What are your thoughts on a basic income instead of welfare programs?

insectlife said:
Take your 6th form Marxism and fuck off home to Russia you commie bastard.

This is WF bro: Individualism > Collectivism.

There are no acts of altruism, self-interest dictates all.

Oh, and the state is a cunt as well in case you didn't get that part of the memo. :)
Click to expand...

Where in my post do I reference, much less support the state in any way?

Using 'natural selection' or 'darwinism' in a social context is nothing more than a cheap way to excuse actions that in another context would be considered morally questionable, or completely devoid of moral pause or thought. Not to mention it's, you know, completely fucking inaccurate and a farcical way to apply the theory.

Self-interest does not dictate all - at least from a biological perspective. You should read up on Grandmothering if you haven't been exposed to the literature surrounding it as an evolutionary survival mechanism.

Plugging self-interest as if it means fucking anything outside of the life-history of a single human at the expense of collective altruism will be the undoing of our species.

Still trying to figure out where you interpreted what I said as Communism or support for a state body.

My perfect world is pretty close to what most of the ACs on here would like to see one day. I'm just extremely fatalistic about the likelihood that a single society will ever reach this point, much less our entire species.
 


qqbot said:
If the government did that, I would probably open a liquor store that would sell nothing but bum wine and malt liquor. Profits would go towards getting the fuck out of the country permanently. This sounds like what the government up here in Canada does for a lot of natives already, the effects are clearly and obviously fucking negative.
Click to expand...

That's my problem with it too. On the surface it sounds nice, but in reality, I wonder how many people would actually use it for food/transportation/rent etc and not alcohol/drugs/gambling. I wish there was a state/area screwy enough to actually try it. Along with cutting the minimum wage in half or something.
 
If you can't secure it without forcing someone else to take action or violating their person or property, it's not a right. Proponents of a basic income may as well cut to the chase and start figuring out what the basic allotment of real estate for each citizen should be, because what good is having a garaunteed income if you have to spend most of it on rent, right?

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
 
charlesmartel said:
And who will write this blank czech?
Click to expand...

j5juKa7.gif


Nooooooooooooooooo. I pressed the wrong button!!

Screen_Shot_2014_08_10_at_9_36_40_PM.png


I LIKED IT! There is no UN-Do!!!
 
I'd be interested in seeing some data on how much this costs in tax money compared to the current system. At first I thought that it would be a no-brainer that it would be cheaper the way we have it now, but I'm sure there are factors I haven't immediately considered like a smaller amount of money going to government workers dealing with current social programs.
 
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." ~ Albert Camus
 
Antics said:
Where in my post do I reference, much less support the state in any way?

Using 'natural selection' or 'darwinism' in a social context is nothing more than a cheap way to excuse actions that in another context would be considered morally questionable, or completely devoid of moral pause or thought. Not to mention it's, you know, completely fucking inaccurate and a farcical way to apply the theory.

Self-interest does not dictate all - at least from a biological perspective. You should read up on Grandmothering if you haven't been exposed to the literature surrounding it as an evolutionary survival mechanism.

Plugging self-interest as if it means fucking anything outside of the life-history of a single human at the expense of collective altruism will be the undoing of our species.

Still trying to figure out where you interpreted what I said as Communism or support for a state body.

My perfect world is pretty close to what most of the ACs on here would like to see one day. I'm just extremely fatalistic about the likelihood that a single society will ever reach this point, much less our entire species.
Click to expand...

Was joking. Just paraphrasing the three main pillars of WF's politics.
 
I don't know why but this post reminded me of an old NES game I used to have when I was a kid. I don't think there is anything else quite like it on the NES. It was called overlord and it was a kind of strategy/resource management game. You started off on a home world that you had control of and the goal was the terra form and annex other planets. There was I think the computer doing the same thing from the other side of the map. You had to also attack at times and defend against attacks in real time sections. You're income came from taxes and I think you might have been able to sell things you bought at a loss but I'm not sure. Tax rates could be adjusted up or down. If you raised taxes too high you would start losing population the higher the taxes the quicker population would go down. Conversely if you lowered taxes population would go up, again the lower the taxes the faster the growth. Being a mildy clever and somewhat devious lad I came up with the scheme of early on lowing taxes to the bare minimum which I think was something like 4%. Your planet had a max population I think it was 20 million and as soon as I hit that I would jack taxes up to the maximum they could be without losing population the sweet spot where there is no growth or loss. Maybe I might try to find this game and fire up ol'Nesticle.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8b45jvTDRc[/ame]
 
IceToEskimos said:
If you can't secure it without forcing someone else to take action or violating their person or property, it's not a right. Proponents of a basic income may as well cut to the chase and start figuring out what the basic allotment of real estate for each citizen should be, because what good is having a garaunteed income if you have to spend most of it on rent, right?

