3 ms·

How does it benefit me if it's not what I want? The idea that a third party can decide for me what I should want, and because this thing or that thing is someth

How does it benefit me if it's not what I want? The idea that a third party can decide for me what I should want, and because this thing or that thing is something I should want means that it benefits me... it's a little circular. "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing. And so the circle spins round and round. This scheme does not benefit me. It is not a goal I want to pursue. There are costs associated with it. This isn't for free. >It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. Well, that's the least generous interpretation. What if I'd rather starve as a deer, than be well-fed cattle? What if, no matter how hard I try, it's nearly impossible to imagine myself being so stupid or passive that I would prefer otherwise?

bryanlarsen 2y ago
You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where customers have money and employees are educated.
- slt2021 2y ago
  you dont get high trust society by increasing welfare state. The argument that by handing out money we will get stable high trust society does not hold at all. European countries that are unable to assimilate migrants are a living proof, for example Sweden Denmark, etc. Counterpoint to your argument is El Salvador: by enforcing laws they are able to achieve high trust society, so what we actually need is maximimum law enforcement and isolation of people who dont want to maintain the high trust society. China/Singapore is another example: they just execute drug dealers and solve the drug trafficking problem. It may be perceived as inhumane to drug traffickers, but it is very humane for the victims(current and possible) of drug addiction. USA has a giant surplus of people with net negative contribution to the society and is unable to solve it in order to propel society forward
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Your first argument makes no sense. People from totally different cultures don't suddenly integrate. In the US, Jews originally ran the mafia when they came over, then Irish/Italians. Was that an indicator that America's model failed? And that jews/irish/italians would never integrate into it and never have high trust neighborhoods? Or that integration is a process (that you aren't allowing for in your argument)? Not having moms working multiple zero hour jobs to try and barely survive would be a huge plus for high trust society. They would better socialize their children (which would reinforce a high trust society). They would better account for their children because they would be present (a plus to high trust). Under your current system they aren't home to instill high trust, when they are around they are too tired, and they have way less time/ability to engage in socializing activities with their children resulting in a non-parented, non-socialized society. The majority of high trust societies are ones where peoples' basic needs are met. El Salvador has a very short history of some improvement from militarized policing but hardly enough data to start extrapolating from other than high enforcement police states are police states.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where You have decided what I should want and what I should pursue, for me, against my wishes, and say "because I want these things, he should want them too". I don't want the same things as you. I'd try explaining, but I don't think you'd get it. >where customers have money I don't have anything I wish to sell you and you have nothing to trade that I want. >and employees are educated. I've seen the education system. I'm well past the "maybe if we just do the education a little more intensely, things will improve" phase.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tavavex 2y ago
> "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing. That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position? The way minimum guaranteed income would benefit you is twofold. One way is similar to how any other tax payments that don't benefit you directly provide a safety margin - I've never had a house fire, but I pay for services that cover my fire department because I know that if I'm ever in that situation, they will help me. I'm not in poverty, but my money subsidizes poverty benefits, and if I ever get in that situation, it will help me too. The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty and contribute far more than they otherwise would. Being poor is insanely expensive, and once you have more liabilities than assets, they tend to explode and become completely unsustainable. Poor people can't relocate (or even live anywhere) for better opportunities; they can't get education and will often remain low-wage, unprofessional workers; they can't afford healthcare (in the US) and will leave illnesses untreated until they can barely do anything at all, or die. Fixing any of these three leads to more income for businesses and more tax money for the government. For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love portraying any form of welfare as letting people live in luxury for nothing. Minimum income, as it is proposed, doesn't come anywhere close to being something you can live your whole life off of. It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily - it's money you pay debts off, money to educate yourself, money to cure yourself - not what you live off. That's why it's so infuriating to hear people double down time and time again about how America's most hated class are all just lazy, bloated slobs, because in this hypothetical world, they have the audacity to receive a couple thousand dollars in benefits.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position? It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be forgiven for thinking I'm exaggerating. I get that your values are different than mine and that you want different things. You don't even seem to be aware that I want different things. "But but but! How could you not want wonderful European-style welfare" I just don't. Saying "but you should want them because you're like me and I want them"... I'm not like you. I couldn't be like you if I tried, and I'm not inclined to try. You saying that I "benefit" from these things indicates you think I "receive good things" from them... but I don't receive any benefit or good thing, those are not things I want. Benefits aren't objective. They are subjective. Absolutely, undeniably subjective. When you make it sound like they are objective, you are lying to yourself. Lying so badly to yourself that when you lose elections, you are confused and angry about it. "How are they brainwashed into going against their own self-interests?!?!?!" you oxymoron about. No, other people just have different interest than you. It's impossible to go against your own self-interests (short of coercion... even then, one might argue that you're still doing so, to avoid the blackmail/torture/whatever). >The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty I grew up on foodstamps. I would have preferred starving. I want nothing from you. Your charity, however well-intentioned you believe it to be, is toxic and demeaning, and you refuse the evidence of your own eyes when you see it fail to work as you believe it would. I do not wish to pay for anyone else's foodstamps... they're better off figuring out how to survive for themselves. >For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love It should at least occur to you that when someone like me can't explain things to you such that you're able to see our point of view, that other more regrettable (for both of us) futures await. >It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily Safety is illusory. Chasing it is futile and even shameful. >That's why it's so infuriating The fury of people who want safety nets is pathetic. You should use the word "frustrating", you don't sound capable of true fury.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where customers have money and employees are educated.

