5 ms·
You mean the smart phone they would use use for direction and communication while going out looking for prospective clients, and so they don't need a fixed Inte
by mkr-hn 14y ago
You mean the smart phone they would use use for direction and communication while going out looking for prospective clients, and so they don't need a fixed Internet connection like cable?
And the big screen could easily double as a second monitor for doing work on a laptop.
- kevinskii 14y agoIf everyone were entitled to everything that might possibly be used to improve his circumstances, then everyone would be entitled to everything.
- mkr-hn 14y agoHow does B follow from A? Where does A even come from? No one said A.
- kevinskii 14y agoYou seem to have suggested that there are legitimate reasons for someone to buy a smart phone or large television using government benefits. If this is not what you meant, then kindly clarify.
- mkr-hn 14y agoThe point of a basic income is to ensure everyone has the means to improve their standing, and keep from sliding into abject poverty. Any use of the funds that furthers that goal is legitimate. Social pressure can be exerted to limit frivolous uses, but it's easy for that to go too far and become counterproductive. The worst that happens is someone has more than they need. And then what happens? One of two things: 1: It sits in the bank, where it's lent out for investment 2: It's spent, possibly on something optional but still legitimately useful and non-frivolous, in which case it flows back out into the economy I don't see a bad outcome. The vast majority of people want to have the self-esteem boost of fulfilling employment, and will seek it out once they're not stuck in the welfare trap. There's even a solid chance this will bring civilization to a point where no one needs a minimum income.
- kevinskii 14y agoBy your logic, it would be perfectly ok for the government to give each of us a billion dollars a year. Is this what you believe? If not, why not?
- mkr-hn 14y agoWe're talking about basic income for the purpose of ending poverty, not giving people a billion dollars every year for some undefined purpose. Your hypothetical is nonsense.
- kevinskii 14y agoOf course it's nonsense. And if you articulate why, I think you would see that your basic income argument is nonsense for mostly the same reason. I'm probably just preaching to the choir, so you can have the last word if you want it.
- mkr-hn 14y agoI'm sure there's some useful academic term for what you're doing here.
- kragen 14y agoI think it's called "reasoning" or "logic".
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- lilsunnybee 14y agoAppeal to ridicule? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
- lilsunnybee 14y ago
- nitrogen 14y agoWhy should you be the one to choose the particular definition of "enough" that applies to everyone?
- zem 14y agoor, well, the smartphone they would use for email, maps, games and web-browsing, and the big screen they would use to watch tv and movies on! do you really think we live in a society impoverished enough that providing basic luxuries to the poor would be an overall hardship?
- mkr-hn 14y agoI didn't want to cede so much ground to someone so obviously anti-poor at the outset. Better to limit it to the point and reduce the risk of a derail. Something like "so you think poor people should use government money on toys" would have appeared almost instantly and prevented the few good comments that came out of the discussion.
- kevinskii 14y agoIf I believed that poverty were primarily caused by a lack of opportunity and a concentration of economic power, then no, I wouldn't have any problem with providing basic luxuries to those who couldn't otherwise enjoy them.