The Unconditional Basic Income

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

GamingGod
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 9:52 pm
Location: United States, Mobile, AL

Post by GamingGod » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:56 am

I'm sorry but I think a lot of the people who are giving there opinions in this thread have never been truly poor. I know of no one in the United States that is dying of starvation. The bums you see on the street are all people that want money for drugs and/or alcohol. Trust me, they live in my neighborhood. My net worth is actually lower then a lot of these people that you are feeling sorry for.
<My car+computers+clothes=$5000- (15000 in school loans)= -$10,000

In my view the problem with the system is not that people are starving. The problem is that people that are trying hard, going to college, making good grades, ect. still can't get good jobs unless they have connections. I know several people that have Bachelor's of even Master's degrees and can't find a decent job.

Pipps
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:06 am
Location: UK

Re: Unconditionally basic salary for everybody.

Post by Pipps » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:28 am

Cov wrote:...
And secondly, they doubt that people can be trusted to still contribute to our society in any form or shape.
The first objection is already proofed wrong.
But the second seems to be grounded on a fundamental mistrust in human beings in general.
I think the reason that most people wouldn't trust the average citizen to put in an honest day's work if their salary was 'guaranteed', regardless, is because most of us have genuine experience of working with people who don't do an honest day's work.

It is therefore not a fear of the unknown, but a very reasonable concern about the ways in which many people would abuse such an arrangement.

Your argument is logically weak, mis-spelt, and poorly propounded.

qviri
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by qviri » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:46 am

Let him who's never put in any less than a full day of honest hard work throw the first stone.

GamingGod, I'm saying this with the most respect possible, but one man's job seeking problems do not define a problem with the society.

karl
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:28 am
Location: US

Post by karl » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:50 am

I want to see the forward progress of all mankind, and I doubt that's going to come through political implementations of any sort. History has shown that politics will corrupt almost any good intention, if not now, then tomorrow.

That's why I support the Technological Singularity. I consider it to be the only true option that leads to a better world for all.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:44 pm

GamingGod wrote:I know of no one in the United States that is dying of starvation.
That's because we already have a large degree of welfare in the US. The UBS would just be an expansion and refinement of the existing system. The thing about work or starve was a response to the people who argue that there should be no welfare without forced labor. Do you argue that even if the US eliminated all welfare, we would have no one starving? That was certainly not the case, before we instituted large welfare programs during The Great Depression.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:51 pm

karl wrote: That's why I support the Technological Singularity. I consider it to be the only true option that leads to a better world for all.
I certainly enjoy Neal Asher's novels, with his AI run Polity. Sometimes I wonder if it is a bit too much of devil's advocate against Terminator and similar stories, though. If I were an AI (I'm certainly super-intelligent :wink: ), I would kill all humans, ASAP. The whole idea that they'd be good as some sort of power source (a la Matrix) is just absurd. The Polity AI's seem to think we are amusing as pets, but really we are just too high maintenance, all things considered. But anyway, I'm not an AI (AFAIK); so my concerns lie more with the preserving humanity, rather than its easily justifiable extermination.

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:45 pm

jessekopelman wrote:The thing about work or starve was a response to the people who argue that there should be no welfare without forced labor.
You are colouring the issue by your carefully chosen choice of phrase (forced labour) which gives the reader an image of a labour camp in a totalitarian state. I prefer the phrase "contributing to society" :)
Additionally, nobody here has advocated that people unable to work, for whatever reason, should be denied welfare.

karl
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:28 am
Location: US

Post by karl » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:29 am

jessekopelman wrote:
karl wrote: That's why I support the Technological Singularity. I consider it to be the only true option that leads to a better world for all.
I certainly enjoy Neal Asher's novels, with his AI run Polity. Sometimes I wonder if it is a bit too much of devil's advocate against Terminator and similar stories, though. If I were an AI (I'm certainly super-intelligent :wink: ), I would kill all humans, ASAP. The whole idea that they'd be good as some sort of power source (a la Matrix) is just absurd. The Polity AI's seem to think we are amusing as pets, but really we are just too high maintenance, all things considered. But anyway, I'm not an AI (AFAIK); so my concerns lie more with the preserving humanity, rather than its easily justifiable extermination.
Actually, I call myself an optimistic pessimist. I think that we'll develop all kinds of awesome technology such as molecular nanotech, advanced bioengineering, and Artificial Intelligence systems, and I think that we'll use those creations first as a means of war and subjugation of each other. The chances of our survival are rather low, in my opinion. But I don't see any way of stopping any of those advances from destroying us without super-intelligence, so it's safe development is what I support.

