1 Child vs 1,000 Embryos

Originally posted by socool8520
It lost me at: A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.

You work for what you get imo. You aren't owed anything.

Yes, I am aware that this is your opinion. I disagree. There are many reasons why UBI is actually a good idea: most of them have nothing to do with feelings and almost all have to do with economics and research (limited).

Think of it another way: if we had a system of UBI, your life would improve if you did nothing differently than you are now.

Originally posted by BackFire
Speaking of UBI, pretty significant news broke the other day. A nearby California city, Stockton, is going to be, I believe, the first American city to try UBI next year. Will be interesting to see how it works out.

https://futurism.com/next-year-a-californian-city-will-launch-the-first-basic-income-experiment-in-the-u-s/

****ing excellent. I greatly look forward to the outcome of this experiment. That one city in Canada tried this and it had surprising success. It was in the 1970s. We need more examples of this happening so more research can be done. We will discover the dos and don'ts of UBI if we "try it" in multiple locations, first.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is great!

Okay, so I would argue that children, elderly, and the infirm all fall under the same category: they cannot help themselves. We as the matured civilization much practice civility; else we are not civil.

I derive these beliefs from a few sources:

1. How I was raised.
2. My religious beliefs as a Christian (sorry, guys, Jesus was a commie hippie).
3. Economics of keeping a healthy society as highly functional as possible.

And I would disagree. Children had no chance to set up for their success and as such differ from the elderly. That's where their parents come in. The infirm are different in such that they actually can't help themselves or never could. In that, they are also different then the elderly.

I believe this way because:

1. I was raised to work for what you get
2. My parents were Christian, but I rejected religion fairly early. In doing so, it had very little sway in controlling how I behave or think.
3. Giving people money/benefits for nothing does not seem sustainable in my opinion.

Also to use the Bible as a basis for violating property rights is extremely sketch to say the least... given that the Bible affirms property rights. The Bible doesn't support communism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I am aware that this is your opinion. I disagree. There are many reasons why UBI is actually a good idea: most of them have nothing to do with feelings and almost all have to do with economics and research (limited).

Think of it another way: if we had a system of UBI, your life would improve if you did nothing differently than you are now.

I don't need it to be improved. I am very happy with being able to provide for my family on my own merit and effort.

Where is the motivation to actually work if you don't have to. That is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
There's a difference between the moral belief that you should do something, and the belief that you should be compelled by government force to do something.

Funnily enough, that's one of the tenets of my Mormon beliefs:

A 'gift' given begrudgingly is not a gift and it should never be given. But that's a religious discussion about what constitutes a sin in Mormonism.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
There are plenty of the people on the right who are willing to make donations to charities and other such things of their own volition, but find the government forcing them to do these things to be infringing on their rights.

You're right (pun intended) and they also determined the conservatives give more to charity.

But forcing people to pay taxes is not infringing on people's rights when the requirement to pay taxes is a law. You are actually infringing upon others rights that the law gives them by not paying your taxes. "Rights" is a legal term so you must operate, no, you have not choice but to operate within the bounds of those laws. No one has the right not to participate in the tax system.

Changing the laws to adjust how taxes are allocated, however, is what I am referring to.

Originally posted by dadudemon
****ing excellent. I greatly look forward to the outcome of this experiment. That one city in Canada tried this and it had surprising success. It was in the 1970s. We need more examples of this happening so more research can be done. We will discover the dos and don'ts of UBI if we "try it" in multiple locations, first.

Indeed, and it's important to get this information now, because I believe in the coming years/decades UBI is only going to become more and more prominent and necessary to reckon with as more and more jobs become lost and obsolete because of automation. I expect UBI will be a major campaign issue in 2024, if not 2020.

Originally posted by BackFire
Speaking of UBI, pretty significant news broke the other day. A nearby California city, Stockton, is going to be, I believe, the first American city to try UBI next year. Will be interesting to see how it works out.

https://futurism.com/next-year-a-californian-city-will-launch-the-first-basic-income-experiment-in-the-u-s/

Do think it will fail, seems to me for UBI to work it needs to be tried and failed many times to weed out which parts work and which parts don.'t

Though it's not really a new concept, as Alaskans get a monthly government check (APF) from oil profits just for being Alaskan since the mid 70's.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do think it will fail, seems to me for UBI to work it needs to be tried and failed many times to weed out which parts work and which parts don.'t

Though it's not really a new concept, as Alaskans get a monthly government check (APF) from oil profits just for being Alaskan since the mid 70's.

