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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:02 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:
Depends on how important that reinvestment in the company is to the continuation of the business.


Not to the business. To the greater good of humanity as a whole. The point is that the megabillionnaire does not need it. He or she already has a thousand times as much money as needed. Practically speaking, it matters not a damn to him or her whether his/her profits are up or down that year. There will be no sacrifices required.

But to a child that may die of malaria if that $5 is not spent on the proper net, that is extraordinarily important. And the ongoing health of that child will return, in hard cold cash, far more that the $5 put into a lesser investment.


The business has employees. These days, with so many multinational companies, the employees may be in many different countries. If the business fails it is the employees and their families that suffer. You seem more concerned with the poor who don't work than with those who escape poverty by working.
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
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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:32 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:

Another fractured non-response. I don't consider myself a Nationalist, but I think the needs here at home are much more deserving of any contribution I might make than the unknown third world. I don't want to study the issue sufficiently to know all the details of what investment/donation to make. OUR gubment providing for the commonweal of OUR own citizens does however strike me as very high on the list of responsibilities, or even opportunities.

STRUCTURAL support...not the willy nilly comes as it goes personal effort...but a society I can be proud of: taking care of its own.

Its a simple proposition that you miss: what is the better goal of a society, to benefit the AlreadyTooRich or to benefit more generally the entire society? If you are willing to sacrifice yourself to dog whistles, how about your kiddies????

All kinds of economic analyses show that there are sweet spots to the curves. Too little or too much taxation or anything else leads to inefficiencies. You got to be twisted to think the policies of the USA for the last 30 years have not been "inefficient." We need change, fair and balanced... not more failed trickle down false promises.


Good. This is a post with several important issues. It may surprise you to learn that I agree with most of what you've said here.

Being a Nationalist: The primary responsibility of any government should be the safety and well-being of its citizens. This concept is threatened by those who think a one-world government would save humanity, so if you suggest that your government should take care of its own, the Left will compare you to Hitler.

How to benefit the entire society economically: And when I say society, I'm talking about all those who live in one nation. Which is better? Providing handouts to those who are struggling, or providing a strong economy that offers opportunities for more people to succeed? Well, both are necessary initially, but if we don't improve on the opportunity side we will just have to increase the handouts to more and more people. So, let's rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Let's get serious about improving our educational system. Let's make regulatory and tax changes that encourage companies to locate here instead of taking jobs to third-world countries or moving their headquarters to low-tax nations.

How much taxation is too much...or too little? The Laffer curve makes sense to me, but some claim it has been debunked. Historical evidence seems to support it, despite the rhetoric of its detractors. IMO, corporate tax rates should be lowered BUT at the same time, many deductions should be abolished. As it stands, the largest corporations pay a lower rate than small businesses that can't take advantage of the many loopholes. Our current rates are the highest in the world. Taxing corporations is not "taxing the rich". Understand that every expense a business incurs is reflected in the price of its products. Consumers pay corporate taxes. Raising them would tax us all. But lowering the rates while reducing the deductions could be revenue-neutral - and fairer.

The federal government runs a deficit every year. Raising taxes would likely not increase revenue, but reducing spending would balance the budget. There are many needs within the nation not being addressed while government spends trillions around the world on wars and foreign aid. The US has no friends. We buy allies. And we can't afford it anymore.
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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:51 pm

There is a big difference between money going to a worker inside the USA, or an American charity, versus a charity in an impoverished African nation. Let me illustrate.

A while back, an advertisement for a charity here in NZ was to train guide dogs for the blind. The tag line was "it costs $22,000 to train a dog. So please give generously."

At the same time, the Fred Hollows Foundation was asking for donations to support the eye technicians in their group who restore sight to the blind in impoverished nations through cataract operations. Their tag line was : "It costs $25 to give a person back his sight. So please give generously."

Guess which one I supported?

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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is a big difference between money going to a worker inside the USA, or an American charity, versus a charity in an impoverished African nation. Let me illustrate.

A while back, an advertisement for a charity here in NZ was to train guide dogs for the blind. The tag line was "it costs $22,000 to train a dog. So please give generously."

At the same time, the Fred Hollows Foundation was asking for donations to support the eye technicians in their group who restore sight to the blind in impoverished nations through cataract operations. Their tag line was : "It costs $25 to give a person back his sight. So please give generously."

Guess which one I supported?


