Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Fun with supply and demand.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:38 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The argument of Gord versus the venerable here raises points on both sides.

I spent some time in Papua New Guinea, and the very primitive tribal structure there has an interesting local morality. The old way of doing things, which still holds true for many, is that members of your tribe are people and should be treated with respect. People outside your tribe, though, are not actually considered to be truly human and it is not immoral to do horrible things to them.

This "morality" applies in many tribal situations, including western street gangs.
It even applied in Biblical times. The Israelites believed the Commandment "Thou shall not kill" only applied to others in their own tribe. It was quite acceptable to kill those of other tribes - even to wipe out entire races - and God said it was good. ;)
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:39 pm

Bobbo

I suggested that as the FIRST rule.
We can certainly extend it, possibly to higher animals and to the natural environment.

I think at this point in time, it would not be difficult for anyone who is sane and rational to decide what a fellow human is, and what constitutes harm. There will be a few exceptions of course. Would a masochist decide that torturing someone is doing them good? But the rule would work for most people.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Would a masochist decide that torturing someone is doing them good? But the rule would work for most people.
Therein lies the fallacy of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It all depends on who's doing the doing.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:26 pm

Paul

Very easy to change the rule.

"Do unto others as they would be done by."

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

I suggested that as the FIRST rule.
We can certainly extend it, possibly to higher animals and to the natural environment.

I think at this point in time, it would not be difficult for anyone who is sane and rational to decide what a fellow human is, and what constitutes harm. There will be a few exceptions of course. Would a masochist decide that torturing someone is doing them good? But the rule would work for most people.
Fellow human beings? How many racist groups disagree? How many tribal groups???? How many "majority" any group once they get propagandized to the Us vs Them message??? Nothing "common sense" about the notion of common humanity. We are built to notice and be wary of differences.

You and I agree....but thats only two.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:59 pm

Hey, Bobbo.
If you and I agree, it's gotta be right!

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Gord » Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The argument of Gord versus the venerable here raises points on both sides.

1. Gord is quite correct in saying that morality is purely personal, and what is moral to one may be anathema to a different person.
I'm trying to say that morality has both subjective and objective components. Ve haf vays of making things seem moral to ourselves even when we find the same actions immoral when they are undertaken by other people.

One of the things we tend to do is categorise people as "us" and "them", or as "us" and "outsiders". Then we can do all sorts of nasty things to "them outsiders" that we would never condone being done to "us".

I think a perfect example of this is the use of torture by the US military on foreign detainees. I've heard the argument that "we [have to/get to] do it to them because they're doing it to us". How does that wash? Their actions are morally reprehensible, therefore doing the exact same thing is required in order to remain moral ourselves?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:49 am

Gord wrote:I think a perfect example of this is the use of torture by the US military on foreign detainees. I've heard the argument that "we [have to/get to] do it to them because they're doing it to us". How does that wash? Their actions are morally reprehensible, therefore doing the exact same thing is required in order to remain moral ourselves?
Perfectly wrong. No one said your quote. Like it or not, there is a difference between water boarding and breaking bones.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:28 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Gord wrote:I think a perfect example of this is the use of torture by the US military on foreign detainees. I've heard the argument that "we [have to/get to] do it to them because they're doing it to us". How does that wash? Their actions are morally reprehensible, therefore doing the exact same thing is required in order to remain moral ourselves?
Perfectly wrong. No one said your quote. Like it or not, there is a difference between water boarding and breaking bones.

yes - the first makes you feel like your dying, the other just causes pain.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:06 pm

EM--thank you for seeing one difference. for me...its not the pain but the permanent damage that is the greatest difference. Reasonable people can differ as to where the line is between "enhanced interrogation" and torture is. I think water boarding can be done in greater or lesser degrees of stress. Our own troops get the lesser form whereas many enemies die from the process.

