4 ms·
... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of depend
by uoaei 6y ago
... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence.
- nobody9999 6y ago>... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence. I'm not GGP who argued against UBI. Nor did I make any argument for or against UBI. And I didn't make any argument even approaching "if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence." In fact, my argument was that if we make the safety net robust, we will allow people to be more productive and entrepreneurial. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
- uoaei 6y agoWell that wasn't made clear. I was reacting to: > We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty. Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? Why are you injecting yourself into that conversation if you're not supporting the claim that I explicitly referenced, and making it look like you're replying to the things I'm saying by quoting me directly?
- nobody9999 6y agoI guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings.
- nobody9999 6y ago>Well that wasn't made clear. >I was reacting to: >> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty. >Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? I can't reply to comment that contains the above, so I'll do so here. Where did I say anything even remotely approaching "We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty."? I wasn't "defending" anyone or anything. I am not the user who posted the comment[0] you replied to. And it seems strange that you found my comment adversarial, as it was at worst orthogonal to yours. Upon reading the your reply to djsumdog's comment, I thought I'd add my own (related, and I thought, relevant) thoughts to the discussion. Is that not kind of the whole point of this site? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323
- uoaei 6y agoI mean, kind of, but the style of quoting at the head of your comments is typically used on this site to address specific points as part of a back-and-forth, not just "I'm introducing my own thoughts to this discussion, divorced from the course of conversation this has followed so far." You don't need to quote the comment you're replying to because your reply hangs off my comment already. If you had posted your comment without that header I would not have immediately thought you were part of the conversation, and instead taken the comment as an aside and not a direct reply.
- nobody9999 6y agoYou asked: >What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"? And so I answered your question. If that was confusing to you, that's unfortunate and I'm sorry that the way I quoted you made you unable to comprehend the next twelve paragraphs of my post.
- uoaei 6y agoI didn't ask you, did I?
- nobody9999 6y agoGiven that it's a public forum, you asked everyone.