Yes, in that example the choice between the two is obvious. Personally, I would have sought out a charity that helped poor Americans get cataract surgery.

Sometimes it's not that easy to see the waste. I think we've discussed this before, but there was a case where a major charity was buying bread in the US (at high prices) and paying to ship it to some poor country. First, the local people ate rice, not wheat, so the change in diet hurt as much as it helped. Second, it would have made more sense to send seeds and teach locals how to plant wheat and to bake bread. That would have sustained them for centuries, long after the free bread ran out. Third, by providing free bread, the local rice farmers lost what little income they once had, destroying what little local economy existed. Fourth, according to IRS rules a charity can spend up to 85% of its proceeds on "operational expenses", "fund-raising" and salaries. It is questionable how much bread was even delivered.

In your example, $25 sounds like a bargain, but I wonder how many people were actually helped....after "expenses".
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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:01 pm

The Fred Hollows Foundation is very reputable, and their 'expenses' are minimal.

In the USA a cataract operation to restore sight costs in excess of $US 10,000. Even the price of the lenses is very high. Fred Hollows set up his own lens factory in Eritrea, and churns out cheap lenses by the tens of thousands. In the USA, highly paid ophthalmologists do the work. Fred Hollows introduced a system by which bright young men in third world nations were intensively trained to do one specialised job only. Replace cataracted natural lenses with his plastic ones, and thus give a blind person back his/her sight. Those young men do nothing else and they become very good at their one task. They are paid according to the standards of their nation, and do not suck up thousands from the charity. Nevertheless, they are paid a little better than their peers.

They advertise $25 to restore sight to a blind person. It may not be totally accurate, of course, and the true cost may be a little higher. But nevertheless, this is perhaps the greatest charitable donation bargain I have ever seen. You can do immense good with small donations. Over many years, I have given this charity perhaps $10,000. You can calculate how many people have received back their sight from my help, and compare that to any American charity you wish.

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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The Fred Hollows Foundation is very reputable, and their 'expenses' are minimal.

In the USA a cataract operation to restore sight costs in excess of $US 10,000. Even the price of the lenses is very high. Fred Hollows set up his own lens factory in Eritrea, and churns out cheap lenses by the tens of thousands. In the USA, highly paid ophthalmologists do the work. Fred Hollows introduced a system by which bright young men in third world nations were intensively trained to do one specialised job only. Replace cataracted natural lenses with his plastic ones, and thus give a blind person back his/her sight. Those young men do nothing else and they become very good at their one task. They are paid according to the standards of their nation, and do not suck up thousands from the charity. Nevertheless, they are paid a little better than their peers.

They advertise $25 to restore sight to a blind person. It may not be totally accurate, of course, and the true cost may be a little higher. But nevertheless, this is perhaps the greatest charitable donation bargain I have ever seen. You can do immense good with small donations. Over many years, I have given this charity perhaps $10,000. You can calculate how many people have received back their sight from my help, and compare that to any American charity you wish.


Well, good for you. I see you live in New Zealand. What have you done for your fellow countrymen? Or is it too expensive to help your neighbors?
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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:59 pm

What have I done for my countrymen?

I have paid my taxes. New Zealand is a welfare state, and people who are in dire straits are looked after by the government. There is cheap housing supplied to the poor, and social welfare payments to buy the groceries. Health care is free and of a high standard. There are people, of course, who claim it is not enough, but if you want booze and drugs, you need to work to earn the money. New Zealand has a very low rate of unemployment, and there are always people looking for reliable and honest workers.

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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:59 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:What have I done for my countrymen?

I have paid my taxes. New Zealand is a welfare state, and people who are in dire straits are looked after by the government. There is cheap housing supplied to the poor, and social welfare payments to buy the groceries. Health care is free and of a high standard. There are people, of course, who claim it is not enough, but if you want booze and drugs, you need to work to earn the money. New Zealand has a very low rate of unemployment, and there are always people looking for reliable and honest workers.


Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what sort of tax rate is required to maintain this seemingly ideal situation?
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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:16 pm

The tax rate varies, of course. Higher paid people pay more. I have paid generally something over 30% of my net income as income tax, since I have been on a higher income than others, especially when I got my business up and running. There are also indirect taxes, and especially goods and services tax, which is similar to Britain's VAT.

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 » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:11 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The tax rate varies, of course. Higher paid people pay more. I have paid generally something over 30% of my net income as income tax, since I have been on a higher income than others, especially when I got my business up and running. There are also indirect taxes, and especially goods and services tax, which is similar to Britain's VAT.


