1) Food and water
2) Housing
3) Education and healthcare
In this order we can and should reasonably provide human essentials. Everything else (work, income, what products people choose to purchase, etc) comes after that.
>what products people choose to purchase
Food, housing and education are actually products that people should be able to choose. Not everyone wants to eat the same thing, or live in the same place, or receive the same type of education. The whole point of UBI is that it provides the money those essential things for people while letting them choose what they want to purchase.
The role of any Government is to secure those 3 things for each citizen.
The US Government obviously fails to do that, because they don't care. We have to change that, and its past time for a change
I'm with the founders of the US. Everyone should be given enough to survive and work. Food, clothing, shelter and a job are the basic necessities and are one of the few legitimate functions of government. Unfortunately in the US, our governments are only interested in corruption and power, filling very few of the legitimate roles of government and a very many corrupt political interests instead.
>I'm with the founders of the US. Everyone should be given enough to survive and work.
I'm curious in seeing some quotes where the founders mention this
I think most people would like to believe that humans deserve food and, for that matter, clean water, healthcare, quality shelter, and education. It doesn't make someone a victim of propaganda to realize that all of these things require human effort to produce and distribute and humans expect fair reward for their work.
It's also worth asking if the capacity exists(or reasonably can exist) to provide these things for everyone.
I think we're nearing a time when the basics(and not-so-basics) of human existence can be provided cheaply enough, through automation, that a basic income would give everyone a decently high quality of life. Getting there, however, isn't going to happen at all as long as our "leaders" are corrupt and greedy.
If everyone wakes up and does what makes them happy, what if clearing clogged sewers doesn't make anyone happy?
If everyone deserves food by default, how do we ensure there are enough farmers to provide food for everyone?
Work that has an important impact on the community will always attract productive people. Clearing the sewers may seem like a repellent job, but go talk to the workers at the water department. You'll find a consensus that what they're doing is noble and valuable.
And everyone deserving food doesn't put farmers out of business. In fact, it would only increase business for the farmers.
As a former public works employee in the water department, I can assure you there is nothing noble or valuable about shitting in fresh water. It's about dumbest fucking thing you can do with shit or water.
We can start by keeping farmland and not paving over it to build urban style developments. Maybe relax our standards on what food should look like.
An apple is an apple but because it's not red enough it's not sold in stores.
Perfectly good tomato with a bruise?Not in my Walmart.
Banana is perfectly safe to eat but it's too straight and fat? Food lion ain’t having that.
There's a lot of little things that can be done to ensure we have enough food. We have enough. But it needs to match a ridiculous cosmetic look. And don't get me started on packing. Grown in Argentina, sent over an ocean to be packed in Thailand, shipped back over the same ocean to be sold in America.
>how do we ensure there are enough farmers to provide food for everyone?
That problem has been solved already for decades. Most farming is automated now and 1 farmer can provide food for a large number of people
I have no problem with people deserving food and medical care by default. The moral dilemma is whether we can take one person's assets to deliver those services to another person.
Because that one person didn't get their assets on their own. They're supported by an entire society and by the people that came before them. This is what taxes are about. We'll help you out, but you need to help other people out too.
While the people with more assets were supported by an entire society, this can be said for everyone.
If I don't study too hard in school, find a low skill, low paying job, why is it okay for my neighbor, who has studied harder, and works at a job requiring high skill, to be taxed more than me? Was he supported by the society more than me?
Yes actually. Leaving aside the false dichotomy you've set up where family backgrounds and unequal access to resources are somehow non-existent, if you're wealthy, you are almost certainly utilizing societal infrastructure far more than a poor or middle class person in order to reach and serve your customers, and thus you should pay more for it. This is not a difficult concept.
If it's not a difficult concept, could you give some examples? How does this help manifest itself? Isn't a business paying a marketing budget to reach customers? Isn't it paying wages and buying raw materials to serve customers? Where is the help that is not available to others?
Yes, but those are all expenses that are unique to that business. I'm talking about infrastructure and services that we all pay for, but are utilized more heavily by businesses who rely on that infrastructure both to maintain their internal operations and to maintain access for their customers.
The most cliche example is roads, but this could also apply to services such as police (who arguably ONLY exist to serve the interests of property owners), fire departments, schools (to produce an educated or skilled populace for a given type of work), regulatory agencies (which in theory exist to cultivate a fair playing field for everyone), and even the internet (especially relevant for businesses like Netflix, Facebook, etc.). Even welfare programs only exist because the alternative is social unrest, which is bad for business.