Artificial Intelligence and Global Risk (pdf)

Probably the biggest problem in AI fiction is giving a super-intelligence a human personality. The actual science would suggest that it would be nothing like humanity, and far more alien than any life currently observed on Earth. But that doesn't make for a good story, so they give the AI all kinds of quirks and normal personality traits. If you, with normal human intelligence, can figure out that it's acting pretty silly, then it, with super-intelligence, should be able to figure that out as well, and then some.

I think a better novel regarding the potential future of AI/mankind, and one you can read free online, is After Life, by Simon Funk.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:51 pm

judge56988 wrote:
jessekopelman wrote:The thing about work or starve was a response to the people who argue that there should be no welfare without forced labor.
You are colouring the issue by your carefully chosen choice of phrase (forced labour) which gives the reader an image of a labour camp in a totalitarian state. I prefer the phrase "contributing to society" :)
I'm not sure there is a more neutral term I could have used. Your choice is even more "colorful", in my opinion. I cannot be responsible for inferred images that are the result of the readers' own bias. This is what makes these discussions so frustrating. You may actually agree on underlying principles but details of implementation arouse hangups. Two solutions may be mathematically equivalent, but not morally equivalent, due to the subjective nature of the latter.
judge56988 wrote:Additionally, nobody here has advocated that people unable to work, for whatever reason, should be denied welfare.
I do not think anyone is discussing that particular case. We are talking about whether your quality of life should be tied to what kind of work you do (if any) and if so, to what degree.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:59 pm

karl wrote: Probably the biggest problem in AI fiction is giving a super-intelligence a human personality. The actual science would suggest that it would be nothing like humanity, and far more alien than any life currently observed on Earth.
That is the problem. Without the human personality, there is absolutely no reason for the AI to maintain humanity. Even if it were bound by a prime directive to make the benefit of man its primary goal, that would still open the door for all sorts culling the herd for our own benefit. No, the only way that an AI run humanity would have any semblance to something attractive to the consumers of the fiction is if the AI thought in a human fashion. Governance by the alien intelligence you mention would result in an alien society. This topic has been addressed many times in popular fiction, especially by Star Trek. Part of what makes us human is or irrational behavior. Take it away completely and you destroy humanity.

What would make an AI an attractive leader is not its ability to be perfectly rational, but its ability to be free from corruption. It is generally agreed that the most effective form of governance is the benevolent dictator. What stops this from working with human dictators is the inability to ensure continuity of quality dictators. There is no reliable method of selection and even if you end up with a good one he will live only so long. The AI would never die, so once we got it right we would be set forever. It wouldn't really even have to be super-intelligent. Intelligence ranks relatively low on the scale of leadership qualities. Having a good understanding of one's own capabilities ranks at the very top and that seems the sort of thing an AI would be faultless at (for some reason, this quality is purposely absent in Asher's AI).

Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:10 am


Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:08 pm


Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:29 am

Get yourself informed, because chances that the UBI will be introduced worldwide within the next 10 years are 99.9%

>>> Basic Income Earth Network <<<

jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:42 am

I seriously doubt that. It would destroy the very fabric of capitalism/free-market. Something given has no value. Worth (in numbers) is relative to perceived value.

If everyone in the world had their income increase by 30% overnight, prices for everything would increase proportionately. If the total personal income of Nation "X" was equal to A, then the per capita income is A/#, where # is the population of X. That proportion sets the value of the dollar/euro/yen/whatever. You add money to the system (like the US gov't has done by printing more money), the value per dollar goes down and the value of the item stays the same, so price goes up.

Doesn't sound helpful to me...but then again, I work for a living, so my effective income would go down.

robbie13
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:55 am
Location: Rijeka, Croatia

Post by robbie13 » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:47 am

This is complete nonsense IMO.
Cov wrote:The one thing that drives me crazy the most is the argument that people should "earn" their place in society.
And if they fail to prove that they have the value you can accpet, they have automatically lost justification to live, is that right ? Sounds like a paranoya to me.
Improving the social system, care for the unemployed, homeless, etc. is one thing.

