Universal Basic Income and Right to Painless Suicide : the 2 Keys of Freedom

[stygal]

I'm all here for it - I don't wanna work any longer and have enough options to never be bored from just idling. Plus I feel like even without UBI our governments pretty much control every step we are able to take - so I don't give a shit about that either.

Just give me enough money to barely get by, I actually don't have many wishes and just wanna eat/drink/sleep and check internet (or use stuff I already own) :D.

 

[LansJ70]

UBI= a child's fantasy, a fairy tale, wishing that money just grew on trees.
UBI = socialism = slavery.

It's not long ago that Douglas Social Credit was hugely popular in the UK, while pre WW2 you might think people were thickies, there were tens of thousands of people (at a time when the population was well under 3 billion world wide) in the UK who were in groups, associations, did communal food growing and etc in the belief that machines should make everyones life easier, rather than the few who owned the machines richer, while the masses lost their jobs to those machines and then suffered poverty.

A careful management of the money supply would allow this to happen, but first it doesn't go down well with bankers and the rich who want more for themselves and less for everyone else, and also after ww2 it was deemed anti semetic.

An economic theory designed to improve the lives of all is essentially deemed fascist, and that was the end of that. Dare to talk about it, discuss it, teach it, write about it, your academic career is over, funding cut off, and that's that.

This is how academia works, you tow the line to the big money men, or get fired.

The End.

 

[Alwaysbadtime]

Sorry, this is a very utopian concept that isn't realistic. I recently learned about the horrible conditions in Libya and the slave and prostitution trade there. If one really gets to know world issues, corruption and injustices one would see clearly that there will never be a universal anything.

Giving someone free money just for being a citizen would destablize the jobs that need doing. No one would feel the need to work...shitty jobs would go unfilled. There are billions upon billions of people. If everyone...Cambodians, Indians, Russians, Sudanese were safe overpopulation would soar even more.

It's ridiculous thinking. This is just mental masterbation and fodder...I'm really shocked that suicidal people could believe something like this could ever be possible.

This idea negates the injustices and the horrible governments killing and terrorizing people. This is a fantasy. Just because you exist doesn't mean you are entitled to government support for decades upon decades. Do you expect them to buy you a car so you can get to grocery store to get free food? Transportation to drs for free healthcare and trips to pharmacy for free drugs?

This is a concept only people in 1st world countries contemplate and it's never going to happen for any country. No one owes you money just for being a HUMAN BEING.

 

[Alwaysbadtime]

As long as we have gang rape death of goat there is no hope. Reality is harsh. No one will pay for your neverending shiit.

 

[OnlyTheWind]

Maybe when humans workers are replaced by robots? I'll be the sad, sad guy wearing diamond chains and a Rolex. Then when I get tired of it all, I'll go to my local euthanasia clinic, haha.

 

[settheory]

UBI is a nice idea indeed. We could fund UBI the same way we fund other social welfare programs like education or healthcare. Many arguments against UBI are really just arguments against government welfare. It might even be a good replacement for minimum wages because minimum wage acts very much like a regressive tax on small businesses (still better to have it or something similar if there is no UBI). But it might be better to fund UBI partially or fully through land value tax (LVT) (tax on pure value of land but not improvements on it). (unimproved) Land represents a very big portion of natural resources, so a UBI funded only by LVT would be like distributing portion of land or natural resources equally, except u don't need to actually to actually hold the resource or land but only value from it in the form of money.
if UBI is so big that too much people stop working than we can just lower it until we find optimal UBI (tho people not working is not a problem per se ), though it probably won't be a problem if funded purely by LVT because it does not take a portion from any person's labour or even profit, and the possibility that LVT funded UBI makes some people not work is not a bad consequence but a good sign, sign of a high resource efficiency. And probably the most just way to own land or a natural resource is to pay the community a fair share for exclusive usage, LVT is one of possible ways to do it.

 

[lostangel]

Why is everyone so hostile? what happened to this site

 

[whywere]

Why is everyone so hostile? what happened to this site

I agree, WE ALL ARE AND SHOULD BE FAMILY FIRST AND FOREMOST PERIOD! You are a very kind, thoughtful, and good hearted soul.
Walter

 

[NeverReallyHere]

For a basic economics lesson of WHY UBI doesn't work: in a nutshell: becaues a country cannot consume more than it produces. Because money does not grow on trees.

Er, money's not the same thing as production, dude. Probably shouldn't be giving basic lessons in economics if you don't understand that.

 

[watchingthewheels]

Er, money's not the same thing as production, dude. Probably shouldn't be giving basic lessons in economics if you don't understand that.

Er, dude...probably shouldn't be interjecting if you don't see the relation between the two.

Economics in One Lesson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NeverReallyHere]

Er, dude...probably shouldn't be interjecting if you don't see the relation between the two.