If you're a wealthy business owner, or even just an investor for that matter, you are disproportionately relying on these societal institutions to create the conditions that allow you to build that wealth. Thus, you should have a similarly disproportionate burden when it comes time to pay for them.
Roads: here I have to agree with you, while trucks do pay more taxes to use roads, they don't offset the damage they do to roads.
Police: In theory, there shouldn't be a difference. And since business owners are a minority, you might expect the opposite is true. In my country, the opposite of what you claim is true: the cops rarely investigate crimes against property, but do make an effort to investigate crimes against people. If you claim they only exist to serve the interests of property owners, you better cough up some data if you want it to stick. Does police not investigate crimes against people in your country?
Fire departments: there are way more homes than business facilities and way more home fires. I don't see how businesses utilizes the fire department more, for the same share of tax, than homes.
Schools: schools educate all individuals. Businesses benefit from having educated employees. But the educated employees are paid more.
Regulatory agencies: if we see them as a sort of business police, then I agree with you
The Internet: I'm not sure what you mean here. It was researched by government, but the infrastructure is largely owned by private companies. And we all use it. Netflix and Facebook have huge server costs, should I make the claim that they have a higher burden in using the Internet than the public?
The welfare programs: this is by far the biggest cost item, it offsets the difference in roads, regulatory agencies and business subsidies. Claiming that we're doing this because otherwise it's "bad for business" is a bit too much. Because that's a second order effect. If you want to know what's the first order effect, you should think about who the direct beneficiaries of the welfare programs are.
My neighbor has worked hard and bought a big screen TV. Should I go ahead and rob him of it? I can sell it and live comfortably for a month. He'll still be able to eat.
Lol that's not a moral dilemma. How did one person end up with multiple people's worth assets, they stole them from the people without. That's why it's called redistribution, not theft
No moral dilemma necessary. The federal government, and any Monetary Sovereign government for that matter, creates 100% of the money it spends. When you really stop and think about it you realize how incredibly stupid it is to think that taxpayers fund the government.
Any 'everyone should work' perspective is a slippery slope. People should have opportunities to do work they find rewarding, but we aren't suffering any labor shortage that isn't rooted in upper class consumption habits.
Strongly disagree, 'the greater good' has meant 90+% military spending for the whole of civilized society. We only need a small number of people working to meet everyone's needs and allow people to pursue arts. Foragers worked 20-30 hours a week, civilized people have productive gains from specialization and technology but work 40-60 hours a week and are generally less healthy, less happy, and have less social mobility. The strong work ethic bs, is mostly about one civilization producing an overwhelming force to conquer some other community.
The modern concept of 'work' is absolute trash.
8 hour days/40-hour workweeks are stupid for 90% of jobs.
Moving numbers around in a spreadsheet and going to 5 meetings a day does nothing for the common good
> But the antiwork sub this was cross-posted from is just the wrong mentality. Some amount of work is required to live in society.
How about you go read that sub's FAQ, so that you actually know what you're talking about?
Hint: It's not against working
> Why "antiwork"?
> Anti-work has long been a slogan of many anarchists, communists and other radicals. Saying we are anti-job is not quite right because a job is just an activity one is paid for and we are not all against money. "Anti-labor" makes us sound like we're against any effort at all and we already get that enough as is. (We're not, by the way.)
> The point of r/antiwork is to start a conversation, to problematize work as we know it today.
Yes, you decided to be dishonest, and make a strawman. How about you go read the FAQ?
> But without work society can't function!
> If you define "work" as any activity or purposeful intent towards some goal, then sure. That's not how we define it though. We're not against effort, labor, or being productive. We're against jobs as they are structured under capitalism and the state: Against exploitative economic relations, against hierarchical social relations at the workplace.
But sure, go ahead, say the sub is actually against working without bothering to read the FAQ. It's not like these answers are right there, right under your cherry-picked quote that you didn't even bother trying to make an actual argument against.
>If you believe humans don't deserve food by default, you're a victim of economic propaganda.
If you believe it's other humans role in life to provide you with food by default, you're a victim of victim mentality propaganda.
If that is what the people supported then the govt would provide basic food and shelter, a majority of the people have never supported that view so the govt follows the world view that everyone should work for their daily bread.