Encouraging unemployment, which IMO this is, is another.

Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:01 am

jhhoffma wrote:... Something given has no value. Worth (in numbers) is relative to perceived value.
Something given has no value ? You mean something given for free has no value ?

Why is that some people define themselves by the financial status they have managed to gain ?
Neglecting on own purpose that the conditions are not equal and fair.
If those peopel EVER loose their posessions, they theoretically would have lost their justification to live.
If you have nothing, you are worth nothing. Or am I missing something ?

It appears to me that english speaking countries still live in the 18th Century in regards to human rights.
... but then again, I work for a living, so my effective income would go down.
And you don't mind injustice everywhere ? If you don't feel the pain, then the disease is not existing, right ?

And you don't mind children living in poverty ? If you argue that adults in poverty deserve the situation they're in, you cannot give me a reasonable explanation for why children have to live in poverty, can you ?

Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:09 am

robbie13 wrote:This is complete nonsense IMO.

Encouraging unemployment, which IMO this is, is another.
Encouraging unemployment ? Excuse me, who are you to decide about other people's lifes ?
It's not my business what you decide to do and how you structure your life.
And so it's none of your business how other people live their life.

If someone decides to quit his job, then not because of someone's encouragement.

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:07 am

Cov wrote:Get yourself informed, because chances that the UBI will be introduced worldwide within the next 10 years are 99.9%

>>> Basic Income Earth Network <<<
In your dreams.

robbie13
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:55 am
Location: Rijeka, Croatia

Post by robbie13 » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:36 am

Cov wrote:Encouraging unemployment ? Excuse me, who are you to decide about other people's lifes ?
It's not my business what you decide to do and how you structure your life.
And so it's none of your business how other people live their life.

If someone decides to quit his job, then not because of someone's encouragement.
What the hell are you blabbering about?

Deciding about other people's lives? I did not mention nor imply that.

Mathias and other people have already made a very good point, and I don't see you replying with anything concrete and meaningfull... eod for me.
Last edited by robbie13 on Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:49 am

judge56988 wrote:In your dreams.
Hi, I know that the UK is a country full of relentless, die-hard people, unwilling to adapt.
As this subject is discussed throughout our country, there are avalanches of daily updated information on the net.
But to follow that, you'd need to speak my language.
Not only seem the number of supporter to skyrocket countrywide, but also do experts i.e. in social science claim the bGE to be the answer to our problems.

There are always oponents when something new is being introduced, there always have been and there always will be.
Some people are just unable to think out of the box.
Doesn't change anything.

Paul Nollen
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:47 am
Location: Belgium

Post by Paul Nollen » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:07 am

judge56988 wrote:
Cov wrote:Get yourself informed, because chances that the UBI will be introduced worldwide within the next 10 years are 99.9%

In your dreams.
Well, Alaska is the first state with a basic income by definition ($3,269 in 2008, it is not sufficient to live on I suppose but it is a start). Brazil will folow and many countrys in Europe have some kind of basic income but with far to much administration.
And as far as experiments are concerned, in the 60 ties there where vast experiments in the US and Canada with the Negative Income Tax. Those results are still studied because communities evolve. One of the findings was that a NIT gave rise to break up marriages. In Europe we say (in most cases ;-), fine, better a broken marriage than a broken life. In the US they were (and are) more traditional. On the other hand, influence on work incentive was far more reduced than expected. This are results of scientific experiments with control groups and the lot. Not the experiments and the results are questioned but the interpretation of the results.
One of the aspect often forgotten is that in most cases UBI is taxable income (also in Alaska). In that way a UBI is a NIT with a prebate instaed of a rebate. This is far better because, lik in Alaska, the income is taxed after receiving the income.

Paul

autoboy
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Post by autoboy » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:42 am

I haven't read the entire thread.

The first post requires a lot of assumptions that just aren't true. It also requires ignoring 2500 years of human history because these kinds of things have been tried before and they don't work. And, it shows complete ignorance of economics.