But still: words have meaning.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:10 pm

Broken bones are not permanent - mine healed just fine.
But being brought again and again to the threshold of death and yanked back destroys the psyche of most people, which is the point.
Break my arms and legs any day before you waterboard me.
Seriously bobbo, you are either totally ignorant of this or just a sadistic bastard if you think waterboarding can be OK. And no, it can not be done to a major or lesser degree, since the effect is to make you feel like you are drowning - a little bit of drowning won't work.
The only question is whether they need to resuscitate you or not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:16 pm

C'mon EM--please respond to what is ACTUALLY said.

We waterboard our own troops. ............. Oops, maybe you are right.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:33 pm

Gord wrote:
One of the things we tend to do is categorise people as "us" and "them", or as "us" and "outsiders". Then we can do all sorts of nasty things to "them outsiders" that we would never condone being done to "us".

That is tribalism, and is an indicator that a person is less civilised than others. In my so very humble opinion, I think there are two ways people can be more or less civilised. Please do not spout the old business about 'civilised' meaning city dweller. I am trying to give it a little better meaning than that.

1. Technological prowess. Some societies are more technologically civilised than others.
2. Social development. The primary indicator of how developed a society is, is how much it regards outsiders as worth while. If every human is seen as worth being nice to, then that society (or individual) can be seen to be socially developed, especially if they put this into practice.

My time with Papua New Guinea people showed that many (not all) regarded non tribe members as non people, and they could morally, if not legally, mistreat those outsiders. That is what I define as barbarism. My ancestors were Scottish, and the clan system was a form of barbaric tribalism. The Scots today have moved on, but they still have a violent crime rate 50% higher than the English. It can take many generations to become truly 'civilised'.

The very tiny number of mega billionnaires who cling to their money as if it was life or death, and never ever donate any to those who are desperately poor, are also barbarians.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The argument of Gord versus the venerable here raises points on both sides.

1. Gord is quite correct in saying that morality is purely personal, and what is moral to one may be anathema to a different person.
That's not correct in the slightest. What SEEMS moral to one person may SEEM anathema to another, but the underlying moral reality does not change on account of this.
2. The venerable is using morality in a way that is correct for our modern society, but has no universal application.
Then why is it correct for our modern society?
I spent some time in Papua New Guinea, and the very primitive tribal structure there has an interesting local morality. The old way of doing things, which still holds true for many, is that members of your tribe are people and should be treated with respect. People outside your tribe, though, are not actually considered to be truly human and it is not immoral to do horrible things to them.
Papua New Guinea is one of the most violent and shittiest places to live on Earth. Hmm, I wonder why that could be?? Perhaps it has something to do with the Papuans' refusal to respect the human rights of people outside their own tribe!
This "morality" applies in many tribal situations, including western street gangs.
Another case in point: the nasty world of street gangs demonstrates the consequences of not respecting one and other's natural rights.
It would be rather good if some universal rules of morality were applied globally.
And how in the hell are you going to do that if you've a priori denied the existence of such things??
I would suggest that the first rule would be to help rather than harm your fellow humans.
Again, what is the basis upon which you propose this rule?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Gord » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:52 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Gord wrote:I think a perfect example of this is the use of torture by the US military on foreign detainees. I've heard the argument that "we [have to/get to] do it to them because they're doing it to us". How does that wash? Their actions are morally reprehensible, therefore doing the exact same thing is required in order to remain moral ourselves?
Perfectly wrong. No one said your quote.
Consider it a paraphrase. I've heard the same sentiment for many years now, at least as far back as 9/11. If you want something more recent, try, for instance, this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/ ... p-torture/
Donald Trump is casting aside any doubt about his position on torture: He's in favor of it because "we have to beat the savages."...

..."We have to play the game the way they're playing the game. You're not going to win if we're soft and they're, they have no rules," Trump said in an interview taped Saturday that aired Sunday morning.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Like it or not, there is a difference between water boarding and breaking bones.
There are differences between every form of torture, that's why they're considered different forms.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:35 am

Venerable

If you consider morality to be universal, you are taking a religious stand. Morality is not universal, and never has been. Nor is it stable over time. Even in Europe, morality has changed drastically over the centuries. At one point, it was considered moral to torture criminals to death, and call it 'justice'. Today, even in a barbaric nation like the USA where the death penalty is still in use, at least the belief exists that death should be quick and painless. Even in my country, which is much more 'civilised' than present day USA, it is less than 100 years since the last person given the death penalty. Morality changes.

However, we can move towards something better. After WWII, there has been a move to treating people better, and this is codified in the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. More and more, different peoples are agreeing on a new morality, which is becoming more widely agreed as the right way to proceed. The world is far from united on moral issues, but there is far more unity than any time in the past. Even the USA is now far more moral than any time in the past.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:35 am

We are talking about collectivism vs. individualism here, with Woo being at the deep end of the individualist spectrum and the rest being on a range between the two.
Individualism is a luxury: only those with the resources to be self-sufficient can afford to piss off the rest of humanity. Historically, only kings got to do that.
Individualism is not the default state of any creature on earth, and certainly not humans.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:26 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Individualism is a luxury:
LMFTFY: Individualism is a fantasy.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:49 am

..said the Sun...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:53 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Individualism is a luxury:
LMFTFY: Individualism is a fantasy.

All ideologies are: the question is only how close (in theory) we can get to them.

Individualism has always been about having so much more than others as to not be beholden in any way.
The traditional term is to be" of independent means "
The modern term is to have "{!#%@}-you money".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:33 pm

EM--as nearly all issues are, its definitional. I don't see the concept of individualism being directly connected to lots of money "at all." I see the concept as more bohemian, artistic, outcast even. Marching to one's own drum which is rarely profitable. Maybe Steve Jobs was an individual and rich as well....but probably most are disproportionately poor? Chasing money only makes one part of the vulgar masses.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:07 pm

If you need to earn money somehow to live, you are not independent.
Simple as that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:11 pm

EM===you are obviously hung up on money. Independence can be defined that way, OR BY what you do with your life after you get whatever money you do....or as you get it.... or how you get it.

Quite another benefit of the GBI?===individualism just flowing out all over the place.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:29 pm

I would also point out to those people with obsessions with personal liberty, that the biggest restraint on personal liberty is the need to earn a living. If you had a GBI, you would have far more liberty than you do now.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I would also point out to those people with obsessions with personal liberty, that the biggest restraint on personal liberty is the need to earn a living. If you had a GBI, you would have far more liberty than you do now.
That's a stretch. GBI is the opposite of personal liberty. Freedom is difficult to attain when one is so totally dependent on someone else for your sustenance, whether that someone else is government, parents or a slave owner.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:14 pm

Paul

What about an employer?

Adults generally are not dependent on parents, and slavery is much rarer today. The vast majority of us are dependent on an employer, and we abrogate our liberty to that employer. The GBI is given without condition. You do not have to spend 40 hours each week at a desk, or factory floor to get it. That is a massive increase in liberty.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:19 am

"....Freedom is difficult to attain when one is so totally dependent on someone else for your sustenance, whether that someone else is government...." //// That must be some mighty fine koolaide.

Also.......the notion that you have given up your liberty to an employer is almost just as bad. Liberty/individualism is often expressed on the job.... and how about the other 14 hours a day and weekends and days off? Getting too caught up in the rhetoric.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Gord » Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:44 pm

For more on morality (as opposed to "moron morality?"):

"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:22 pm

That video is very difficult for an existential anti-theist to sit through. I find all of the referenced ethical quandaries to be simple to the point of obvious and puerile.

EG: I find nothing ethical about GBU. Its all very pragmatic. You do A, you get B. You do C, you get D. I don't care about A and C at all but rather B and D....at least in the context of GBU and most social policies. Of course hypotheticals can be arranged to make the means as important or more important that the ends with the answer usually outside of the hypothetical.