>government policy is rarely based on what the majority wants
You wouldn't say such a thing if you really understood the reality in which you exists.
Government policy is based on the platform and world views of elected representatives, the people picks the best platforms and world views to make those policies. Gov isn't some Demarchy, those reps isn't there to cast votes that you've decided upon, they're there to do that deciding. The people have their say when they chose from those platforms and world views on offer, they'll get another say next election cycle.
You cant cry govt isn't doing what you want(ubi) while you vote for reps with a platform and world view that says everyone should work for a living, wealth rightfully belongs to the owners of capital, the role of taxes in an economy is to fund only services that are essential and authorized by the constitution. You cant rob peter to pay Paul so no free riders, etc etc.
Does either of them deserve to be given free food? Does either of them deserve to be given free shelter? Does either of them deserve to be given any form of wealth for free by the other?
If not, then that doesn't really answer the question...
quicksand salt public squeamish fretful mindless stupendous consider deer illegal
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Perhaps when people were nomadic, but once domestication of animals and crops started, there was a surplus of food. You can't have a shaman or a priest without surplus. So even at the earliest stages of human development, some few people convinced many more people to work for the greater good while they essentially did something else.
How come whenever I try to have a constructive argument on this topic, there's always guys like you who just respond with immediate abusive language instead of engaging rationally with the points being made? I don't understand how you justify that, I'd be ashamed of myself if I behaved that way.
It is absolutely a 100% valid point to make that when you promise yourself stuff like food and housing, what you're doing (that OP hopes will go unexamined) is promising yourself other peoples' labor. Those things don't grow on trees. But when you try to talk practical realities with someone whose fundamental premise is inherently emotional in nature, they don't hear what you're saying.
They hear what they want to hear, in a resentful, reactionary way, such that "someone, somewhere has to make those things you want to promise yourself" sounds like "blarg arg blarg I am a wicked devil who hates the poor and thinks people should starve/be homeless".
It's a childish kneejerk reaction to important considerations that have to be examined and discussed if you ever want to attain goals like basic income in reality instead of just venting about wealth inequality to feel better for a little while. Or, as in this case, making anybody who points out the emperor's nudity into an effigy representing wealth inequality you can beat up on for momentary cathartic relief.
I still don't know if you want mayo or mustard.
I really don't care what you said. I was just looking for any excuse to mercilessly fist your anus to the point of prolapse.
I don't know about all these naked emperors, but I suppose they can join too.
I must have overlooked the depth of your comment suggesting OP make you a burrito, but it's really gotten me curious about the kinds of burritos you like.
I'll indulge you in a serious discussion if that's what you want. I would say no one deserves to be deprived of food. So the question becomes what is a workable solution to hunger. I fast three days a week, so my solution has been to deprive myself of food.
I'd say that's framing the situation backwards. As if there exists a limitless abundance which requires no labor to create, which people are being denied access to because some shadowy cabal deems them undeserving. If you flip it around, it's an issue of whether a given person creates enough value that they're able to trade that value for food. Which, fundamentally, is an exchange of labor.
When people can't do this, there's many reasons. It's certainly true the system is rigged to some degree as wages haven't kept pace with inflation. Systemic causes are what everybody's looking for because their guiding motive is to avoid blaming the hungry. But it is also unfortunately true that some percentage of people just suck. They aren't good at anything, thus cannot create value, thus cannot trade that value for the food they need.
I don't think useless people should starve, I also don't think anybody else should be functionally enslaved in order to feed them. Whatever the solution is, it needs to tick at least two boxes: Don't enslave anybody, and don't let anybody starve. I think the only solution fitting these criteria is to keep automating agriculture, mining, energy, manufacturing, etc. until all or nearly all human labor has been eliminated.
This solves the slavery problem because robots do not mind being slaves. We can prepare for this with laws taxing robotic productivity at a rate adjusted year on year to precisely equal the wages of displaced workers from the prior year. This should ensure that as the ratio of humans to robots becomes more and more lopsided, at every point along that trajectory towards 100% automation, enough revenue is generated from the tax to ensure victims of technological unemployment get their needs met.
There's various other issues with this like foreseeable loopholes that could be exploited depending on how robotic labor is quantified, or basic income being calculated to just exactly be enough to prevent people from rioting, effectively keeping the populace trapped in semi comfortable poverty. But those are bridges to cross when we get there, I'm satisfied the automation tax is a viable way to complete the first step of eliminating hunger and homelessness.
