Does Your Social or Political Bias Override Your Reasoning Ability?

[Opcode]

Implement a Universal Basic Income and yes, you would absolutely get the money, whether you need it or not. Everybody would.

The results of UBI experiments around the world have been mixed, depending largely on how it was implemented and what group was on the receiving end.

 

[Opcode]

It's the classic biblical line, oft used by "conservatives", rightists and god botherers as an excuse for doing nothing.

The actual biblical line comes from Jesus, who said, "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me." Hopefully, people won't use that as an excuse for doing nothing, but also realize that this problem won't be solved.

 

[arthwollipot]

The results of UBI experiments around the world have been mixed, depending largely on how it was implemented and what group was on the receiving end.

Nobody has tested an actual UBI. The experiments that have been done so far have been done in a limited way, with a limited population, for a limited time. The results we have, though, have been promising enough to justify larger trials.

 

[catsmate]

It's literally the definition of "conservative". Conserve the status quo. Don't change anything. Tradition over innovation.

But 'conservatism' used to stand for controlled, managed, change not knee-jerk refusal of any change.
Where is Burke these days?

 

[catsmate]

When applied to social and political issues, skepticism is seen as pedantry.

Evidence?

Advocacy and activism dominate the discussions. And on very contentious topics, people don't want to concede any ground, as that video demonstrates, or the terrorists win.

????

If you're seriously trying to investigate whether Democrats really did something they're accused of doing, you're a clown. You're also probably neurodivergent, maybe you have some hidden agenda. "Sounds like something they would do" is how normal people react.

Now this is just getting silly.

 

[Darat]

The actual biblical line comes from Jesus, who said, "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me." Hopefully, people won't use that as an excuse for doing nothing, but also realize that this problem won't be solved.

Thankfully we don’t have to refer to what the writers of the bible thought was solvable or not. Whilst I did simplify how we fix the problem of poverty “give those in poverty money” the detailed solution is not much more complex - “give those in poverty wealth”.

 

[Helen]

Thankfully we don’t have to refer to what the writers of the bible thought was solvable or not. Whilst I did simplify how we fix the problem of poverty “give those in poverty money” the detailed solution is not much more complex - “give those in poverty wealth”.

Giving the poor money benefits society as a whole - the formerly poor spend their money on consumables, thus keeping the wheels turning. Giving money, in the form of tax breaks and the kinds of welfare we give to the rich, that is not called welfare, does not. They just sit on it to make it make more money, or buy luxury yachts. With extra luxury yachts to land their heliocpters on, when at sea. That's not going to keep the shop on the corner going.

I think we should feed the hungry and give money to the poor for other reasons, but the above is quite a good reason as well.

 

[8enotto]

The question to answer is two generations ahead of the implementation of any program.

Will this create a productive or parasitic population mass?
If productive it means elements were put in place to prevent the capable from becoming to lazy to actually be productive. Or worse rules that encourage people to make no personal effort to stay on the program.
People are crafty and will put up with a lot to stay lazy.

Socialism works until everyone else's money is gone.

Yes, assist the elderly or those genuinely in need but the rest must participate in a productive society. Or all will fail together.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

We actually do give some people, even a lot of people who are in poverty, enough money to make them wealthy. We call that the lottery. What we find is that the majority of lottery winners quickly spend all their money and wind up back where they were, often in even worse condition. The same thing often happens to professional athletes, too. People who have not learned how to earn money often don't know how to manage money. Simply giving them money only gets these people into trouble.

You've convinced me. To keep you out of trouble, I will try not to give you money.

It's like how people seem to think poverty is a hard problem to solve - there is of course a very simple solution.

Beyond the politically correct simple solutions that often fail to address future generations, there is a simple solution that would solve the problem for all time, making money irrelevant. That solution became technologically possible barely 70 years ago: all-out thermonuclear war.

