4 ms·

Him giving to the poor doesn't achieve the same goal as a government providing a basic wage to all. Yes, you can help some people, but this is a change in the

by Ntrails 13y ago

Him giving to the poor doesn't achieve the same goal as a government providing a basic wage to all. Yes, you can help some people, but this is a change in the very fabric of society. In how people choose to live, to strive or to squander. This is a remarkable piece of legislation and truly exciting to observe.

humanrebar 13y ago
I think it's fair to ask tough questions before one experiments with the fabric of society. It will likely be interesting and exciting if the legislation passes, but will it be better or even good?
- chc 13y ago
  Tough questions are welcome, but they won't sound like "Well, if you think a nationwide basic income is such a good idea, why don't you do it yourself?" That question is only tough because there is no underlying logic to respond to — it's a lazy talking point intended to impugn the other side's motives rather than address the actual issue at hand.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Ok, you're the 3rd person in this thread who thinks I'm making an accusation. What accusation am I making? What motives am I imputing to swombat?
    - chc 13y ago
      You're not criticizing the idea swombat is proposing. Instead, you're questioning swombat's current actions.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      It appears that I agree with you objection, but the heavy use of the word "you" in your question comes across hostile and personal. If you phrased your question in a more passive tone or otherwise referred to unnamed third parties, I'm sure this conversation would have much less of an edge.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    I agree that the objection is unconvincing as phrased. However, if we all agree that "Someone Should Do Something About X", then why does it necessarily follow that government should decree that "Everyone Must Do The Following Things About X: ..."? There are some gaps in logic there that (commendable!) fervor about poverty does not cover. It's fair to ask whether poverty can be helped by channeling that fervor towards less coercive and bureaucratic (and possibly more effective) outlets.
ctdonath 13y ago
Yes it does achieve the same on a per-capita level. Do the math, and just start doing the part you intend to compel others to. If you're not willing to voluntarily take on one complete stranger and pay him a "basic wage" out of your own pocket, don't compel (with threat of fine/imprisonment) everyone else to do the same. This is a terrifying piece of legislation precisely because it is a change in the very fabric of society, in how people are compelled to support others regardless of whether they will strive or squander - and that anyone choosing to not support such a devaluing of human worth will be punished via the police power of the state.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  > Do the math, and just start doing the part This provides the money transfer, but it does not provide the safety net. > devaluing of human worth There are two ways I can interpret 'devaluing' here, and I don't understand how either one makes sense. Iff 'dropping the value of the money', it does not drop the value to move and spend money. Iff 'devaluing people', how in the world does it devalue people to make a rule that they deserve a certain amount of the nation's production, to enjoy food and such with? I could understand if you said it devalued the ideal of gainful employment, but that's not what you said...
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    If you're not willing to provide at least a tiny part of the safety net for one person on your own, I don't think you're serious enough about it for me to give up what safety net I'm already providing to others without compulsion. As for "devaluing", it's akin to giving kids awards for just showing up. If you're physically and mentally capable of caring for yourself, do so; giving you a "living guaranteed income" just for existing devalues what you're able to contribute to yourself and society. Yes, I understand the idea that it's somehow "fair and simple"; I also understand that such altruistic abstractions fail hard in reality. I've seen the profoundly infirm earn a living, and I've seen the wholly capable wreck what they have on the premise that someone else would replace it. The truly needy I gladly give aid to; I despise these movements toward compulsory support of those whose only need is a reason to get up and produce.

by Ntrails 13y ago

humanrebar 13y ago

I think it's fair to ask tough questions before one experiments with the fabric of society. It will likely be interesting and exciting if the legislation passes, but will it be better or even good?

chc 13y ago
Tough questions are welcome, but they won't sound like "Well, if you think a nationwide basic income is such a good idea, why don't you do it yourself?" That question is only tough because there is no underlying logic to respond to — it's a lazy talking point intended to impugn the other side's motives rather than address the actual issue at hand.
- sp332 13y ago
  Ok, you're the 3rd person in this thread who thinks I'm making an accusation. What accusation am I making? What motives am I imputing to swombat?
  - chc 13y ago
    You're not criticizing the idea swombat is proposing. Instead, you're questioning swombat's current actions.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    It appears that I agree with you objection, but the heavy use of the word "you" in your question comes across hostile and personal. If you phrased your question in a more passive tone or otherwise referred to unnamed third parties, I'm sure this conversation would have much less of an edge.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I agree that the objection is unconvincing as phrased. However, if we all agree that "Someone Should Do Something About X", then why does it necessarily follow that government should decree that "Everyone Must Do The Following Things About X: ..."? There are some gaps in logic there that (commendable!) fervor about poverty does not cover. It's fair to ask whether poverty can be helped by channeling that fervor towards less coercive and bureaucratic (and possibly more effective) outlets.

ctdonath 13y ago

Yes it does achieve the same on a per-capita level. Do the math, and just start doing the part you intend to compel others to. If you're not willing to voluntarily take on one complete stranger and pay him a "basic wage" out of your own pocket, don't compel (with threat of fine/imprisonment) everyone else to do the same. This is a terrifying piece of legislation precisely because it is a change in the very fabric of society, in how people are compelled to support others regardless of whether they will strive or squander - and that anyone choosing to not support such a devaluing of human worth will be punished via the police power of the state.

Dylan16807 13y ago
> Do the math, and just start doing the part This provides the money transfer, but it does not provide the safety net. > devaluing of human worth There are two ways I can interpret 'devaluing' here, and I don't understand how either one makes sense. Iff 'dropping the value of the money', it does not drop the value to move and spend money. Iff 'devaluing people', how in the world does it devalue people to make a rule that they deserve a certain amount of the nation's production, to enjoy food and such with? I could understand if you said it devalued the ideal of gainful employment, but that's not what you said...
- ctdonath 13y ago
  If you're not willing to provide at least a tiny part of the safety net for one person on your own, I don't think you're serious enough about it for me to give up what safety net I'm already providing to others without compulsion. As for "devaluing", it's akin to giving kids awards for just showing up. If you're physically and mentally capable of caring for yourself, do so; giving you a "living guaranteed income" just for existing devalues what you're able to contribute to yourself and society. Yes, I understand the idea that it's somehow "fair and simple"; I also understand that such altruistic abstractions fail hard in reality. I've seen the profoundly infirm earn a living, and I've seen the wholly capable wreck what they have on the premise that someone else would replace it. The truly needy I gladly give aid to; I despise these movements toward compulsory support of those whose only need is a reason to get up and produce.