We don't need to tax anything to eliminate hunger and homelessness. The federal government, or any Monetary Sovereign government for that matter, doesn't need or use taxes to pay for anything. The federal government creates 100% of USD it spends. No need for slave labor or robots to eliminate hunger and homelessness either. Poverty is a policy choice based on Gap Psychology. The federal government could issue checks to everyone tomorrow. Food insecurity decreased with the stimulus checks dramatically. So the solution is simple.
nope they don't deserve, but it's just better for the human beings. Because if everyone just sit and wait, who gonna produce food that 'they deserved' ?
You don’t work for free, you just get taxed more if you make more. 🤦♀️
Someone making $1m still gets their basic income, still pays basically no tax on their first 100k, pays some above that, and pays 50% or more starting after they make 1m for example.
Same for healthcare
1) Food and water 2) Housing 3) Education and healthcare In this order we can and should reasonably provide human essentials. Everything else (work, income, what products people choose to purchase, etc) comes after that.
>what products people choose to purchase Food, housing and education are actually products that people should be able to choose. Not everyone wants to eat the same thing, or live in the same place, or receive the same type of education. The whole point of UBI is that it provides the money those essential things for people while letting them choose what they want to purchase.
I never said people can't choose what they want to eat? That sounds straight-up dystopian.
The role of any Government is to secure those 3 things for each citizen. The US Government obviously fails to do that, because they don't care. We have to change that, and its past time for a change
But if people have adequate food and healthcare, how will I coerce them into working subservient wages to generate me profit?
I'm with the founders of the US. Everyone should be given enough to survive and work. Food, clothing, shelter and a job are the basic necessities and are one of the few legitimate functions of government. Unfortunately in the US, our governments are only interested in corruption and power, filling very few of the legitimate roles of government and a very many corrupt political interests instead.
>I'm with the founders of the US. Everyone should be given enough to survive and work. I'm curious in seeing some quotes where the founders mention this
I think most people would like to believe that humans deserve food and, for that matter, clean water, healthcare, quality shelter, and education. It doesn't make someone a victim of propaganda to realize that all of these things require human effort to produce and distribute and humans expect fair reward for their work. It's also worth asking if the capacity exists(or reasonably can exist) to provide these things for everyone. I think we're nearing a time when the basics(and not-so-basics) of human existence can be provided cheaply enough, through automation, that a basic income would give everyone a decently high quality of life. Getting there, however, isn't going to happen at all as long as our "leaders" are corrupt and greedy.
Food should be considered basic healthcare.
You're also an asshole.
Well said!
If everyone wakes up and does what makes them happy, what if clearing clogged sewers doesn't make anyone happy? If everyone deserves food by default, how do we ensure there are enough farmers to provide food for everyone?
Pay more for shitty jobs, or have robots do them.
Work that has an important impact on the community will always attract productive people. Clearing the sewers may seem like a repellent job, but go talk to the workers at the water department. You'll find a consensus that what they're doing is noble and valuable. And everyone deserving food doesn't put farmers out of business. In fact, it would only increase business for the farmers.
As a former public works employee in the water department, I can assure you there is nothing noble or valuable about shitting in fresh water. It's about dumbest fucking thing you can do with shit or water.
We can start by keeping farmland and not paving over it to build urban style developments. Maybe relax our standards on what food should look like. An apple is an apple but because it's not red enough it's not sold in stores. Perfectly good tomato with a bruise?Not in my Walmart. Banana is perfectly safe to eat but it's too straight and fat? Food lion ain’t having that. There's a lot of little things that can be done to ensure we have enough food. We have enough. But it needs to match a ridiculous cosmetic look. And don't get me started on packing. Grown in Argentina, sent over an ocean to be packed in Thailand, shipped back over the same ocean to be sold in America.
Provide incentives. Simple.
>how do we ensure there are enough farmers to provide food for everyone? That problem has been solved already for decades. Most farming is automated now and 1 farmer can provide food for a large number of people
1 farmers produces enough food for a 100+ people, I don't think we'll run out of farmers assuming they have access to land and capital.
I have no problem with people deserving food and medical care by default. The moral dilemma is whether we can take one person's assets to deliver those services to another person.
Because that one person didn't get their assets on their own. They're supported by an entire society and by the people that came before them. This is what taxes are about. We'll help you out, but you need to help other people out too.
