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

Fun with supply and demand.
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

Postby Fab Yolis » Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:11 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Venerable

My statement is backed up by history. What is viewed as moral varies from time to time and place to place.


How many times, and in how many ways do I have to tell you that this is beside the point?

Different societies have different moral codes, which is why morality is a social construct.


This is not an explanation as to why morality is a social construct, but merely a restatement of the assertion that it is.


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.


Your very use of the terms "rape" and "self defense" undermines the point you are trying to make. Can you see how?

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.


And look at the kind of shitty hell-on-Earth societies that held and resulted from such warped values. Which again goes to show the causal and consequence-based reality of natural rights.

We cannot predict what will be seen as moral in the future, but it will be different to what we see as moral today.


Again, beside the point.

There are no absolutes in morality. Morals are just what people consider to be right and proper at the time.


A person's property/life/freedom is either taken from them without their consent or it is not. Whether a certain set of people in a particular time and place consider this to be "right and proper" does not make one iota of difference to the inherent morality of the act.


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.


Go on then, tell us why...

But even that is a social construct, and is subject to change if society deems that right and proper.


Why would they deem it "right and proper"??

There is no absolute when it comes to morals.


Yes there is. It's called consent.
"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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10841
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

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:48 am

Venerable

Consent is NOT an absolute.
If you find a person guilty of a crime, and sentence him to time in prison, that is done WITHOUT his/her consent. Yet most people would consider punishing a nasty criminal to be moral. Of course, some future society may not, and that would be a change in morals, because morality is not absolute.

Each and every behaviour that is part of 'morality' is a variable, not an absolute. Society decides what is 'moral' and those things change.

I would disagree with you on consent anyway. Some things are more important. For example, I would argue that life is more important. If a person decides not to accept a blood transfusion, and will die without it, I would definitely (though unhappily) put him/her to sleep with anesthetic, and give the blood transfusion anyway, to save a life. I would oppose the 'morality' of the general public, if needed, and oppose a death sentence for an especially evil criminal, because I regard life to be so important.

You are a callous right wing thinker. You would accept that a person has a 'right' to make decisions that would lead to his/her death, possibly slowly and painfully. I would act to prevent this happening. For example, if a would-be suicide tried to hang him/herself, I would cut that person down and apply CPR if needed to save a life.

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

Postby Fab Yolis » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Venerable

Consent is NOT an absolute.


Why not? Either you consent to something or you don't. If you are not sure whether you consent, then it means that you don't.

If you find a person guilty of a crime, and sentence him to time in prison, that is done WITHOUT his/her consent.


The person who committed the crime did so by violating another person's consent (unless it was a BS "crime" like smoking pot or not wearing a bike helmet). Because the criminal has already violated the victim's consent, the victim and the society have a right to protect themselves by taking measures to prevent further aggression and compensating the victim for the crime. In other words, the non-aggression principle is counterbalanced by the self-defense principle.

Of course, some future society may not, and that would be a change in morals, because morality is not absolute.


Perceptions of morality are not absolute. But by all means, do try to explain how rape, murder or theft would be any more or less wrong due to variations in calendar date or geographical co-ordinates!

Each and every behaviour that is part of 'morality' is a variable, not an absolute.


What is that even supposed to mean?

Society decides what is 'moral' and those things change.


WHY do they change??

I would disagree with you on consent anyway. Some things are more important. For example, I would argue that life is more important.


Well happily enough people have strong self-preservation instincts, so in most cases respecting their right to live and respecting their consent are perfectly compatible propositions. In the rare cases when it isn't, it is usually because the person is either not sound of mind (e.g. severely depressed) or suffering from an agonizing terminal illness.

If a person decides not to accept a blood transfusion, and will die without it, I would definitely (though unhappily) put him/her to sleep with anesthetic, and give the blood transfusion anyway, to save a life.


And you would have no right to do that. You would be perfectly within your rights to try and convince that person to consent to the transfusion, and one way you might do this is by pointing out that their avoidable death would impinge on the rights of any dependents they might have. But if that person still refused the transfusion, then you'd have no more right to force them to live than you'd have to force them to die.

I would oppose the 'morality' of the general public, if needed, and oppose a death sentence for an especially evil criminal, because I regard life to be so important.


That's nice. I hope you'd also respect the right of the rest of society to pass the costs of supporting and detaining such an individual onto your good self.

You are a callous right wing thinker.


And you apparently think that ad-hominems are a legitimate form of argument.

