3 ms·

> Here is my question: If a majority of the people in the country support this, why are they all not already doing it? Because they are not a psychically linke

by chc 13y ago

> Here is my question: If a majority of the people in the country support this, why are they all not already doing it? Because they are not a psychically linked hive mind. The way the majority of people in a country coordinate the flow of resources through society is through the government. That's what's happening here. This is a bit like asking, "If you want peace, why don't you just drop out of the war?" The coordination is an essential part of the outcome.

sp332 13y ago
You have it backwards. I'm asking "If you want peace, why did you personally decide to start shooting those guys with no mandate from the government?"
- chc 13y ago
  You seem to be straining the analogy well beyond the actual comparison being made, to the point where I have no idea what you're talking about. The point is that one party in a fight stopping shooting does not constitute peace and one person giving a small amount of money to one other person does not accomplish the same goals as a basic income. I do give to charity, but the net effect of this is not a proportionally scaled down version of the effect of a basic income.
  - sp332 13y ago
    This was never supposed to be a personal attack or pointed commentary. The question is not some rhetorical device. It's just a question: If the majority of people in a country want their money to go to the poor, why would they force themselves into the agreement? What's the advantage to being coerced by a government, over voluntary action? Edit: changed "each other" to "themselves" since that's closer to what's confusing me.
    - chc 13y ago
      It isn't that "they want their money to go to the poor," per se. This program is not means-tested. And it isn't really that they're forcing each other into agreement. As I said earlier, the idea is for the giving to be coordinated in a specific way. Individual transfers of money are not a scaled-down version of a basic income. The scale is essential to the integrity of the program. Many of these people may very well already give money to the poor. I don't see why you assume they don't. But the guarantee is the killer feature here, and you can't accomplish that by your lonesome, or even as a small group. A version of this that doesn't cover everyone is not the same thing at all.

by chc 13y ago

sp332 13y ago

You have it backwards. I'm asking "If you want peace, why did you personally decide to start shooting those guys with no mandate from the government?"

chc 13y ago
You seem to be straining the analogy well beyond the actual comparison being made, to the point where I have no idea what you're talking about. The point is that one party in a fight stopping shooting does not constitute peace and one person giving a small amount of money to one other person does not accomplish the same goals as a basic income. I do give to charity, but the net effect of this is not a proportionally scaled down version of the effect of a basic income.
- sp332 13y ago
  This was never supposed to be a personal attack or pointed commentary. The question is not some rhetorical device. It's just a question: If the majority of people in a country want their money to go to the poor, why would they force themselves into the agreement? What's the advantage to being coerced by a government, over voluntary action? Edit: changed "each other" to "themselves" since that's closer to what's confusing me.
  - chc 13y ago
    It isn't that "they want their money to go to the poor," per se. This program is not means-tested. And it isn't really that they're forcing each other into agreement. As I said earlier, the idea is for the giving to be coordinated in a specific way. Individual transfers of money are not a scaled-down version of a basic income. The scale is essential to the integrity of the program. Many of these people may very well already give money to the poor. I don't see why you assume they don't. But the guarantee is the killer feature here, and you can't accomplish that by your lonesome, or even as a small group. A version of this that doesn't cover everyone is not the same thing at all.