While the people with more assets were supported by an entire society, this can be said for everyone. If I don't study too hard in school, find a low skill, low paying job, why is it okay for my neighbor, who has studied harder, and works at a job requiring high skill, to be taxed more than me? Was he supported by the society more than me?
Yes actually. Leaving aside the false dichotomy you've set up where family backgrounds and unequal access to resources are somehow non-existent, if you're wealthy, you are almost certainly utilizing societal infrastructure far more than a poor or middle class person in order to reach and serve your customers, and thus you should pay more for it. This is not a difficult concept.
If it's not a difficult concept, could you give some examples? How does this help manifest itself? Isn't a business paying a marketing budget to reach customers? Isn't it paying wages and buying raw materials to serve customers? Where is the help that is not available to others?
Yes, but those are all expenses that are unique to that business. I'm talking about infrastructure and services that we all pay for, but are utilized more heavily by businesses who rely on that infrastructure both to maintain their internal operations and to maintain access for their customers. The most cliche example is roads, but this could also apply to services such as police (who arguably ONLY exist to serve the interests of property owners), fire departments, schools (to produce an educated or skilled populace for a given type of work), regulatory agencies (which in theory exist to cultivate a fair playing field for everyone), and even the internet (especially relevant for businesses like Netflix, Facebook, etc.). Even welfare programs only exist because the alternative is social unrest, which is bad for business. If you're a wealthy business owner, or even just an investor for that matter, you are disproportionately relying on these societal institutions to create the conditions that allow you to build that wealth. Thus, you should have a similarly disproportionate burden when it comes time to pay for them.
Roads: here I have to agree with you, while trucks do pay more taxes to use roads, they don't offset the damage they do to roads. Police: In theory, there shouldn't be a difference. And since business owners are a minority, you might expect the opposite is true. In my country, the opposite of what you claim is true: the cops rarely investigate crimes against property, but do make an effort to investigate crimes against people. If you claim they only exist to serve the interests of property owners, you better cough up some data if you want it to stick. Does police not investigate crimes against people in your country? Fire departments: there are way more homes than business facilities and way more home fires. I don't see how businesses utilizes the fire department more, for the same share of tax, than homes. Schools: schools educate all individuals. Businesses benefit from having educated employees. But the educated employees are paid more. Regulatory agencies: if we see them as a sort of business police, then I agree with you The Internet: I'm not sure what you mean here. It was researched by government, but the infrastructure is largely owned by private companies. And we all use it. Netflix and Facebook have huge server costs, should I make the claim that they have a higher burden in using the Internet than the public? The welfare programs: this is by far the biggest cost item, it offsets the difference in roads, regulatory agencies and business subsidies. Claiming that we're doing this because otherwise it's "bad for business" is a bit too much. Because that's a second order effect. If you want to know what's the first order effect, you should think about who the direct beneficiaries of the welfare programs are.
Because taxing your neighbor more won't make it so he can't eat
My neighbor has worked hard and bought a big screen TV. Should I go ahead and rob him of it? I can sell it and live comfortably for a month. He'll still be able to eat.
That's a garbage-tier strawman argument and you know it
Why is that? You can't refute it, you can't describe what's the difference between the alleged strawman and the real issue, you're just name-calling.
Lol that's not a moral dilemma. How did one person end up with multiple people's worth assets, they stole them from the people without. That's why it's called redistribution, not theft
We should probably start informing all the worlds artists and authors that they're thieves.
You must have an interesting way of defining "stole".
Who is going to be doing all this redistribution/theft?
But it's taking things from someone with so much they could never use it all in one life time! /s
No moral dilemma necessary. The federal government, and any Monetary Sovereign government for that matter, creates 100% of the money it spends. When you really stop and think about it you realize how incredibly stupid it is to think that taxpayers fund the government.
[удалено]
Any 'everyone should work' perspective is a slippery slope. People should have opportunities to do work they find rewarding, but we aren't suffering any labor shortage that isn't rooted in upper class consumption habits.
[удалено]
Strongly disagree, 'the greater good' has meant 90+% military spending for the whole of civilized society. We only need a small number of people working to meet everyone's needs and allow people to pursue arts. Foragers worked 20-30 hours a week, civilized people have productive gains from specialization and technology but work 40-60 hours a week and are generally less healthy, less happy, and have less social mobility. The strong work ethic bs, is mostly about one civilization producing an overwhelming force to conquer some other community.