Thanks. Taxes vary in the US, also according to income, but also depending on which state one lives in. It's hard to compare yours vs. ours. VAT taxes are very different in UK compared to Germany, for instance, and I don't know how high yours is. But our sales taxes vary not only by state, but even by city. And, some states have income tax of varying amounts while some have none. Then, there are property taxes that also vary by city or by county or even by school district.

Overall, though, it sounds like your paying less tax than we are - and getting more in return. Maybe if the US stopped trying to be the world's police force we could get more bang for our bucks.
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: 11703
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 » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:39 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Overall, though, it sounds like your paying less tax than we are - and getting more in return. Maybe if the US stopped trying to be the world's police force we could get more bang for our bucks.


I can totally guarantee you that the world does NOT want the USA as some kind of police force. In fact, we would pay you to cease and desist.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:47 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I can totally guarantee you that the world does NOT want the USA as some kind of police force. In fact, we would pay you to cease and desist.


.........what do you think the alternative is?

((excellent telling of the eye charity case....and the (reason for the) lack of similar need in NZ. Thanks)
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: 11703
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 » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:26 pm

Bobbo

No alternative of that kind is required. If you look at the consequences of American military intervention in foreign countries, you will realise that they are normally very unfortunate. I am not a pacifist, and I accept any nation's right to defend itself. But sending armed forces off to try to impose your will on someone else is not ethical, and the results are generally bad.

Here are ways we can make the world better, but going off to kill people is not one of them.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 04, 2016 6:49 am

Well Lance, yes its always bad when any nation attacks another. But the basis of my comment is if some nation is going to do that, who better than USA? If not for the USA....what (more) would Russia be doing to Ukraine right now? What would china be doing in the South China Sea? ..... or just about everywhere else in the world?

The absence of the USA acting as it does would not mean world peace. It means other nations acting out. Pros and cons to all we do of course.

Who would you rather be attacked by Lance? Russia, china, North Korea..... or the USA?
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: 11703
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 04, 2016 7:07 am

I would rather be attacked by no one. There are better ways than the USA attacking others to maintain peace. Not attacking others for a start.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
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 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:18 am

The question of "what would Russia do" is rather interesting: we know from history what happened in Afghanistan until the US intervened. We know from more recent history what happened to Chechnya.

Russia would most likely use its military to re-create the Soviet Union plus a 'buffer zone' of some-what neutral countries. And it would have to use more and more resources to maintain control.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 04, 2016 7:33 am

Lance: of course we would all rather live in fantasy land. good for us who deal with reality that you types have no go.
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: 11703
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 04, 2016 7:28 pm

Bobbo

I am not a pacifist, and there are sometimes no alternatives to fighting. My philosophy of war is that there are two situations where you are justified in fighting.

1. To defend your own borders.
2. Where an ally is attacked, to help defend your ally.

Those two pretty much cover it. Other reasons for going to war are not ethical.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 04, 2016 9:50 pm

Bobbo

I am not a pacifist, /// me neither but I'm very much against it

and there are sometimes no alternatives to fighting. /// No....that would be a choice

My philosophy of war is that there are two situations where you are justified in fighting.

1. To defend your own borders. /// Why is that? Were you in on the longish thread about the justification/benefits of passive resistance? Supposedly, its more effective that agression...but it may not have included invasion by others

2. Where an ally is attacked, to help defend your ally. /// I think that is iffy. Lots of allies are made for reasons having nothing to do with their sanity...and leadership changes. Seems a rather "non-thinking" non-use of judgement, kneejerk..... ethically problematic to me.

Those two pretty much cover it. Other reasons for going to war are not ethical./// Most nations are founded unethically. How can "anything" thereafter be ethical?
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
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 04, 2016 10:03 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:

1. To defend your own borders. /// Why is that? Were you in on the longish thread about the justification/benefits of passive resistance? Supposedly, its more effective that agression...but it may not have included invasion by others


Why bother mentioning it if you are going to contradict your own argument? Self-defense is a basic right...of individuals and of nations.

2. Where an ally is attacked, to help defend your ally. /// I think that is iffy. Lots of allies are made for reasons having nothing to do with their sanity...and leadership changes. Seems a rather "non-thinking" non-use of judgement, kneejerk..... ethically problematic to me.


