>>
>>1888755 (OP)
shut up faggot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1888755 (OP)
I think providing basic sustenance for people once we have larger scale 3d printing and farm automation is a must. However, I hate people too much to give them free money.
No one can really argue for or against it right now since it's all theoretical. It could get implemented and be the best or worst thing to ever happen. Capitalism is going strong though. People are too shitty for any other system to work out.
>>
>>
File: 1483414095628.jpg (186 KB, 506x380)
>>1888755 (OP)
If you just throw $1000 at everyone, prices will rise proportionally. Why? Because there is the same amount of products in circulation.
Basic income CAN work in conjunction with public housing guarantee, and a basic amount of calories/day guarantee. That will unchain people who are stuck in dead end jobs due to family obligations to create, having an amplifying effect on the economy. Of course, don't hold your breath - we're moving very quickly in the opposite direction where the tiny top owns enterprises and creates huge barriers to entry, a small professional class to serve them, and a large (90%) underclass. Think Brazil.
>>
>>1888755 (OP)
Besides all the other problems with this, is we have shit boarders In 1st world western countries. So even if it worked now (unlikely) you'd have tons of poor people from the global south (Africa and South America) coming in till it crashed under the weight of 1000 to 1 productive worker ratios.
At least cancel all your refugee treaties that require you to take anyone that makes it to your land first
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: madison.jpg (93 KB, 1200x1200)
>>1888755 (OP)
because taking property from one private individual to give to another private individual vis-a-vis violence or threats of violence is heft and theft is wrong
>>
>>1888755 (OP)
The poor cannot be trusted to spend money responsibly. That's why they are poor in the first place. If you give them money they will spend it on stupid shit like drugs and alcohol and then rely on public welfare systems just like before. I do support having government run mass homeless shelters where the poor can wallow with other subhumans of their kind and get housing and nutrition at no charge. There would have to be lots of restrictions in place to prevent abuse, and ultimately, the resources necessary to prevent violence and crime in such shelters might make it not worth it.
>>
File: image.jpg (46 KB, 640x470)
>>1888755 (OP)
It's more retarded than communism idealists.
.
Ideas that are much more interesting: interest free small business loans from the Government,
Free retraining if you get laid off, shooting all the non functional druggies in the face.
AND FIX THE FUCKING SCHOOLS THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN AMERICA IN POOR METRO AREAS ARE A FUCKING EMBARRASSMENT.
We should be giving away free money when we hadn't even funded our schools right yet
>>
>>
>>1888755 (OP)
I would say that we wait for automation to go to full swing before having universal income can be a good idea.
Most jobs will be obsolete (at least blue collar wagecuck type jobs), and automation will increase productivity without needing workers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
DESU UBI should take the form of free housing (think housing projects/commie blocks) and shit cafeteria food. None of this EBT and welfare crap. and give everyone a few sets of cheap clothes.
>housing is cheap since it's subsidized by govt (biggest expense)
>everyone given 3 meals a day of extremely low quality to keep cost low
Don't like it get a job. None of this giving people cash for nothing. If you don't want to work like a normal person then you can't pretend live like one. Also maybe rules strictly enforced:
>no leaving after 9pm unless going to a job
>day activities should be spent looking for jobs or cleaning up the building
>no tvs allowed except maybe a communal theatre for education purposes
>>
>>1888932
suck my dick
>>1888965
fuck you
>>1889029
fuck you too
you guys are beta-cucks, i make more than you, i'm worth more than you, my dick is bigger than yours, i'm taller than you, i'm fitter than you, i'm smarter than you
guess what I'm straight up BETTER than you lmao
let those suicidal thoughts roll in cuz you guys AIN'T SHIT
>>
>>1889068
I don't particularly like the idea of inherited wealth, but it's hard to argue that in a free society that we should or could prevent fathers from providing their children with the best life possible. The government, however, is not your daddy.
>>
>>
>>1889093
...you mean prison? Because that's a thing, and they are already buckling, at least in my country, due to all the petty shit that gets given a mandatory time served punishment.