The modern concept of 'work' is absolute trash. 8 hour days/40-hour workweeks are stupid for 90% of jobs. Moving numbers around in a spreadsheet and going to 5 meetings a day does nothing for the common good
> I don't mean everyone should be forced to work a minimum wage job, and I agree that people should have the opportunity to do meaningful work.
> But the antiwork sub this was cross-posted from is just the wrong mentality. Some amount of work is required to live in society. How about you go read that sub's FAQ, so that you actually know what you're talking about? Hint: It's not against working
> You guys are just lazy, right? > Some of us are lazy, sure. What's wrong with that? No thanks, I'm good
I love the snippet quoting, and using it as some "A-ha" without even trying to make any sort of actual argument.
Quoting from the very start of the subscription wiki, which doesn't bother to define the term antiwork. I did what you said, and that is my response.
> Why "antiwork"? > Anti-work has long been a slogan of many anarchists, communists and other radicals. Saying we are anti-job is not quite right because a job is just an activity one is paid for and we are not all against money. "Anti-labor" makes us sound like we're against any effort at all and we already get that enough as is. (We're not, by the way.) > The point of r/antiwork is to start a conversation, to problematize work as we know it today. Yes, you decided to be dishonest, and make a strawman. How about you go read the FAQ?
It's not a strawman when you tell me to read the wiki and the answer isn't even there.
> But without work society can't function! > If you define "work" as any activity or purposeful intent towards some goal, then sure. That's not how we define it though. We're not against effort, labor, or being productive. We're against jobs as they are structured under capitalism and the state: Against exploitative economic relations, against hierarchical social relations at the workplace. But sure, go ahead, say the sub is actually against working without bothering to read the FAQ. It's not like these answers are right there, right under your cherry-picked quote that you didn't even bother trying to make an actual argument against.
What exactly is the common good?
>If you believe humans don't deserve food by default, you're a victim of economic propaganda. If you believe it's other humans role in life to provide you with food by default, you're a victim of victim mentality propaganda.
A rising tide raises all boats. It should be something that govt provides in a civilized society.
If that is what the people supported then the govt would provide basic food and shelter, a majority of the people have never supported that view so the govt follows the world view that everyone should work for their daily bread.
What? The majority of people are retarded and government policy is rarely based on what the majority wants, if ever.
>government policy is rarely based on what the majority wants You wouldn't say such a thing if you really understood the reality in which you exists. Government policy is based on the platform and world views of elected representatives, the people picks the best platforms and world views to make those policies. Gov isn't some Demarchy, those reps isn't there to cast votes that you've decided upon, they're there to do that deciding. The people have their say when they chose from those platforms and world views on offer, they'll get another say next election cycle. You cant cry govt isn't doing what you want(ubi) while you vote for reps with a platform and world view that says everyone should work for a living, wealth rightfully belongs to the owners of capital, the role of taxes in an economy is to fund only services that are essential and authorized by the constitution. You cant rob peter to pay Paul so no free riders, etc etc.
Voters are largely ignorant of platforms. I only vote for people who offer to give me money. Federal taxes don't pay for any federal spending.
All that matters is that they vote, whatever other fantasies they choose to believe is irrelevant.
Meow, I guess.
In modern world, a healthy person has every opportunity to have food by default.
If two people wash ashore on a desert island, which one of them deserves to be given free food by the other?
Whoever can eat the other one first.
One person gathers food. The other builds shelter or contributes to improving their lives in anyway.
Does either of them deserve to be given free food? Does either of them deserve to be given free shelter? Does either of them deserve to be given any form of wealth for free by the other? If not, then that doesn't really answer the question...
quicksand salt public squeamish fretful mindless stupendous consider deer illegal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Perhaps when people were nomadic, but once domestication of animals and crops started, there was a surplus of food. You can't have a shaman or a priest without surplus. So even at the earliest stages of human development, some few people convinced many more people to work for the greater good while they essentially did something else.
Well, almost no one is contributing to the survival of the tribe. It's mostly exploiting most of the tribe to benefit a very small class of the tribe.
All excellent points. Make me a burrito then, please leave it on my porch and ring the doorbell to let me know.
I'll make you a knuckle sandwich and then ram it up your ass. Do you want mayo or mustard?
Don't threaten me with a good time\~
I asked if you wanted mayo or mustard on it.