Then you might agree with Trump regarding blindly rushing to war to defend NATO members?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 04, 2016 10:15 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:

1. To defend your own borders. /// Why is that? Were you in on the longish thread about the justification/benefits of passive resistance? Supposedly, its more effective that agression...but it may not have included invasion by others


Why bother mentioning it if you are going to contradict your own argument? Self-defense is a basic right...of individuals and of nations.


I mention it as I think it was Lance that argued very forcefully in favor of passive resistence as more effective than violence. I don't see me contradicting my own argument. You take asking a question as disagreement? Ha, ha. Basic grammar fail. Rights do apply to individuals but have ZERO meaning at the State level. States deal in POWER. Different concept altogether. The weaker nations in the UN are trying to get the States Rights argument generally accepted, but it is rejected by all the large States.
xxx
Paul Anthony wrote:
2. Where an ally is attacked, to help defend your ally. /// I think that is iffy. Lots of allies are made for reasons having nothing to do with their sanity...and leadership changes. Seems a rather "non-thinking" non-use of judgement, kneejerk..... ethically problematic to me.


Then you might agree with Trump regarding blindly rushing to war to defend NATO members?


No, I don't agree with Trump. I hold my opinion based on my own faculties..... and have had this opinion for years while Trump was cheating on his serial wives. On point, I would not blindly rush to war to defend NATO. How much in advance to telegraph that position could be tricky...but {!#%@} Turkey. Hard to put into a treaty all the unknown future developments that make defending allies in our own geopolitical interests or not. I wouldn't go to WAR over the Crimea either if the Ukraine had become part of NATO...it was 70% Russian to start with and so forth.

Also to be teased out of any longer discussion is the use of military force but short of war. Short of Police Actions as well. "A Limited Engagement" as the conditions might warrant...taking out one anothers airplanes and ships for instance...rather than troops on the ground. Lots of gray there.
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
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 » Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:

No, I don't agree with Trump. I hold my opinion based on my own faculties..... and have had this opinion for years while Trump was cheating on his serial wives. On point, I would not blindly rush to war to defend NATO. How much in advance to telegraph that position could be tricky...but {!#%@} Turkey. Hard to put into a treaty all the unknown future developments that make defending allies in our own geopolitical interests or not. I wouldn't go to WAR over the Crimea either if the Ukraine had become part of NATO...it was 70% Russian to start with and so forth.

Also to be teased out of any longer discussion is the use of military force but short of war. Short of Police Actions as well. "A Limited Engagement" as the conditions might warrant...taking out one anothers airplanes and ships for instance...rather than troops on the ground. Lots of gray there.


Well, thanks for clearing that up...You definitely don't agree with Trump. You just happen to hold the same opinion as he does on this issue.

Yeah, I can see the distinction...sorta...if I squint. :twisted:

BTW, on this issue I agree with both of you. :)
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: 11703
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 05, 2016 12:42 am

On passive resistance.
Bobbo, you should recall that the thread in which I pointed out the value of non violent resistance was about resisting a tyrant. Not defending your nation against an invader. The two situations are not comparable.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 05, 2016 12:42 am

Thats always welcomed....so we can tag team Lance should he return to quibble his position...... he hasn't changed his mind on any issue that I can recall.

You probably missed it on Trump: Generically, I don't look to "agree with" political leaders.... I'm "not a follower." As stated, I've held my opinion for years before Trump or other leaders on the scene ever thought about the issue...and with Trump...he has no RATIONALE for his position which makes agreeing with him or not rather quixotic and subject to HIS moods. Note: "being tough" is not a rationale..... even though it often amounts to the same thing?
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 05, 2016 12:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On passive resistance.
Bobbo, you should recall that the thread in which I pointed out the value of non violent resistance was about resisting a tyrant. Not defending your nation against an invader. The two situations are not comparable.


Yes, thats what I vaguely half remembered.... even though that is what tyrants do and I would think all the same issues are in play? What is it about invasion that changes any equation?
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: 11703
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 05, 2016 1:01 am

Resisting a tyrant is an internal matter. Best done non violently. Resisting an invader is facing armies already on your borders. Initial resistance is to send them packing. After that, non violence is good, and comes under the umbrella of diplomacy.

The reason resisting a tyrant is best done non violently is because recent history shows that. It is an empirical reality, shown by what actually happens, rather than someone's fond theory. Violent resistance leads to a Syria situation. Non violence is what Gandhi and Mandela did so well, and achieved massive success at low cost.