You would accept that a person has a 'right' to make decisions that would lead to his/her death, possibly slowly and painfully.


That's right. Just as I accept that you have no right to decide what is best for them unless you are their guardian.

I would act to prevent this happening. For example, if a would-be suicide tried to hang him/herself, I would cut that person down and apply CPR if needed to save a life.


Like I said, a person who did such a thing would almost certainly not be of sound mind. Therefore, you would be right to assume this to be the case in that moment and intervene accordingly.
"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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10841
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

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:34 am

How is a person hanging himself not of sound mind, while a person refusing a transfusion to save his life is? Your "logic" is weird.

Where you say "the non aggression principle is counterbalanced by the self defense principle" you are actually agreeing with me that morality is not an absolute. It varies. That makes morality a variable.

I could see a time in the future where punishing criminals no longer occurs. A far preferable response, compared to punishment, is cure. If a criminal can be cured of his tendency to rape, murder, or other violent or property crimes, then punishment is not longer needed. We cannot do that yet, but it might be a reality eventually.

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

Postby Fab Yolis » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:How is a person hanging himself not of sound mind, while a person refusing a transfusion to save his life is? Your "logic" is weird.


A person trying to hang himself is (presumably) not sound of mind because he is likely to be afflicted by depression, mind-altering drugs and/or some other factors which impair his decision-making processes. A person who refuses a life saving transfusion on the other hand may have arrived at that decision through a completely logical and emotionally undistorted decision-making process (whether or not you personally agree with the unverifiable assumptions underlying that person's logic is irrelevant).

Where you say "the non aggression principle is counterbalanced by the self defense principle" you are actually agreeing with me that morality is not an absolute. It varies. That makes morality a variable.


That's not what I'm saying at all. The underlying moral reality of those two principles is absolute, but their practical implications can vary depending on the details of the particular case in question.

I could see a time in the future where punishing criminals no longer occurs.


No, you can vaguely imagine a hypothetical scenario in the distant future where punishing criminals no longer occurs. In case you missed the memo, your speculative imaginings =! evidence.

A far preferable response, compared to punishment, is cure. If a criminal can be cured of his tendency to rape, murder, or other violent or property crimes, then punishment is not longer needed.


Punishment is not the issue here, natural rights and morality are. Curing a criminal of their criminal tendencies does not undo the violations of their victim's rights.

We cannot do that yet, but it might be a reality eventually.


Sure, probably about the same time we start cranking out winged pigs from portable nano-factories :roll:
"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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10841
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

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:52 am

Venerable

Your serious illogic is hard to follow.
A person who hangs himself due to irrational and emotional impulses is different to someone who refuses a life saving transfusion due to irrational and emotional impulses is different???? Duh!

Undelying morality is absolute but practical implications are not????? Duh!

Curing a criminal does not undo the violations of their victim's rights??????? Please, venerable. Tell me something that has meaning,. Not this bulldust drivel.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12755
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

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

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:32 am

I think the avatar being turned on its head.................. is a clue.
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?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:54 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I think the avatar being turned on its head.................. is a clue.

It's George Soros whom Neo-nazis and conservatives claim is "“the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country.”

Human Events : Powerful Conservative Voices Website.
Top 10 Reasons George Soros Is Dangerous
http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-1 ... dangerous/
Reason 1) "Gives billions to left-wing causes". :D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12755
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

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

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:30 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I think the avatar being turned on its head.................. is a clue.

It's George Soros whom Neo-nazis and conservatives claim is "“the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country.”

Human Events : Powerful Conservative Voices Website.
Top 10 Reasons George Soros Is Dangerous
http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-1 ... dangerous/
Reason 1) "Gives billions to left-wing causes". :D

We need more like Soros. Hard for a rich guy to act that way.....although thank Darwin, there are a handful. I was just reminded of Richard Branson's Earth Prize issued in 2007 for the bloke that creates a gizmo to remove co2 from the air. Its the only thing that might save humanity. Good on Richard.
http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/
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: 30478
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

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:30 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I was just reminded of Richard Branson's Earth Prize issued in 2007 for the bloke that creates a gizmo to remove co2 from the air. Its the only thing that might save humanity. Good on Richard.

Ummmmm...treeeeeees? :roses: What do I win?
"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

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12755
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

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

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:54 pm

I assume trees just won't remove enough....and its not a gizmo?
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10841
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

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:39 pm

Given enough time, trees could remove sufficient CO2. But it would take a different approach to forestry. And yes, it is not a gizmo.


Return to “Economics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest