3 ms·

Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function The PFD is a political must have in the sense that v

Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function The PFD is a political must have in the sense that voters are now telling the government they would rather cut other services to keep it You previously disparaged critics for saying that there’s no evidence this would cut public services. You are now changing your argument to say that it’s worth it in spite of that being shown to be a realized risk.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
> Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function No they're not. Many countries have unelected leadership, and their political systems function. Ballots (and the rest of the democratic infrastructure) are something that people want, because they see them as good to have. > The PFD is a political must have in the sense that voters are now telling the government they would rather cut other services to keep it The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. But let's pretend the Alaskan electorate did demand cuts elsewhere, to maintain or increase the PFD. If the budget reduces, "people would prefer to cut something else" is a sign of a service being valued by the populace. How is that an argument against the service?
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  > The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. Yes the did (and are doing). They didn’t get the 6.7k, but they did have to make cuts in large part because the payout was unsustainably high. > How is that an argument against the service? Don’t give a shit. I’m arguing against your claim that there’s no evidence UBI could lead to cuts in public services.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    You're saying "this cost is bad because if we don't cut this cost, we have to cut other costs", but that's true for the other costs as well. The original claim was asymmetrical (that UBI programmes cost money for no benefit; i.e., that they're a waste of money). You can't use a symmetrical argument to support an asymmetrical claim.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

> Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function No they're not. Many countries have unelected leadership, and their political systems function. Ballots (and the rest of the democratic infrastructure) are something that people want, because they see them as good to have. > The PFD is a political must have in the sense that voters are now telling the government they would rather cut other services to keep it The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. But let's pretend the Alaskan electorate did demand cuts elsewhere, to maintain or increase the PFD. If the budget reduces, "people would prefer to cut something else" is a sign of a service being valued by the populace. How is that an argument against the service?

jncfhnb 2y ago
> The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. Yes the did (and are doing). They didn’t get the 6.7k, but they did have to make cuts in large part because the payout was unsustainably high. > How is that an argument against the service? Don’t give a shit. I’m arguing against your claim that there’s no evidence UBI could lead to cuts in public services.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  You're saying "this cost is bad because if we don't cut this cost, we have to cut other costs", but that's true for the other costs as well. The original claim was asymmetrical (that UBI programmes cost money for no benefit; i.e., that they're a waste of money). You can't use a symmetrical argument to support an asymmetrical claim.