Resisting an invader is something accomplished by defending your borders. Again, forget the theory. Real life shows that this is what is needed.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
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 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:03 am

I see the world approaching a "Freemimum" Model of basic needs for bottom two layers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: no-frills versions of everything will be free (food, shelter, clothes, education, public transport). Everything else will cost, possibly dearly.
Something like this would prevent the risk of inflation coming from a cash-based UBI.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 09, 2016 9:43 am

Seems to me the invading army situation is the example of a domestic Tyrant that passive resistance is no good against: those Tyrants willing to use military force to achieve their goals.
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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:53 pm

Bobbo

A tyrant willing to use force against his own people is a dreadful thing. Obviously peaceful protest becomes less effective. But armed opposition is even worse. That is what happened in Syria and so far nearly 500,000 people have paid the price. If you have a tyrant willing to use arms to stop peaceful opposition, then it means the opposition must be done carefully, often secretly, and the people looking for change have to be very patient, because it is not going to happen quickly. Look at Zimbabwe where the tyrant Mugabe is going to have to die of old age before meaningful change can be implemented.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32217
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 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:56 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:no-frills versions of everything will be free (food, shelter, clothes, education, public transport).

What is "no-frills food"? (There's a brand where I live called "no-frills", which is just otherwise a no-name brand.) I hope you don't mean McDonalds three times a week. :?
"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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:42 pm

EM's idea of 'no frills' has a flaw. If robots take over most human jobs, productivity will go way up. A robot happy to work 24/365 without tiring is going to produce vast amounts of material and services. That production needs consumers. Does not sound like 'no frills' to me!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 09, 2016 10:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

A tyrant willing to use force against his own people is a dreadful thing. Obviously peaceful protest becomes less effective. But armed opposition is even worse.


So, not going to the morality or historical roots, why is violence against a domestic Tyrant to be favored or more effective as to desired outcome, whereas violence against an invading Tryant is recommended? Hmmm....right off the bat, the argument appears to be that domestic Tyrants are more likely to give in to societal pressures?.........BUT that negates the very premise: willing to use force.
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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:05 pm

Bobbo

The response that comes to my mind is that those things are work are the way to do it. There are numerous examples of tyrants successfully opposed peacefully, while equally numerous examples of attempts to overthrow tyrants with arms have turned to very bloody custard.

Defending your borders are normally done with the nation's defense force. Frankly I do not know of any attempts to defend borders peacefully, so I cannot say if it has any chance of working. I doubt it would. Offhand I would think that an invader would be seriously unimpressed. My opinion, which is probably not worth much, is that the best approach to defense is to establish a network of alliances, with many nations willing to come and help militarily, and publicise that fact so that an invader will be deterred.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 09, 2016 11:20 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: Frankly I do not know of any attempts to defend borders peacefully,

Ha, ha...........good point. I have always been thinking of "allowing" the invasion and then resisting. Doesn't make any sense at all though....I agree. Seems like we are missing some point though in the effectiveness of violence against Tyrants. ............ But maybe not.

My thinking is probably swayed by just watching "The Hobbit, Army of Five". Man!! I think of the Hobbit as a kiddie show but this was about the most violent/killing show I've seen. Spartacus had less killing but emphasized the blood more. Neither are Harry Potter kiddie fare. Fun to notice the long haired blond King is the same guy on Halt and Catch Fire. Similarities in face........as well as acting. Fun to see.
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: 11703
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 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:37 pm

I found the Hobbit movies terribly disappointing. I think that the makers wanted to make three movies, so they invented lots of violent stuff to add that was not in the book. The love of money led to a screwed up trilogy of movies.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32217
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 » Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:52 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The love of money led to a screwed up trilogy of movies.

#truth
"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?

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 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:01 am

Gord wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Gord wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:It doesn't matter if it's "legal". Anything can be "legal". Sending trainloads of people off to gas chambers simply because they are of a certain ethnicity can be "legal". What I care about is whether it's moral.

Morality has a subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things,

The subjective component of morality is peoples' perceptions of it, which can be warped to make them do horrible things. But the very fact that we are even speaking of these "horrible things" indicates that morality is fundamentally objective in nature; sending people off to death camps just because they are of a certain ethnicity is wrong regardless of what the surrounding culture of the time has to say about it.

The objective quality of morality is in human nature. If humans feel it is morally correct to send people off to death camps just because they are of a certain ethnicity, then for those people it is morally correct.