There's a relation between a great many things. There's a relation between last night's dinner and this morning's shit; that doesn't mean they should be treated as analogous. The argument for UBI comes from the increasing loosening of the relationship between productivity, labour and wealth. I'm not necessarily in favour of UBI myself, but if you want to argue against it you should offer some proper economic arguments rather than homilies and cliches like "money doesn't grow on trees" (most of it is actually created by the banks, so if it did grow on trees it would be harder to get)

 

[miminkpo]

I think if people had their needs met, they would work to achieve the things they desire in life therefore people would be much more motivated. And even those who don't want to work, I don't think that'd be an issue. We are billions of people, we've got billions of resources that more often than not get wasted. Even there's things like planned obsolescence that only make more waste. At least, make it so things are actually durable, so people can aspire to more without getting stuck in the same things that get broken and outdated.

I don't have any hope that we're going to turn about our society and its system before it's too late and climate change is completely irreversible. Greed is far too bigger than man is.

 

[watchingthewheels]

There's a relation between a great many things. There's a relation between last night's dinner and this morning's shit; that doesn't mean they should be treated as analogous. The argument for UBI comes from the increasing loosening of the relationship between productivity, labour and wealth. I'm not necessarily in favour of UBI myself, but if you want to argue against it you should offer some proper economic arguments rather than homilies and cliches like "money doesn't grow on trees" (most of it is actually created by the banks, so if it did grow on trees it would be harder to get)

Oh, yes, I'm going to write a whole thesis on economics...on a suicide forum.
Riiiight...
(And money still doesn't grow on trees...)

 

[geogaddi]

Agreed. The fruits of technology and increased efficiency should be shared equally with the population, rather than hoovered up by a tiny minority. People can still work and save money if they want but the basic necessities of life such as food and energy should be provided,if we expect a sane and reasonably contented population of people going forward. In the past this was not possible, but technology and automation specifically will increasingly make this so. Of course there are risks and therefore it needs to be implemented strategically and after plenty of test cases and research has been done, but the alternative of business as usual will become completely untenable. If you think this is oppressive communism or slavery, then I don't know what to say,

 

[NeverReallyHere]

Oh, yes, I'm going to write a whole thesis on economics...on a suicide forum.
Riiiight...
(And money still doesn't grow on trees...)

It's all good... If I want to get my fix of bad libertarian monetarist arguments I can always go over to Reddit. I probably shouldn't have even said anything here, but couldn't resist.

 

[Natty]

The fact that you're asking ME is an indictment of the educational system, and a demonstration of Gramsci's "Long March Through The Institutions".

Short answer: UBI is NOT "progressives", it's NOT a new idea. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", has NEVER worked, and is a age-old recipe for slavery, because it ALWAYS involves the initiation of force, forcibly making someone contribute to "the larger whole" for "the greater good", without choice. Hence, "universal"; "everyone in, nobody out." (That's why communist countries build walls to keep their slaves in, and why they try to escape to free countries, instead of people in free countries escaping to communist one...) And who will be "distributing the wealth" (or, "redistributing", to be accurate)? Who "decides" what's basic enough? And distributed "fairly"? And if someone objects, that they're not getting enough? Or complains that someone is getting MORE than they are? Recipe for disaster.

I can't answer that in a simple post, nor should I have to, when the whole of modern history is lesson enough. And I refuse to debate with communists/socialists on the matter, because I don't debate or negotiate with terrorists.

But if you're sincere, or simply too young to know better, because the schools have indoctrinated you, and are asking because you don't know: Look at the results of Soviet Russia and Communist China, for starter, and the death counts of Mao and Stalin, who murdered MORE people than Hitler (also a socialist, despite what the Communists would tell you; NAZI= "National Socialism"), including their OWN people. (And don't believe the bull of "that wasn't TRUE communism.") Look at the French Revolution, where the cry of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" turned into the "Reign of Terror."

For a basic economics lesson of WHY UBI doesn't work: in a nutshell: becaues a country cannot consume more than it produces. Because money does not grow on trees. The arguments have been made long ago, and if you don't agree with them, well, then, you won't agree with me. But if you're not familiar with them, then, to start: I'll refer you to Ludwig von Mises' HUMAN ACTION, Henry Hazlitt's ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON, and Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED and CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, and the argument that in mixed capitalist/socialist economies, it's always capitalism that gets the blame for socialist failures. Look at the people lifted out of poverty through freedom and free markets, vs. the death counts of socialist countries, which promise equality, but only made people equal by cutting everyone down to the same size.

Long story short:
"TANSTAAFL". (Or, "There ain't no such thing as a "free lunch.")

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life.

"Money doesn't grow on trees", which you keep repeating over and over again as if it means something.

Money isn't real.

Your entire diatribe is moronic and none of your points exist outside of the current completely fucked paradigm we're living through right now.

You talk about the failures of our education system but any first year university student studying philosophy would peg this instantly as the 4chan drivel it is.

 

[Natty]

Giving someone free money just for being a citizen would destablize the jobs that need doing. No one would feel the need to work...shitty jobs would go unfilled. There are billions upon billions of people. If everyone...Cambodians, Indians, Russians, Sudanese were safe overpopulation would soar even more.

We've known birthrates decline as financial and food security increase, overpopulation isn't anything people have been worried about since the 80s.

It does get passed around in a bunch of fear-mongery right-wing anti-immigration circles, though.