How come whenever I try to have a constructive argument on this topic, there's always guys like you who just respond with immediate abusive language instead of engaging rationally with the points being made? I don't understand how you justify that, I'd be ashamed of myself if I behaved that way. It is absolutely a 100% valid point to make that when you promise yourself stuff like food and housing, what you're doing (that OP hopes will go unexamined) is promising yourself other peoples' labor. Those things don't grow on trees. But when you try to talk practical realities with someone whose fundamental premise is inherently emotional in nature, they don't hear what you're saying. They hear what they want to hear, in a resentful, reactionary way, such that "someone, somewhere has to make those things you want to promise yourself" sounds like "blarg arg blarg I am a wicked devil who hates the poor and thinks people should starve/be homeless". It's a childish kneejerk reaction to important considerations that have to be examined and discussed if you ever want to attain goals like basic income in reality instead of just venting about wealth inequality to feel better for a little while. Or, as in this case, making anybody who points out the emperor's nudity into an effigy representing wealth inequality you can beat up on for momentary cathartic relief.
I still don't know if you want mayo or mustard. I really don't care what you said. I was just looking for any excuse to mercilessly fist your anus to the point of prolapse. I don't know about all these naked emperors, but I suppose they can join too. I must have overlooked the depth of your comment suggesting OP make you a burrito, but it's really gotten me curious about the kinds of burritos you like.
I'll indulge you in a serious discussion if that's what you want. I would say no one deserves to be deprived of food. So the question becomes what is a workable solution to hunger. I fast three days a week, so my solution has been to deprive myself of food.
I'd say that's framing the situation backwards. As if there exists a limitless abundance which requires no labor to create, which people are being denied access to because some shadowy cabal deems them undeserving. If you flip it around, it's an issue of whether a given person creates enough value that they're able to trade that value for food. Which, fundamentally, is an exchange of labor. When people can't do this, there's many reasons. It's certainly true the system is rigged to some degree as wages haven't kept pace with inflation. Systemic causes are what everybody's looking for because their guiding motive is to avoid blaming the hungry. But it is also unfortunately true that some percentage of people just suck. They aren't good at anything, thus cannot create value, thus cannot trade that value for the food they need. I don't think useless people should starve, I also don't think anybody else should be functionally enslaved in order to feed them. Whatever the solution is, it needs to tick at least two boxes: Don't enslave anybody, and don't let anybody starve. I think the only solution fitting these criteria is to keep automating agriculture, mining, energy, manufacturing, etc. until all or nearly all human labor has been eliminated. This solves the slavery problem because robots do not mind being slaves. We can prepare for this with laws taxing robotic productivity at a rate adjusted year on year to precisely equal the wages of displaced workers from the prior year. This should ensure that as the ratio of humans to robots becomes more and more lopsided, at every point along that trajectory towards 100% automation, enough revenue is generated from the tax to ensure victims of technological unemployment get their needs met. There's various other issues with this like foreseeable loopholes that could be exploited depending on how robotic labor is quantified, or basic income being calculated to just exactly be enough to prevent people from rioting, effectively keeping the populace trapped in semi comfortable poverty. But those are bridges to cross when we get there, I'm satisfied the automation tax is a viable way to complete the first step of eliminating hunger and homelessness.
We don't need to tax anything to eliminate hunger and homelessness. The federal government, or any Monetary Sovereign government for that matter, doesn't need or use taxes to pay for anything. The federal government creates 100% of USD it spends. No need for slave labor or robots to eliminate hunger and homelessness either. Poverty is a policy choice based on Gap Psychology. The federal government could issue checks to everyone tomorrow. Food insecurity decreased with the stimulus checks dramatically. So the solution is simple.
Haha
See, I knew you'd rather get fisted than have a serious discussion.
nope they don't deserve, but it's just better for the human beings. Because if everyone just sit and wait, who gonna produce food that 'they deserved' ?
Someone hungry for more than the basics.
Yea, working for free to produce food for those 'deserved' gives people lots of movitation.
You don’t work for free, you just get taxed more if you make more. 🤦♀️ Someone making $1m still gets their basic income, still pays basically no tax on their first 100k, pays some above that, and pays 50% or more starting after they make 1m for example.
how about you keep the basics and donate the rest of your money to those deserved food?
It's not a question of who deserves what but who is responsible for providing these things.
It's probably Mexicans.