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

That's what the free market is for. It solves the hard problems for you, so you don't have to. It's like Jesus, but more realistic. You don't have to spend it on rent, it's your choice.

charlesmartel said:
And who will write this blank czech?
Click to expand...

You will with the less money you would be spending on taxes. This would be more efficient than the money you're already being forced to spend on taxes.

Basic income is simply more money, less taxes. I don't see why so many of you think that this such a bad idea.

potentialeight said:
I'd be interested in seeing some data on how much this costs in tax money compared to the current system. At first I thought that it would be a no-brainer that it would be cheaper the way we have it now, but I'm sure there are factors I haven't immediately considered like a smaller amount of money going to government workers dealing with current social programs.
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone will take it in the ass because of the change in policy. It would be interesting to find out who.
 
Antics said:
I like you.

Really though, stop bastardizing the theory of natural selection because using it in a social context makes about as much sense as trying to build an atomic bomb out of coal would.
Click to expand...

5000 years ago, you crush your foot out hunting mammoth. You can no longer run or hunt. Do we set you up in a cave (taking up prime survival real estate) and pander to your every need or leave you outside to be a saber tooth snack?

Now ask why? Because we're cruel? Or because dead weight hinders the ability of the rest of us to survive (and even prosper). The details of societal norms change over time but the basics of economics (survival mechanisms) don't.

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. That's the marriage between natural selection and society. If you don't see the sense in that, then I know which side of the previous equation you're on.

But yeah, give dumb people more money because of their inability to acquire it themselves. Not like it'll stay in their pocket long. A whole new generation of acai buying idiots, I'm on board. Maybe they need new ringtones too. Giddyup.
 
This must be what it feels like for a woman when she's asked "Do you wanna be raped in the cooter or vajayjay?"
 
Grindstone said:
5000 years ago, you crush your foot out hunting mammoth. You can no longer run or hunt. Do we set you up in a cave (taking up prime survival real estate) and pander to your every need or leave you outside to be a saber tooth snack?

Now ask why? Because we're cruel? Or because dead weight hinders the ability of the rest of us to survive (and even prosper). The details of societal norms change over time but the basics of economics (survival mechanisms) don't.

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. That's the marriage between natural selection and society. If you don't see the sense in that, then I know which side of the previous equation you're on.

But yeah, give dumb people more money because of their inability to acquire it themselves. Not like it'll stay in their pocket long. A whole new generation of acai buying idiots, I'm on board. Maybe they need new ringtones too. Giddyup.
Click to expand...

I don't remember ever saying I was in support of establishing a minimum income - I'm pointing out your flagrant misuse of 'natural selection' to rationalize your own world-view.

Not that there's anything wrong your world-view, it is your own and we all have one. It's an intrinsic part of the human experience.

Natural selection goes out the window the moment we are dealing with socially constructed pressures, like poverty and income.

It's not 'natural' in the most literal sense. Stop using it as a way to rationalize your world-view because it's like trying to see the craters on Mars by looking through a tube of toilet paper.

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm attacking you or your viewpoints but I'm very tired of seeing people misrepresent natural selection as a mechanism to provide them with some facade of credibility.

Besides, the dog-eat-dog mentality is a vestige of Darwin's own limited scope (perpetuated by Spencer) in his understanding of natural selection and evolutionary theory on the whole. It's not really representative of how nature itself even functions.
 
Eldarion said:
I don't know why but this post reminded me of an old NES game I used to have when I was a kid. I don't think there is anything else quite like it on the NES. It was called overlord and it was a kind of strategy/resource management game. You started off on a home world that you had control of and the goal was the terra form and annex other planets. There was I think the computer doing the same thing from the other side of the map. You had to also attack at times and defend against attacks in real time sections. You're income came from taxes and I think you might have been able to sell things you bought at a loss but I'm not sure. Tax rates could be adjusted up or down. If you raised taxes too high you would start losing population the higher the taxes the quicker population would go down. Conversely if you lowered taxes population would go up, again the lower the taxes the faster the growth. Being a mildy clever and somewhat devious lad I came up with the scheme of early on lowing taxes to the bare minimum which I think was something like 4%. Your planet had a max population I think it was 20 million and as soon as I hit that I would jack taxes up to the maximum they could be without losing population the sweet spot where there is no growth or loss. Maybe I might try to find this game and fire up ol'Nesticle.

Overlord - NES Gameplay - YouTube
Click to expand...
JNes is much better these days imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom