Universal Basic Income

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 314
#31
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes that's why I'm asking for solutions, I've proposed two possible methods of implementing this idea: government or charity.

  People have the ability to find another job if theirs is too stressful. And if working conditions are detestable, then they may have to appeal to the government.

  My point Is that even if you automate meat packing, you have to have repair technicians, circuit board builders, steel workers, etc.


  I don't think it's realistic to expect post-scarcity of basic necessities anytime soon.
Topic's author
#32
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
government or charity.
Let follow the logic. Charity cannot be compulsory or it becomes a tax and taxes are the pervue of government so in this case they are the same (or close enough) and the government can only be expected to provide a UBI in as much as human rights are valued and it is the primary goal of government to protect and promote them. 
People have the ability to find another job
They have that assumed right but is it a substantive right? And if it is a substantive right then why do so many still work in high pressure and dangerous unskilled labor positions?
#33
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
why do so many still work in high pressure and dangerous unskilled labor positions?
That's really gonna be up to the individual. You'll find as many reasons as there are people.


What do you propose as a mechanism of providing for people's basic needs? And how would it be more efficient than the current system of working for a living?
Topic's author
#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
What do you propose as a mechanism of providing for people's basic needs?
I have not proposed a mechanism as yet. At present I am merely engaging in socratic dialogue to see if any progress can be made in our thinking on the subject.
And how would it be more efficient than the current system of working for a living?
I'm not sure but any system that does not throw away enough food to fill many football stadiums every year and for whom that is not merely the tip of the garbage iceberg would be more efficient. Farming is more efficient now than ever (though it is unclear how long our current farming technology can be fueled with fossil fuels before we must find an alternative or revert to a more labor intensive model) we could conceivably feed (provide minimum caloric intake at a very minimum) many more humans than we do but some humans struggle to eat. Sure some of them are far away and perhaps it would be impractical to feed them but even if that is true I am willing to wager that some human is hungry enough geographically close enough to you that you feel guilty for not finishing your food when you go to a restaurant, where often the portion size is inflated to give a higher perceived value although the practical value is the same as any portion that would maintain you. Food distribution as a business model promotes waste and devalues the right to life in direct proportion to poverty. Even if you or I personally cannot find an answer in this conversation I'm sure we could do better.
#35
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Even if you or I personally cannot find an answer in this conversation I'm sure we could do better.
Just as AI program is champion at Chess, Go and other games, climate modelin etc, process huge amounts of possible moves { options } AI programs are best option for offerring huge amoun to of scenarios { models/plans } for UBIncome mechanisms.

UBI is irrelevant to current modes of operating systems of humanity.  It may be starting place, along with scenarios for clean water, clean air and reducing human caused erratic climate change on Earth.

I'm skeptical humanity will survive much beyond year 2232 and give my rational for arriving at that conclusion here LINK  End time of Humanity.
#36
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

 I better get working on my DeLorean time machine to see if you are correct. Do you have any flux capacitors?


#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
#38
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
AI may help us to find a way around end-time{s]-of-humanity aka dooms-day.

If BI { biological intelligence } is symbolised by bilateral nervous system ( * * ), then what is the symbol for AI?

( * ) ergo cyclopic AI?  Mono-thiestic AI?

( ********* ) ergo multiple points-of-view simultaneously?

( /*\*/*\/*\/* } ergo wireless EMRadiation intelligence?






#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
(just to put an emphasis on free) 
I refer back to your #1 post, with this cited caveat imposed on it, relative to our rights [are they free?] and our obligation to allow one another's rights to be engaged, that demonstrates a feature your proposition entirely ignores: YOUR personal responsibility.

So you propose that you receive a notice of eviction, that this is somehow unfair. How, since no right gives you the free access to a residence, a job, your education, or your purchasing power, void of the responsibilities you, yourself, must bring to the table to deserve those commodities. You are NOT free to be a freeloader on society, and that you should expect such, at my expense, or anyone else's, is the abject flaw in socialism. That goes for health care, as well. Look, you may claim that, now that I am retired [although I still work for myself and earn a living by my own sweated brow, and do not have to work, for I have amassed the personal wherewithal to be self-sufficient], that my social security and medicare are free of charge to me. No, my friend. I paid into those benefits from my own income over the 47 years that I was a working stiff, and I am still obligated to pay $140 monthly into medicare. I paid close to 90% of those benefits by my own money; not yours or anyone else's, during those 47 years. The interest that should have been earned by those payments over 47 years should have covered the balance, except that your gov't and mine has robbed those benefit funds for other uses [like handing money to freeloaders]. But, thats not my problem. It's theirs. Let them control their spending just as I have had to control mine. YOU are personally responsible for your status in life. Do something with it other than expect a UBI.
#40
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
What do you propose as a mechanism of providing for people's basic needs?
How about this: Cover your own arse by your own education and hard work,  with ambition, planning, and execution. Be yourself. Everyone else is taken, along with their wherewithal to achieve. UBI? That's under-rated, banal, and ignorant.
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
, yourself, must bring to the table to deserve those commodities. You are NOT free to be a freeloader on society, and that you should expect such, at my expense, or anyone else's, is the abject flaw in socialism. That goes for health care, as well. Look, you may claim that, now that I am retired [although I still work for myself and earn a living by my own sweat
Of course.

