, and so on. If nothing works, take away the benefits until the person are willing to partake in the community again. Make them understand that you have to contribute to be receive the benefits. > So sure, if you had everyone contributing, everything would be rosy and lots of things would be possible. Let's start with getting everyone to contribute, and not with changing the system as if they would and then hope that they maybe will. Because they won't. You do know that most people in the whole wide world do actually work, don't you? They already contribute plenty. Why do you think they would contribute less if 1) it meant more of their needs were met, and 2) they had more choice about how to contribute because society wasn't driven by profits that fill of a few peoples pockets, but by meeting everyones needs. I think most people would contribute, just like most people today actually are contributing. And I actually think even more would be contributing and do it willingly, and we could reach new heights for humanity if contributions wasn't based on forced labour but instead of people feeling as a part of a cooperative community where their needs are valued and their voices are heard.

luckylion 6y ago
> I don't believe most people would be doing nothing. I didn't say most, but it's a significant number. We don't have to speculate either, it's reality today. > Would you? I wouldn't. That's always the issue with these proposals. It's smart, motivated people that look for tasks if they're idle and are ready to help others, and then they figure "I wouldn't just not work, so that's what everybody would do". It's the same issue engineers have when they design features. "I can type very fast without looking at the keyboard, that's what everybody can", and then it collides with the real world where most people can neither type fast nor type without looking at their keyboard. I live in an apartment complex with ~50% social housing. About 30% of residents here are lower class, about 5-10% are what I described. They are quite happy with the accommodations and their allowance, they see no reason to work. Your plans and ideas are made for a world full of people like you. But that's not the world we live in. > Also we could just have contracts saying that if you want receive the benefits of being part of society, you must also contribute at least, say 15 hours a week of work, or whatever we figure out is necessary. That would be reactionary, a large step in the other direction of unconditional basic income, and you'd get kicked out of every UBI debate, probably violently so.
- fredsir 6y ago
  > I didn't say most, but it's a significant number. We don't have to speculate either, it's reality today. Indeed, but why is that so? Maybe it's because they don't have much say in any matter, and are forced be exploited, and so on. You cannot declare that because they are not willing to contribute in this current exploitative system we have, that means they also wouldn't want to contribute in any other system. > That's always the issue with these proposals. It's smart, motivated people that look for tasks if they're idle and are ready to help others, and then they figure "I wouldn't just not work, so that's what everybody would do". It's the same issue engineers have when they design features. "I can type very fast without looking at the keyboard, that's what everybody can", and then it collides with the real world where most people can neither type fast nor type without looking at their keyboard. No it isn't. It's basic human behaviour. The reason why people "don't do anything but watch tv" is, I'm convinced, because they are beaten down by a society that doesn't care about them. They tend to the tv's and games when they have any free time because they are worked to death the rest of the time. In a society where that wasn't so, the results would be different too. Obviously, it's not each case that's so, but probably 99,9% or more, and that's good enough. There will always be bad seeds, but most aren't bad. > I live in an apartment complex with ~50% social housing. About 30% of residents here are lower class, about 5-10% are what I described. They are quite happy with the accommodations and their allowance, they see no reason to work. They are a result of society. They weren't born that way, they were taught to be that way by the experiences they had living in this current society. > Your plans and ideas are made for a world full of people like you. But that's not the world we live in. No, it's made for humans, contrary to our current society. It's based on the fact, that if you show solidarity, compassion, and try to raise people up, instead of beat them down and exploit them, as is currently the way our society treat people, they tend to do rather well, and are happy to do their part. Obviously, there will be some that won't, but I feel confident that it will be few. It's not a showstopper, the goods in a society based on solidarity instead of greed outweigh the bad in every way. > That would be reactionary, a large step in the other direction of unconditional basic income, and you'd get kicked out of every UBI debate, probably violently so. That's because UBI is a retrofitting of basic solidarity in our current system. I'm not talking about retrofitting our current system, I'm talking about building a completely new system. One taking a lot of pointers from the anarcho-syndicalism playbook. Our current system is completely broken, and needs to get replaced, not reformed because reforms can't be used for such drastic changes as are needed.

luckylion 6y ago

> I don't believe most people would be doing nothing. I didn't say most, but it's a significant number. We don't have to speculate either, it's reality today. > Would you? I wouldn't. That's always the issue with these proposals. It's smart, motivated people that look for tasks if they're idle and are ready to help others, and then they figure "I wouldn't just not work, so that's what everybody would do". It's the same issue engineers have when they design features. "I can type very fast without looking at the keyboard, that's what everybody can", and then it collides with the real world where most people can neither type fast nor type without looking at their keyboard. I live in an apartment complex with ~50% social housing. About 30% of residents here are lower class, about 5-10% are what I described. They are quite happy with the accommodations and their allowance, they see no reason to work. Your plans and ideas are made for a world full of people like you. But that's not the world we live in. > Also we could just have contracts saying that if you want receive the benefits of being part of society, you must also contribute at least, say 15 hours a week of work, or whatever we figure out is necessary. That would be reactionary, a large step in the other direction of unconditional basic income, and you'd get kicked out of every UBI debate, probably violently so.

fredsir 6y ago
> I didn't say most, but it's a significant number. We don't have to speculate either, it's reality today. Indeed, but why is that so? Maybe it's because they don't have much say in any matter, and are forced be exploited, and so on. You cannot declare that because they are not willing to contribute in this current exploitative system we have, that means they also wouldn't want to contribute in any other system. > That's always the issue with these proposals. It's smart, motivated people that look for tasks if they're idle and are ready to help others, and then they figure "I wouldn't just not work, so that's what everybody would do". It's the same issue engineers have when they design features. "I can type very fast without looking at the keyboard, that's what everybody can", and then it collides with the real world where most people can neither type fast nor type without looking at their keyboard. No it isn't. It's basic human behaviour. The reason why people "don't do anything but watch tv" is, I'm convinced, because they are beaten down by a society that doesn't care about them. They tend to the tv's and games when they have any free time because they are worked to death the rest of the time. In a society where that wasn't so, the results would be different too. Obviously, it's not each case that's so, but probably 99,9% or more, and that's good enough. There will always be bad seeds, but most aren't bad. > I live in an apartment complex with ~50% social housing. About 30% of residents here are lower class, about 5-10% are what I described. They are quite happy with the accommodations and their allowance, they see no reason to work. They are a result of society. They weren't born that way, they were taught to be that way by the experiences they had living in this current society. > Your plans and ideas are made for a world full of people like you. But that's not the world we live in. No, it's made for humans, contrary to our current society. It's based on the fact, that if you show solidarity, compassion, and try to raise people up, instead of beat them down and exploit them, as is currently the way our society treat people, they tend to do rather well, and are happy to do their part. Obviously, there will be some that won't, but I feel confident that it will be few. It's not a showstopper, the goods in a society based on solidarity instead of greed outweigh the bad in every way. > That would be reactionary, a large step in the other direction of unconditional basic income, and you'd get kicked out of every UBI debate, probably violently so. That's because UBI is a retrofitting of basic solidarity in our current system. I'm not talking about retrofitting our current system, I'm talking about building a completely new system. One taking a lot of pointers from the anarcho-syndicalism playbook. Our current system is completely broken, and needs to get replaced, not reformed because reforms can't be used for such drastic changes as are needed.