No it's not, because those people being sent off to death camps have not initiated aggression against the people who are sending them.

It can still be morally incorrect for other people, myself included.


How so?

I can even feel it is so morally incorrect that those other people need to be stopped in ways I would find morally repugnant if I didn't feel those other people were so morally repugnant. That's and expression of the subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things.


What you feel about the moral correctness of it is beside the point. Either the death camp victims are having violence initiated against them or they aren't, and the right to fight back against the aggressors exists to the extent that it is necessary to halt their aggression.

and rights are a human invention to protect the weak but are frequently subverted to accommodate the greedy.

They are not a human invention, they are a natural practical consequence of cause-and-effect.

Nowhere else in nature to we find "rights" arising. They are a human invention, just like law. They may be a "natural practical consequence of cause-and-effect", but so what? I never claimed they were magically created by a divine being.


You just contradicted yourself here. I'll leave it to you to figure out how.

You want to use both to your own advantage because you feel you deserve the world as you envision it, to the detriment of others.

That's your (baseless) opinion.

It's actually pretty clear. Many people feel the same way you do, regardless of their political or economical stance.


Where have I ever indicated that I feel I deserve the world as I "envision" it? The only world I deserve is the world I co-create with everyone else, for better or worse.
"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: 32217
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 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:17 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Gord wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Gord wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:It doesn't matter if it's "legal". Anything can be "legal". Sending trainloads of people off to gas chambers simply because they are of a certain ethnicity can be "legal". What I care about is whether it's moral.

Morality has a subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things,

The subjective component of morality is peoples' perceptions of it, which can be warped to make them do horrible things. But the very fact that we are even speaking of these "horrible things" indicates that morality is fundamentally objective in nature; sending people off to death camps just because they are of a certain ethnicity is wrong regardless of what the surrounding culture of the time has to say about it.

The objective quality of morality is in human nature. If humans feel it is morally correct to send people off to death camps just because they are of a certain ethnicity, then for those people it is morally correct.

No it's not, because those people being sent off to death camps have not initiated aggression against the people who are sending them.

Yes it is. Your reasons for it being immoral are not necessary applied by others to their own moral codes.

It can still be morally incorrect for other people, myself included.

How so?

Because of the subjective component of morality.

I can even feel it is so morally incorrect that those other people need to be stopped in ways I would find morally repugnant if I didn't feel those other people were so morally repugnant. That's and expression of the subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things.

What you feel about the moral correctness of it is beside the point. Either the death camp victims are having violence initiated against them or they aren't, and the right to fight back against the aggressors exists to the extent that it is necessary to halt their aggression.

No, feelings are the personal measurement of one's own system of morality. No need to invent any "rights": If you feel it is morally acceptable to initiate violence against someone, then it is morally acceptable to you.

and rights are a human invention to protect the weak but are frequently subverted to accommodate the greedy.

They are not a human invention, they are a natural practical consequence of cause-and-effect.

Nowhere else in nature do we find "rights" arising. They are a human invention, just like law. They may be a "natural practical consequence of cause-and-effect", but so what? I never claimed they were magically created by a divine being.

You just contradicted yourself here. I'll leave it to you to figure out how.

No, I explained it to you quite clearly. I'll leave it to you to not understand it.

You want to use both to your own advantage because you feel you deserve the world as you envision it, to the detriment of others.

That's your (baseless) opinion.

It's actually pretty clear. Many people feel the same way you do, regardless of their political or economical stance.

Where have I ever indicated that I feel I deserve the world as I "envision" it? The only world I deserve is the world I co-create with everyone else, for better or worse.

In your posts. Your entitlement is obvious in the way you demand that things must be the way you want them to be, otherwise things are wrong.
"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: 11703
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 7:40 am

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.

2. The venerable is using morality in a way that is correct for our modern society, but has no universal application.

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 would be rather good if some universal rules of morality were applied globally. I would suggest that the first rule would be to help rather than harm your fellow humans.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
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 4:35 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:It would be rather good if some universal rules of morality were applied globally. I would suggest that the first rule would be to help rather than harm your fellow humans.

Funny you miss the import of your own posting. You have a good rule there............. AFTER...... firmly establishing what a fellow human being is and isn't.... and with more difficulty... what a harm is.

Heh, heh....then why not apply the very same values to other social creatures, old trees, and mountains?
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?