Just kick everybody onto the street and then make it illegal to sleep in public.

YOU END UP PAYING OVER $20,000.00/YR PER INMATE.

WHY NOT JUST GIVE THAT EXACT SAME MONEY TO THE PERSON INSTEAD?
Topic's author
#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
no right gives you the free access to a residence, a job, your education, or your purchasing power, void of the responsibilities you, yourself, must bring to the table to deserve those commodities. 
IF all these things are necessary to live and we have a substantive right to life then we do deserve these things definitionally. One is afforded rights. One earns privileges. Would you be more comfortable with the privilege to live or the right to live?
#43
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
1. Your assumed legislation is not a solution and would not pass Congress.

2. Therefore, no cost of inmate expense, so, no need to offer UBI in a similar amount.

3. Argument fails.
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I consider the right to life to be exercised more vigorously than by a minimum wage, or even a UBI. What a low-ball goal. No wonder Dems are moving to socialism; no lofty ideals worth achieving. Nonsense. Have you no ambition? That's entirely on you. After all, you have a right to life, but beyond your adolescence,  it is not my responsibility to assure you a decent education and a profitable living. YOU do. Have you an argument against personal responsibility? I will not argue it for you.

 
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
 Your assumed legislation is not a solution and would not pass Congress.
What are you talking about?

It's already illegal to sleep in your car and or otherwise in public in most jurisdictions.
Topic's author
#46
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
This does not in essence answer my question. Is there a right to life or only a privilege of life that may possibly be earned?
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Therefore, no cost of inmate expense, so, no need to offer UBI in a similar amount.
Homeless people visit the emergency department an average of 5 times annually, and the most frequent users visit them weekly. Each visit costs $3700, amounting to $18,500 spent annually for the average user and up to $44,400 for the most frequent users. [**]

THE "TAXPAYER" IS ALREADY PAYING THE HOMELESS $18,500.00 TO $44,400.00 PER YEAR.
#48
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, I forgot. But, show me the enforcement of such laws that are filling jails to over-flowing, causing my portion of $20k, each, for their incarceration?  Actually, arrest record show that vagrancy is a criminal matter [misdemeanor] that is addressed, but typically not for the vagrancy, itself, but additional crimes committed by vagrants, petty theft to larceny, and several other crimes. That a large percentage of vagrants also suffer mental illness leading to other misdemeanors and substance abuse is also linked to arrests.
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Even more people questioned in 2018 said they had experienced homelessness at some time in their lives. Of those interviewed last year, 66 percent said they had experienced homelessness, while 60 percent said the same in 2014. [**]
Jails are actually significantly MORE EXPENSIVE than prisons.

The annual cost, per incarcerated individual, averaged $47,057 in the 35 jurisdictions that responded to Vera’s survey. [**]
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
What is your adjusted cost per inmate per year magic number?
#51
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
AS you may have noted, I deleted my post. I found a calculation error and meant to repost, but I've been dsitracted. I will re-post when I have that correctly calculated.
#52
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Thought I would throw my two cents in.

IF our government guarentee's certain rights, THEN those rights ought to be held up regardless of our "drive"

For example - it does not matter if you do not want to live, the government will protect your life. We do not suddenly not care if somebody is murdered because they were suicidal. Fundamentally speaking, a right is not a privilege, and regardless if you "work for it" you are afforded that right. This means that IF such things as rent, food, clothing, water, etc, are all rights to have, THEN they should be afforded to the citizens as a measure of upholding said rights.

So that begs the question, are these things a privilege or a right?

Well... if we were to claim that having food and water was a "privilege" then people in Africa would be in a pretty tough pickle, no? I mean why should we care, they aren't working for food and water? Obviously, that's absurd, we give them food and water, because they need food and water to live. The price on protecting freedom is literally irrelevant, it doesn't matter, because the government ought to protect our rights.

Therefore; the government ought to uphold the right to food, water, and shelter
"Depriving people of their access to food and water, impeding their access to health services and wantonly destroying their housing constitute clear violations of the human rights to food, to water, to sanitation, to housing, to health, and to freedom from inhumane treatment, protected under international human rights treaties,” the experts said."
Would requiring people to work not impede their access to shelter, food, and water? It obviously does.


How would we implement such a bill? Well we would most likely start with how we would pay for universal healthcare, which would be by starting to raise taxes for the wealthy, why are so many getting rewards for "charity".... that kind of breaks the entire purpose of charity, should we not give the breaks to those who are unable to afford it, rather than those who make millions? 

We could also take some money out of our hilariously overinflated military budget. Considering that global international conflicts have been going down in the past century, and more and more nations becoming democratic, our need to be out in the world has also been necessarily reduced. We do not need progressively bigger and bigger budgets for our military, whenever our military is becoming less and less used.

How would you do such a system? There would be a required calculation to say how much it would take to live in region in the US, and those funds afforded to them - for those saying that it would bring up inflation, perhaps, but that would be met by the fact that more people would have money - IF everyone had access to these things and free healthcare, THEN the disparity of education would be met, therefore increasing how much the average American could contribute to the economy.

This is a rambled-mess of my thoughts and ideas on the matter after reading this thread.

Topic's author
#53
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Indeed imagine the music, poetry, cinema, scientific findings and new inventions if every mad bastard could follow their crazy dreams wherever they led?
#54
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
We see such a reality whenever the government-funded the research on Covid-19, we blazed innovative new technology which will be empirically helpful to our population
#55
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF such things as rent, food, clothing, water, etc, are all rights to have, THEN they should be afforded to the citizens as a measure of upholding said rights.
But all those things are not rights, they are privileges. The government does not guarantee to prevent taking your own life. In fact, with the exception of 7 states [HI, CA, OR, WA, MT, CO, & ME] suicide is a felony. It is not in those 7 states because they say it is a crime that cannot be punished for obvious reasons. And, in several states, now, assisted suicide is legal whereas suicide is not legal. Curious.


Topic's author
#56
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
So just to be clear you don't believe in a right to life but only in the privilege to life which may be earned?
#57
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Where did I say I don't believe in a right to life? Yes, there is a right to life, but sustaining that life by food, water, clothing, a job + income, shelter, a car... those are personal responsibilities of privilege. I include health care as a personal responsibility.
Topic's author
#58
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
IF there is a right to life BUT food, water, shelter etc are privileges THEN the "right" to life is not substantive and, being contingent upon privileges which must be earned, becomes effective a privilege that must be earned.

IF you believe in the substantive right to life THEN the basic requirements of life must also be substantive rights.

It is to think that one must earn (the privilege of) a living but it is mutually exclusive to granting people the right to live.
#59
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Only when one does not have the physical wherewithal to make their own living by an honest trade do I withdraw the demand for personal responsibility. I have no patience for someone who can, but chooses to insist that others support them.
#60
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
So then... you do not have a right to water, food, shelter, or medicine? Even though you need those things TO LIVE, if you do not have those things, THEN YOU CANNOT LIVE. The government GUARANTEES a right to live, therefore it MUST guarantee a right to all of the things REQUIRED TO LIVE. It is quite simple


But all those things are not rights, they are privileges.
So you have asserted


The government does not guarantee to prevent taking your own life. In fact, with the exception of 7 states [HI, CA, OR, WA, MT, CO, & ME] suicide is a felony. It is not in those 7 states because they say it is a crime that cannot be punished for obvious reasons. And, in several states, now, assisted suicide is legal whereas suicide is not legal. Curious.
You literally ignored the point, that does not matter, I did not say that the government protects you from taking your own life. You have failed to address the cornerstone of my argument, let me give it back to you, read it more slowly this time:

For example - it does not matter if you do not want to live, the government will protect your life. We do not suddenly not care if somebody is murdered because they were suicidal. Fundamentally speaking, a right is not a privilege, and regardless if you "work for it" you are afforded that right. This means that IF such things as rent, food, clothing, water, etc, are all rights to have, THEN they should be afforded to the citizens as a measure of upholding said rights.
TLDR: It does not matter that you do not want to live, the government is still required to protect your life - it does not suddenly become legal to murder somebody because they are suicidal - just like it is not suddenly justifiable to let somebody starve because they "didn't earn it"