It is conceivable that global warming* could become a solution, but I doubt it. It's happening all too fast, but I doubt whether it will be fast enough to wipe out our entire species (and all poverty) before we can adapt to our more impoverished future. As noted by that NASA web page*, "The current warming trend is unequivocally the result of human activity since the 1950s and is proceeding at an unprecedented rate over millennia."

*I'm surprised that NASA web page is still up.

 

[Darat]

The question to answer is two generations ahead of the implementation of any program.

Will this create a productive or parasitic population mass?
If productive it means elements were put in place to prevent the capable from becoming to lazy to actually be productive. Or worse rules that encourage people to make no personal effort to stay on the program.
People are crafty and will put up with a lot to stay lazy.

Socialism works until everyone else's money is gone.

Yes, assist the elderly or those genuinely in need but the rest must participate in a productive society. Or all will fail together.

Why don't we apply that to the those that will have inherited wealth and will pass that wealth on to continue them being the only ones to have wealth? As Helen says we give a lot of welfare to those, we just use different words to avoid saying it is welfare. A classic one from the UK is that at one time we had "mortgage interest tax relief" i.e. welfare for those that could afford and qualify for a mortgage, in other words it was welfare for the wealthy, and whilst that welfare no longer exists it means those people were able to build up their wealth which they can then pass on to their inheritors, locking that wealth away for generations.

 

[catsmate]

You've convinced me. To keep you out of trouble, I will try not to give you money.


Beyond the politically correct simple solutions that often fail to address future generations, there is a simple solution that would solve the problem for all time, making money irrelevant. That solution became technologically possible barely 70 years ago: all-out thermonuclear war.

It is conceivable that global warming* could become a solution, but I doubt it. It's happening all too fast, but I doubt whether it will be fast enough to wipe out our entire species (and all poverty) before we can adapt to our more impoverished future. As noted by that NASA web page*, "The current warming trend is unequivocally the result of human activity since the 1950s and is proceeding at an unprecedented rate over millennia."

*I'm surprised that NASA web page is still up.

What about a good plague? Kill off the unproductive people.

 

[8enotto]

Why would you strip the holdings of anyone away? Just make everyone subject to the same rules across the board. Like that flat tax thing that never gets passed anywhere, or ever despite seeming so popular.

Those in power have a nasty tendency of somehow becoming wealthier the more time in power. Figure out how to break that cycle and maybe they won't be so willing to benefit themselves.

I am all in favor of those who work harder being allowed to keep what they earned in an honest manner.
I don't think anyone wants to pool resources and divide them all equally so all the useless tweakers end up with the same "wealth" as the guy who built five solid businesses.
Some would not have a clue how to manage more than the quantity they need for a daily fix.

I stayed clean and worked hard most all of my adult life to have a nicer home. Others worked harder to have a nice truck and fishing boat.
Don't tell us we are being unfair to people that didn't put in extra effort beyond caveman survival with wide-screen TV.

Programs to help the elderly and disabled should also be in place, properly managed of course.

 

[Darat]

Why would you strip the holdings of anyone away? Just make everyone subject to the same rules across the board. Like that flat tax thing that never gets passed anywhere, or ever despite seeming so popular.

Those in power have a nasty tendency of somehow becoming wealthier the more time in power. Figure out how to break that cycle and maybe they won't be so willing to benefit themselves.

I am all in favor of those who work harder being allowed to keep what they earned in an honest manner. I don't think anyone wants to pool resources and divide them all equally so all the useless tweakers end up with the same "wealth" as the guy who built five solid businesses.
Some would not have a clue how to manage more than the quantity they need for a daily fix.

I stayed clean and worked hard most all of my adult life to have a nicer home. Others worked harder to have a nice truck and fishing boat.
Don't tell us we are being unfair to people that didn't put in extra effort beyond caveman survival with wide-screen TV.

Programs to help the elderly and disabled should also be in place, properly managed of course.

That would require a massive change in most societies.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

What about a good plague? Kill off the unproductive people.

Well, in the 1840s a bunch of land owners in this archipelago did try starving a load of folk to death...