There are also some reasonable people with Business Degrees in this discussion asking for caps on salary. Putting a cap on opportunity puts a cap on productivity, innovation, and progress. Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of those "rich" people much of society despises so much were once normal people like you and me. If you capped Steve Jobs, would he have had the motivation to revitalize Apple, creating one of the most admired businesses employing thousands of people directly and hundreds of thousands indirectly? Would Elon Musk have built Tesla Motors to change the way people think about green cars? If people didn't take these risks for unbelievable opportunity would the world look like it is today? Would Genentec keep developing new medical treatments if there wasn't an opportunity to create some profit? "Rich" people aren't evil. They are an integral part of our economy. They invest their money in businesses so others can use that money to create more business, goods, and services. They are more philanthropic than any other class of people. They are the first to adopt expensive new technologies so they can eventually be adopted by the middle class and then by the lower class. Who bought the first microwaves for $50000 each? Who bought the first cell phones that cost $1000? Who bought the first personal computers for $5000? "Rich" people fuel innovation, job creation, and the financial system so that we all might benefit. And most of them got there on the backs of their own labor, intelligence, and risk. Thus the reward.

Anyone who doesn't think much of society is better off now than 50 years ago can just look at the transformation of the home. 50 years ago only the rich had washing machines. 50 years ago not everyone had running water. 50 years ago only the rich had TVs. Air conditioning was unheard of. Now even the poor can afford a camera phone, a TV, electricity, and cars. And the rest of the world is catching up with America.

50 years ago the rich had servants. Now, even the very rich don't have a servant because machines have taken over the labor we all once did by hand. Today, the rich aren't that much different than you and I. We can still fly on a plane when we like, we still can drive our cars, and we still have access to all the luxuries the rich have.

I'll leave you with some great quotes from Margaret Thatcher

"Hope is no basis for a defense policy."

"Well behaved women seldom make history."

"We should back the workers, not the shirkers".

"There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty."

"You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it."

"If your only opportunity is to be equal then it is not opportunity."

"If you want to cut your own throat, don't come to me for a bandage."

"Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy."

"When you hold back the successful, you penalize those who need help."

"Pennies do not come from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth."

"There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."

"Let our children grow tall and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so."

"We were told our campaign wasn't sufficiently slick. We regard that as a compliment."

"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches."

"Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything."

"There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."

"What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?"

"If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim."

"Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom."

"Thinking realistically never got anyone anywhere; be true to your heart and aim for your dreams!"

"The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners."

"To wear your heart on your sleeve isn't a very good plan; you should wear it inside, where it functions best."

"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides."

"Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people's bills."

"If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."

"Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend."

"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

"Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and importance, although difficult, is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction."

"People think that at the top there isn't much room. They tend to think of it as an Everest. My message is that there is tons of room at the top."

"Object to merit and distinction, and you're setting your face against quality, independence, originality, genius against all the richness and variety of life."

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

"Let me give you my vision: A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master. These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free country, and on that freedom all of our other freedoms depend."

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

"I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but should get you pretty near."

"Look at a day when you are supremely satisfied at the end. It's not a day when you lounge around doing nothing; it's when you've had everything to do, and you've done it."

"In the Conservative Party we have no truck with outmoded Marxist doctrine about class warfare. For us it is not who you are, who your family is or where you come from that matters, but what you are and what you can do for your country that counts."

"Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. ... In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing."

"I believe politicians must see that religious education has a proper place in the school curriculum. The Christian religion - which, of course, embodies many of the great spiritual and moral truths of Judaism - is a fundamental part of our national heritage."

"During my lifetime most of the problems the world has faced have come, in one fashion or other, from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it."

"It's passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election."

"We want a society in which we are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. That is what we mean by a moral society - not a society in which the State is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the State."

"... it is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but love of money for its own sake. The spiritual dimension comes in deciding what one does with the wealth. How could we respond to the many calls for help, or invest for the future, or support the wonderful artists or craftsmen whose work also glorifies God, unless we had first worked hard and used our talents to create the necessary wealth?"

"Freedom is not synonymous with an easy life. ... There are many difficult things about freedom: It does not give you safety, it creates moral dilemmas for you; it requires self-discipline; it imposes great responsibilities; but such is the nature of Man and in such consists his glory and salvation."