The most good for the most people is subject to overriding "values".... on which people can disagree going not to right or wrong...but rather values.

Simple.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:59 pm

The idea that people need to work to find fulfilment is bunk:
the same has been said about people not doing physical work, then not doing "honest" enough work, then only production line work where they can't see the end result, etc. etc.
People can find meaning in life without "work" work: there is so much that can be done to make your life and that of others better if you don't have to worry about tomorrow.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:10 pm

More pernicious is the idea that you have to work in order to be "of worth." Its a siren"s call to slavery, and yet accepted as true by too many pigs on the island.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I would also point out to those people with obsessions with personal liberty, that the biggest restraint on personal liberty is the need to earn a living.
Quite the opposite. It is only by EARNING a living that we are able to respect the property rights of others (i.e. because we can obtain their consent to use or acquire their property by offering them something valuable in return), and likewise it is only because others earn a living that they are able to respect our own property rights. Liberty is about the respecting of people's rights and their freedom from political oppression; it is not simply about doing whatever you want whenever you want with no consideration of consequences.

If you had a GBI, you would have far more liberty than you do now.
Until Big Daddy Government cuts you off for expressing an ungood point of view...
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The vast majority of us are dependent on an employer,
And employers are dependent on their employees.
and we abrogate our liberty to that employer.
No we don't. Abrogating liberty means giving up your rights as a human being. An employee who gives up their liberty to an employer is called a slave.
The GBI is given without condition.
:lol: Says who??
You do not have to spend 40 hours each week at a desk, or factory floor to get it. That is a massive increase in liberty.
No, it's more like a massive transfer of liberty from 1) the productive mugs who pay for it to the unproductive loafers who receive it; and 2) the unproductive loafers' future selves to their present selves, as the Government inevitably starts to abuse the power that comes from having all the unproductive loafers by the purse strings.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:57 am

ElectricMonk wrote:We are talking about collectivism vs. individualism here, with Woo being at the deep end of the individualist spectrum and the rest being on a range between the two.
Yeah, most of you are "on the range" somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Mao Zedong!
Individualism is a luxury: only those with the resources to be self-sufficient can afford to piss off the rest of humanity. Historically, only kings got to do that.
Individualism is not the default state of any creature on earth, and certainly not humans.
Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no clue what individualism is about.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:07 am

Individual liberty means being able to decide for yourself what you will think, speak, and do. Being forced to work for a living reduces that liberty, because for 40 hours per week you are required to do what your employer tells you to do. That is the biggest restriction on the average person's liberty. There are other restrictions.

The justification for those restrictions is necessity. We work because we have to. But if and when that necessity disappears, then we can accept the greater liberty of not having to obey The Man for 40 hours per week.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:21 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you consider morality to be universal, you are taking a religious stand.
What does that even mean??
Morality is not universal, and never has been. Nor is it stable over time.


Correction: peoples' perceptions of morality are not universal or stable over time. But any act which deprives a person of their property, well-being or freedom does so regardless of when or where that act takes place.
Even in Europe, morality has changed drastically over the centuries. At one point, it was considered moral to torture criminals to death, and call it 'justice'. Today, even in a barbaric nation like the USA where the death penalty is still in use, at least the belief exists that death should be quick and painless.


Like I said, perceptions of morality change. Underlying moral realities do not.
Even in my country, which is much more 'civilised' cucked than present day USA,


FIFY.
However, we can move towards something better. After WWII, there has been a move to treating people better, and this is codified in the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. More and more, different peoples are agreeing on a new morality, which is becoming more widely agreed as the right way to proceed.


And why are they agreeing on it? What are the real underlying drivers of this emerging consensus?
The world is far from united on moral issues, but there is far more unity than any time in the past.
Tell that to the 1.8 billion Muslims who think that child and cousin marriages are okay. Tell that to the billion+ Hindus who think its okay to treat certain people like {!#%@} just because of who their parents are. Tell it to the Jews who think its okay to traumatize a newborn baby boy by needlessly cutting off his foreskin while he is fully conscious. Tell that to all the SJWs who think that white people are racist simply because they are white.

