4 ms·

We want to guarantee for every human on the planet the right to food, water, shelter, health care, and education. ... What matters is that we agree on that goal

by blfr 2y ago

We want to guarantee for every human on the planet the right to food, water, shelter, health care, and education. ... What matters is that we agree on that goal and find some way to achieve it. Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. Second, the value, even to the end recipient, of vast majority of education and healthcare is dubious at best. Similarly to the study on which OP is commenting, there was a famous Oregon Medicaid health experiment and the benefits of healthcare services expansion were minimal. Same for education with various headstart initiatives.

simoncion 2y ago
> ...I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. That's fair and totally 1000% reasonable. However: What if (whether through sudden injury or the accumulated injuries of aging) you become utterly unable to work, you've burned through your savings, all your family is dead, and you're an unlikable cunt [0] so those around you are supremely disinclined to provide assistance? Should you be cast out into the wilderness to starve? What if you were born permanently unable to work and utterly unsympathetic? Should your fate be to die of exposure? [0] I cannot stress hard enough that if you think I'm making comment about your character, please do remember that I absolutely am not. I don't know shit about you, so I cannot comment on your character. However, injury, illness, and prolonged bad periods can absolutely turn someone into an unlikable cunt... driving away a predicated-on-tolerability material-and-emotional support network just when one needs it most.
- blfr 2y ago
  That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI. UBI is welfare.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Is it not reasonable to consider a UBI as a universal welfare program?
    - sokoloff 2y ago
      Yes, that’s the seemingly obviously correct way to think about it. Which is also why many people who think the sliver of population who is unable to work should be able to get welfare to avoid starving, but that the vast majority of the population who is capable of productive work should be expected to provide for their own consumption rather than have it be provided to them.
bheadmaster 2y ago
> Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. A government that governs a nation is arguably responsible for every human in it.
- blfr 2y ago
  Not even remotely so in practice. Adults are largely responsible for themselves and their kids/elders. Sure, with some government assistance but true state wards are fairly rare and the system would have no chance of working if they weren't.
  - bheadmaster 2y ago
    > true state wards are fairly rare and the system would have no chance of working if they weren't How so? Wouldn't that, at the very least, solve homelessness?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  This is the core of so many problems in western governments today. Governments should be there to coordinate complex problems that society doesn't have a better way to handle. Governments should not be there to be a responsible parent to everyone, whether they want it or not.
  - Jochim 2y ago
    What do you think happens to the wealthy when the government does not ensure the majority of people are well fed and secure? Does the mob respect property rights?
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Sorry, I'm not quite sure how that ties in. What's your point here with regards to a UBI and whether a government should work for or be parent to its constituents?
jraph 2y ago
> I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage You aren't, individually, but shouldn't we, collectively?
Jochim 2y ago
> Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. Do you expect them to respect your right to have those things? IMO, your line of thought leads to violent revolution.
harimau777 2y ago
Part of the problem is that if people don't have access to those things then they don't have much incentive to support the government or things like property rights.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I wouldn’t argue that you’re responsible for anyone. I would argue more that if you value the suffering of conscious things, it is a very short logical leap to care about such in all humans, even those who you don’t directly interact with. You don’t need to feel anything about them or be responsible for them to take the alleviation of broader human suffering into account when discussing policy. Do we disagree on this?

by blfr 2y ago

simoncion 2y ago

> ...I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. That's fair and totally 1000% reasonable. However: What if (whether through sudden injury or the accumulated injuries of aging) you become utterly unable to work, you've burned through your savings, all your family is dead, and you're an unlikable cunt [0] so those around you are supremely disinclined to provide assistance? Should you be cast out into the wilderness to starve? What if you were born permanently unable to work and utterly unsympathetic? Should your fate be to die of exposure? [0] I cannot stress hard enough that if you think I'm making comment about your character, please do remember that I absolutely am not. I don't know shit about you, so I cannot comment on your character. However, injury, illness, and prolonged bad periods can absolutely turn someone into an unlikable cunt... driving away a predicated-on-tolerability material-and-emotional support network just when one needs it most.

blfr 2y ago
That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI. UBI is welfare.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Is it not reasonable to consider a UBI as a universal welfare program?
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Yes, that’s the seemingly obviously correct way to think about it. Which is also why many people who think the sliver of population who is unable to work should be able to get welfare to avoid starving, but that the vast majority of the population who is capable of productive work should be expected to provide for their own consumption rather than have it be provided to them.

bheadmaster 2y ago

> Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. A government that governs a nation is arguably responsible for every human in it.

blfr 2y ago
Not even remotely so in practice. Adults are largely responsible for themselves and their kids/elders. Sure, with some government assistance but true state wards are fairly rare and the system would have no chance of working if they weren't.
- bheadmaster 2y ago
  > true state wards are fairly rare and the system would have no chance of working if they weren't How so? Wouldn't that, at the very least, solve homelessness?
_heimdall 2y ago
This is the core of so many problems in western governments today. Governments should be there to coordinate complex problems that society doesn't have a better way to handle. Governments should not be there to be a responsible parent to everyone, whether they want it or not.
- Jochim 2y ago
  What do you think happens to the wealthy when the government does not ensure the majority of people are well fed and secure? Does the mob respect property rights?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Sorry, I'm not quite sure how that ties in. What's your point here with regards to a UBI and whether a government should work for or be parent to its constituents?

jraph 2y ago

> I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage You aren't, individually, but shouldn't we, collectively?

Jochim 2y ago

> Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage. Do you expect them to respect your right to have those things? IMO, your line of thought leads to violent revolution.

harimau777 2y ago

Part of the problem is that if people don't have access to those things then they don't have much incentive to support the government or things like property rights.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

I wouldn’t argue that you’re responsible for anyone. I would argue more that if you value the suffering of conscious things, it is a very short logical leap to care about such in all humans, even those who you don’t directly interact with. You don’t need to feel anything about them or be responsible for them to take the alleviation of broader human suffering into account when discussing policy. Do we disagree on this?