Not to mention all the shifting those folk and others off the land they had previously occupied in order for the larger scale land owners to profit...

 

[Opcode]

It's literally the definition of "conservative". Conserve the status quo. Don't change anything. Tradition over innovation.

In discussions of this type, a point often made is that Conservatism is not stagnation. Conservatism does not mean, "No Change." It means slow change, careful change, and not change for the sake of change. Conservatism says that we should not throw away the ideas and efforts of hundreds of years just to implement new ideas. In contrast, Liberalism seeks to sever its ties to the past, making a radical break to implement the untested and new.

 

[Opcode]

Thankfully we don’t have to refer to what the writers of the bible thought was solvable or not. Whilst I did simplify how we fix the problem of poverty “give those in poverty money” the detailed solution is not much more complex - “give those in poverty wealth”.

It remains to be seen whether this is a solution or just another waste of money.

 

[Opcode]

You've convinced me. To keep you out of trouble, I will try not to give you money.

You seem to be succeeding so far!

 

[Opcode]

Giving the poor money benefits society as a whole - the formerly poor spend their money on consumables, thus keeping the wheels turning. Giving money, in the form of tax breaks and the kinds of welfare we give to the rich, that is not called welfare, does not. They just sit on it

Nobody "just sits on" millions of dollars. They invest it or keep it in banks, where it is used to build new wealth creation machines.

to make it make more money,

That is, creates wealth, which ultimately benefits society.

 

[arthwollipot]

The question to answer is two generations ahead of the implementation of any program.

Will this create a productive or parasitic population mass?
If productive it means elements were put in place to prevent the capable from becoming to lazy to actually be productive. Or worse rules that encourage people to make no personal effort to stay on the program.
People are crafty and will put up with a lot to stay lazy.

Socialism works until everyone else's money is gone.

Yes, assist the elderly or those genuinely in need but the rest must participate in a productive society. Or all will fail together.

What does "productive" mean and why is it necessary?

I'd be more than happy for a hundred people to be (as you call them) "parasites" if it means a single child does not starve to death.

What a UBI would do is free up people from the daily grind - the day to day effort of simply making enough money to put food on the table. People would be free to take a paying job if they want to, and many or probably most people will. Staying barely above the poverty line is not enough for many. They want their luxuries and and their fancy food.

It also means that the really ◊◊◊◊◊◊ jobs - the fruit pickers and the garbage collectors - will have to pay sufficiently for people to be motivated to do them. In other words, what they're actually worth rather than the minimum employers think they can get away with.

And with people no longer having to spend all day putting food on the table, there will be a creative renaissance, an explosion in the arts and hand-made goods, and I would argue that this is at least as productive and good for society as a desk drone job.

 

[Opcode]

What does "productive" mean and why is it necessary?

Productive means turning non-usable resources into useful items.

I'd be more than happy for a hundred people to be (as you call them) "parasites" if it means a single child does not starve to death.

The very few children who starve to death in the Western world usually do so for reasons other than the parents could not afford to buy food.

In the '90s, I lived in a slum of an apartment complex in East Texas. Our slumlord took food stamps, or pretty much anything else, as payment for rent. I knew a family whose children had only dry cereal to eat just a few days after getting food stamps, because the parents used the food stamps to buy silly things, like a tent. I don't remember how they managed to make that trade.

What a UBI would do is free up people from the daily grind - the day to day effort of simply making enough money to put food on the table. People would be free to take a paying job if they want to, and many or probably most people will.

We have trouble getting people to show up for work now.

Staying barely above the poverty line is not enough for many. They want their luxuries and and their fancy food.

Most people waste a lot of money.

And with people no longer having to spend all day putting food on the table, there will be a creative renaissance, an explosion in the arts and hand-made goods,

Like what happened with the Internet! Desktop publishing and then Web pages unleashed the creative forces of the oppressed masses, and the world was filled with stunning, new literature!

and I would argue that this is at least as productive and good for society as a desk drone job.

You can take the drone away from the desk, but you can't take the drone out of the drone.