I thought it was so they wouldn't freak out about the oil reaping in their state.

Originally posted by socool8520
I thought it was so they wouldn't freak out about the oil reaping in their state.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Funnily enough, that's one of the tenets of my Mormon beliefs:

A 'gift' given begrudgingly is not a gift and it should never be given. But that's a religious discussion about what constitutes a sin in Mormonism.

Actually, it's a yearly payout and not monthly. My error.

Originally posted by socool8520
And I would disagree. Children had no chance to set up for their success and as such differ from the elderly. That's where their parents come in.

Do you not think your opinion on this is actually callused and cruel? How many people out there make babies but are extremely unfit to raise children? Orphans? etc.

If you're of the opinion that we should let nature and natural selection take its course, then I refer you back to my civility argument. This also means we could argue for all over the place as that would mean anything we are doing would be natural so there should be no such thing as civility (slippery slope about "let nature run it's course and the children die if their parents or family cannot care for them).

Originally posted by socool8520
The infirm are different in such that they actually can't help themselves or never could.

Hey, we agree on 1 out of 3 so we've got that going for us, which is nice. lol

Originally posted by socool8520
In that, they are also different then the elderly.

And, again, I disagree. If I came down with terminal cancer that required a rare cancer treatment, I'd be okay. But what about the tens of millions of Americans who don't have insurance as good as mine? What about the elderly who cannot afford it? So we stop carring about a person after they turn 8-ish because they should be able to take care of themselves? Then where is civility? Why have any civility if we do not act civilized? Where are you drawing the line?

I believe this way because:

Originally posted by socool8520
3. Giving people money/benefits for nothing does not seem sustainable in my opinion.

We do it already. And every industrialized nation does it including the US. It's just that the US is among the shittiest about doing it properly.

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, it's a yearly payout and not monthly. My error.

I assumed that's what you meant. I don't think they could sustain a monthly wage like that for a long period of time even in a less populated state.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also to use the Bible as a basis for violating property rights is extremely sketch to say the least... given that the Bible affirms property rights. The Bible doesn't support communism.

Violating? No, you have it the opposite. The bible says to render under to Caesar what is Caesar's. That means pay your taxes.

And the Bible most certainly does support communism (pure communism):

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:32-35

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all

34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

And Jesus told the rich man to sell all his posessions and give it to the poor:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A17-31&version=NLT

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't need it to be improved. I am very happy with being able to provide for my family on my own merit and effort.

Then it should not matter to your that the lives of those less fortunate are improved and the lives of most people in your SES are also improved. You should fully support this idea (IIIIIIIFFFFF it is done correctly).

Originally posted by socool8520
Where is the motivation to actually work if you don't have to. That is ridiculous.

It is counterintuitive but people actually work more often when a substantial UBI system is in place. This is one aspect of UBI that still f*cks with my mind. I still do not understand why it is this way even when economists explain it to me (doesn't make sense).

Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed, and it's important to get this information now, because I believe in the coming years/decades UBI is only going to become more and more prominent and necessary to reckon with as more and more jobs become lost and obsolete because of automation. I expect UBI will be a major campaign issue in 2024, if not 2020.

I agree. As a person working in technology and heading up a multimillion dollar project to MAKE A F*CKING [redacted] FROM A KIOSK, it's going to be important that we start moving towards the direction of what Gene Roddenberry portrayed in Star Trek: money will become meaningless.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do think it will fail, seems to me for UBI to work it needs to be tried and failed many times to weed out which parts work and which parts don.'t

Though it's not really a new concept, as Alaskans get a monthly government check (APF) from oil profits just for being Alaskan since the mid 70's.

Yes, I said similar. The research we have is too light. We need more dos and don'ts for a proper system to scale nationally or even internationally.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is counterintuitive but people actually work more often when a substantial UBI system is in place. This is one aspect of UBI that still f*cks with my mind. I still do not understand why it is this way even when economists explain it to me (doesn't make sense).

Maybe it allows people to be more picky about what jobs they do, thus instead of getting whatever job pays the most, they can choose the one they more enjoy and find satisfying, thus incentivizing them to work more.

@dadudedemon Sure, but this was something voluntarily participated in, and Jesus told this dude to do it of his own volition, nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that you should use force to compel people to charity.