Even the USA is now far more moral than any time in the past.
In some ways yes, in others definitely not.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Individual liberty means being able to decide for yourself what you will think, speak, and do.
Yes. But being able to decide what you think, say and do is not the same as being exempt from the consequences of your thoughts, words and deeds.

Being forced to work for a living reduces that liberty,
No it doesn't, because the do-whatever-you-want-consequence-free sort of liberty presumed by your statement never existed in the first place.

because for 40 hours per week you are required to do what your employer tells you to do.


You're not required to do it. But there are consequences to not doing it, i.e. you'll get fired. That's because you and your employer have both entered into a voluntary contractual arrangement in which you both agree to give something to each other in exchange for something else.
We work because we have to. But if and when that necessity disappears, then we can accept the greater liberty of not having to obey The Man for 40 hours per week.
...and in the case of a universal basic income, we can trade it for the "greater liberty" of obeying Big Brother for 168 hours a week instead!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:12 am

Venerable

You are mistaken. There is not, and never has been, an underlying morality. Religious people will tell you there is, because morality is laid down by God. But since I do not believe in deities, I reject that. Morality is s social construct. That said, I agree it is a very good social construct, and especially the morality that has come into being in the last 100 years.

Religious people once quoted the Old Testament : "Thau shalt not suffer a witch to live." That was their morality, and led to tens of thousands of women who were not witches, but were a little bit different, eccentric, mentally ill, or just old, being killed. Often in painful and barbaric ways.

Luckily that 'morality' has been rejected and western peoples now have a new morality that values all human life (except in the USA where people are still executed).

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Venerable

You are mistaken. There is not, and never has been, an underlying morality.
Care to back this blanket assertion up with some sort of reasoning/evidence?
Religious people will tell you there is, because morality is laid down by God. But since I do not believe in deities, I reject that.
Some religious people might tell you that, but not all of them. For example Buddhists won't tell you that. Nor will Taoists or Jains. Therefore your rejection of an underlying morality on the grounds of your atheism is invalid.
Morality is a social construct.
Ooh my, don't you sound sophisticated! But can you tell us what that statement is actually supposed to mean? Upon what basis is this social construct constructed?

That said, I agree it is a very good social construct, and especially the morality that has come into being in the last 100 years.


And why do you think it is a very good social construct?
Religious people once quoted the Old Testament : "Thau shalt not suffer a witch to live." That was their morality, and led to tens of thousands of women who were not witches, but were a little bit different, eccentric, mentally ill, or just old, being killed. Often in painful and barbaric ways.
No it wasn't morality, it was order-following. Order-following is the opposite of morality.
Luckily that 'morality' has been rejected and western peoples now have a new morality that values all human life (except in the USA where people are still executed).
All human life? Really?? Well that would be news to the countless thousands of victims of abortion and Western military actions!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:01 am

Venerable

My statement is backed up by history. What is viewed as moral varies from time to time and place to place. Different societies have different moral codes, which is why morality is a social construct. There was a time in England when aristocrats could rape peasant women, and they considered that the victims should feel honored. Such rape carried no penalty. At the same time, peasants did not even have the right of self defense. If an aristocrat attacked a peasant, he had to accept the blows without retaliation, or suffer death. There have been times when death by torture was considered acceptable as punishment for quite minor crimes. Times when "matters of honor" were settled by duels to the death. All these things were considered moral.

We cannot predict what will be seen as moral in the future, but it will be different to what we see as moral today. There are no absolutes in morality. Morals are just what people consider to be right and proper at the time.

That does not mean no progress. The present day belief that all people should be treated well and equally is a definite improvement over the past ideas. The United Nations Charter of Human Rights is a major step forwards, and I am very glad it exists. But even that is a social construct, and is subject to change if society deems that right and proper.

There is no absolute when it comes to morals.