slt2021 2y ago
you dont get high trust society by increasing welfare state. The argument that by handing out money we will get stable high trust society does not hold at all. European countries that are unable to assimilate migrants are a living proof, for example Sweden Denmark, etc. Counterpoint to your argument is El Salvador: by enforcing laws they are able to achieve high trust society, so what we actually need is maximimum law enforcement and isolation of people who dont want to maintain the high trust society. China/Singapore is another example: they just execute drug dealers and solve the drug trafficking problem. It may be perceived as inhumane to drug traffickers, but it is very humane for the victims(current and possible) of drug addiction. USA has a giant surplus of people with net negative contribution to the society and is unable to solve it in order to propel society forward
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Your first argument makes no sense. People from totally different cultures don't suddenly integrate. In the US, Jews originally ran the mafia when they came over, then Irish/Italians. Was that an indicator that America's model failed? And that jews/irish/italians would never integrate into it and never have high trust neighborhoods? Or that integration is a process (that you aren't allowing for in your argument)? Not having moms working multiple zero hour jobs to try and barely survive would be a huge plus for high trust society. They would better socialize their children (which would reinforce a high trust society). They would better account for their children because they would be present (a plus to high trust). Under your current system they aren't home to instill high trust, when they are around they are too tired, and they have way less time/ability to engage in socializing activities with their children resulting in a non-parented, non-socialized society. The majority of high trust societies are ones where peoples' basic needs are met. El Salvador has a very short history of some improvement from militarized policing but hardly enough data to start extrapolating from other than high enforcement police states are police states.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>You benefit substantially from living in a stable, high-trust society where You have decided what I should want and what I should pursue, for me, against my wishes, and say "because I want these things, he should want them too". I don't want the same things as you. I'd try explaining, but I don't think you'd get it. >where customers have money I don't have anything I wish to sell you and you have nothing to trade that I want. >and employees are educated. I've seen the education system. I'm well past the "maybe if we just do the education a little more intensely, things will improve" phase.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tavavex 2y ago

> "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing. That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position? The way minimum guaranteed income would benefit you is twofold. One way is similar to how any other tax payments that don't benefit you directly provide a safety margin - I've never had a house fire, but I pay for services that cover my fire department because I know that if I'm ever in that situation, they will help me. I'm not in poverty, but my money subsidizes poverty benefits, and if I ever get in that situation, it will help me too. The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty and contribute far more than they otherwise would. Being poor is insanely expensive, and once you have more liabilities than assets, they tend to explode and become completely unsustainable. Poor people can't relocate (or even live anywhere) for better opportunities; they can't get education and will often remain low-wage, unprofessional workers; they can't afford healthcare (in the US) and will leave illnesses untreated until they can barely do anything at all, or die. Fixing any of these three leads to more income for businesses and more tax money for the government. For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love portraying any form of welfare as letting people live in luxury for nothing. Minimum income, as it is proposed, doesn't come anywhere close to being something you can live your whole life off of. It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily - it's money you pay debts off, money to educate yourself, money to cure yourself - not what you live off. That's why it's so infuriating to hear people double down time and time again about how America's most hated class are all just lazy, bloated slobs, because in this hypothetical world, they have the audacity to receive a couple thousand dollars in benefits.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position? It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be forgiven for thinking I'm exaggerating. I get that your values are different than mine and that you want different things. You don't even seem to be aware that I want different things. "But but but! How could you not want wonderful European-style welfare" I just don't. Saying "but you should want them because you're like me and I want them"... I'm not like you. I couldn't be like you if I tried, and I'm not inclined to try. You saying that I "benefit" from these things indicates you think I "receive good things" from them... but I don't receive any benefit or good thing, those are not things I want. Benefits aren't objective. They are subjective. Absolutely, undeniably subjective. When you make it sound like they are objective, you are lying to yourself. Lying so badly to yourself that when you lose elections, you are confused and angry about it. "How are they brainwashed into going against their own self-interests?!?!?!" you oxymoron about. No, other people just have different interest than you. It's impossible to go against your own self-interests (short of coercion... even then, one might argue that you're still doing so, to avoid the blackmail/torture/whatever). >The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty I grew up on foodstamps. I would have preferred starving. I want nothing from you. Your charity, however well-intentioned you believe it to be, is toxic and demeaning, and you refuse the evidence of your own eyes when you see it fail to work as you believe it would. I do not wish to pay for anyone else's foodstamps... they're better off figuring out how to survive for themselves. >For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love It should at least occur to you that when someone like me can't explain things to you such that you're able to see our point of view, that other more regrettable (for both of us) futures await. >It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily Safety is illusory. Chasing it is futile and even shameful. >That's why it's so infuriating The fury of people who want safety nets is pathetic. You should use the word "frustrating", you don't sound capable of true fury.