I mean, both your examples are basically an open prison. You literally want to criminalize being poor.
There needs to be an award for an opinion this heartless and cold. It goes beyond the mere shitposting that has come before.
>>
>>
Everyone bitching about scroungers, nobody working, and basically jacking off to how not-lazy they are (pretty much everyone in the thread) seem to be missing the point that this isn't about laziness and unwilling workers.
It's about the fact that no matter how much they obfuscate it, unemployment is rising, will continue to rise as populations grow and immigrants take unskilled work for pennies, and then shoot to massive portions of the populations across the world even in skilled labor as automation gets better and more widepread.
You either end up with civil war, basically a worldwide, long-term french revolution, or you give the billions of plebs housing, food, and an ipad/VR device to make them feel wealthy while you buy your secoand yatch and moon-house. It's far easier than killing everyone.
Don't think it can happen in our lifetime? Maybe not. But the groundwork needs to start long before it becomes a humanitarian disaster. Also, look at how far tech has progressed in less than twenty years, and consider that the better the tech gets, the faster and more broad impovements come.
Critical thinking and foresight seem to be... lacking these days.
>>
>>1889249 No joke, I'd support a welfare system if it came with a mandatory vasectomy/tubal ligation. Instead we incentivize people to have children they can't afford. UBI will only make matters worse as those individuals who do not work and merely exist will breed with each other, continuously driving down the per capita productivity. The assumption that automation will pick up the slack is founded on the extrapolation of economists not engineers. Moore's law no longer applies, any advancements in AI beyond the current state must come from better algorithms not more processing power which is far more difficult.
>>
>>1889093
>into the poorfag gulag with you
If I'm a company, I'm paying people well below their fair wage and just enough for these people to meet the baseline.
If I'm selling any bread/dairy, I'm selling it at the highest price I can because I know people will buy my bread/dairy rather than go eat shitty cafeteriacockroach food
>>
>>1889280
> merely exist will breed with each other, continuously driving down the per capita productivity.
The aristocrats used to say that about the poor useless peasants. Yet the post-revolutionary french republic (when it selected for men of ability) became one of the most powerful nations in the world.
If you're gonna put up barriers for kids of course they'll grow up as useless shits. If you're gonna encourage and develop talent, many will take the way out of poverty.
>>
>>1889280
In that case, for sake of argument, let's throw out automation. Instead, let's look at the rapidly rising global population, and the percentage of the elderly and retired (likely with state pensions in the west) is going to double and triple (at a modest estimate) in the next decades to come and how our systems are already buckling.
When we start steralising people, it's not long until mandatory euthenasia.
So, we are approaching a dystopia where if you want to be looked after you don't get a family and will be killed after you are no longer useful, and there are beggar shanty towns full of the disabled and elderly in all major cities across the first world, while the wealthy sip a fine vintage on a boat. Sounds like a place I would like to live! Can you imagine the civil unrest? What you are describing would end up a 'setting' worse than most dark scifi tales.
Personally I would prefer to shoot for a Utopia. Even if it fails and becomes something grim, at least you tried.
It's simple fact that there are troubles comng that need to have the groundwork to deal with laid, and all most people can do is say 'lol, kill the scroungers'.
>>
>>1889328
Except peasants were far from useless. They sowed the wheat that everyone ate, they fought the wars which maintained the sovereignty of the kingdom. Inner city project dwellers are not the modern equivalent of peasants.
I'm also not claiming that the children of welfare recipients cannot be productive members of society, but they have both nature and nurture stacked against them proportionally the chance of that is significantly lower than those children already born to productive members of society.
>>1889332
If I understand you, your claim is that preventing some individuals from having children will cause a demographic collapse and lead to euthanasia of unwanted members of society. That would only be a valid argument if we assume that a large number of individuals would be on welfare indefinitely. However, that number is going to decrease over time as that population does not reproduce. There may be phases of such an existence which place strain on society but if society doesn't collapse, the end state is stable and not dystopian.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Public Comments