"Popular capitalism is on the march ... Of course, there will always be people who, in the name of morality, sneer at this and call it 'materialism'. But isn't it moral that people should want to improve the material standard of living of their families, by their own effort? Isn't it moral that families should work for the means to look after their old folk? Isn't it moral that people should save, so as to be responsible for themselves? ... And it is for Government to work with that grain in human nature to strengthen the strand of responsibility and independence: it benefits the family; it benefits the children; it is the essence of freedom."

"...the unconditional supply of social benefits to those who were thought incapable of coping undermined the incentive to work and undercut the family unit. It promoted habits of idleness and delinquency. It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life. By undermining the self-respect of so many of the most vulnerable members of society -- the respectable poor struggling for decency against the odds -- the dependency culture weakened society as a whole."

"We who are living in the west today are fortunate. Freedom has been bequeathed to us. We have not had to carve it out of nothing; we have not had to pay for it with our lives. But it would be a grave mistake to think that freedom requires nothing of us. Each of us has to earn freedom anew in order to possess it. We do so not just for our own sake, but for the sake of our children, so that they may build a better future that will sustain over the world the responsibilities and blessings of freedom."

"But the whole history of America is quite different from Europe. People went there to get away from the intolerance and constraints of life in Europe. They sought liberty and opportunity; and their strong sense of purpose has over two centuries, helped create a new unity and pride in being American."

"I was brought up by a Victorian Grandmother. We were taught to work jolly hard. We were taught to prove yourself; we were taught self reliance; we were taught to live within our income. You were taught that cleanliness is next to Godliness. You were taught self respect. You were taught always to give a hand to your neighbour. You were taught tremendous pride in your country. All of these things are Victorian values. They are also perennial values. You don’t hear so much about these things these days, but they were good values and they led to tremendous improvements in the standard of living."

"Socialism's results have ranged between the merely shabby and the truly catastrophic - poverty, strife, oppression and, on the killing fields of communism, the deaths this century of perhaps 100 million people. Against that doctrine was set a contrary, conservative belief in a law-governed liberty. It was this view which triumphed with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. Since then, the Left has sought rehabilitation by distancing itself from its past."

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

"In the United States, conservatives are concerned about the judicial imperialism of the courts and the sweeping social and economic changes they have imposed on the country. [They] are right to be so. The idea of courts as independent agencies of social and political change is inconsistent with democracy. The framework within which this controversy takes place is different in Britain. We see an even more far-reaching attack launched by the New Labour government and its left-wing allies on the foundations of our Constitution. One part of this program of rationalizing change, significantly, is the extension of that judicial review which is causing so much trouble here. Another is the attempt to replace our traditional first-past-the-post electoral system by those who would prefer to have horse-trading politicians choose governments, rather than leave that choice to voters."

"When others spoke of the fear of war, you spoke of the need for warriors and peace through strength. When others bewailed the failure of big government to provide for the collective good, you spoke of self-reliance, of personal responsibility, of individual pride and integrity. When others demanded compromise -- when other demanded compromise, you, Ronald Reagan, preached conviction."

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:21 am

Paul Nollen wrote:One of the findings was that a NIT gave rise to break up marriages.
This is actually a benefit. Being trapped in a marriage for purely economic reasons is a sort of chattledom. The reason the concept of a sanctioned divorce is basically as old as the concept of a sanctioned marriage is the recognition that not all marriages work out.

Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:23 am

autoboy wrote:... I'll leave you with some great quotes from Margaret Thatcher ... (followed by neverending vomit)
And I shall be grateful if you won't return to this thread anymore.

Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister 1979 - 1990) favoured the upper class.
She ruined the NHS and was contra Unions.
No.3 on the list of the 100 worst politicians is something to be proud of.
Last edited by Cov on Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

autoboy
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Post by autoboy » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:26 am

Ah, such is the beauty of freedom of speech. You're as welcome to your opinions as I am mine.

How about some more quotes?

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."*

* Adrian Rogers, 1931*

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:31 am

autoboy wrote: There are also some reasonable people with Business Degrees in this discussion asking for caps on salary. Putting a cap on opportunity puts a cap on productivity, innovation, and progress.
Salary does not equal opportunity. Which is better: to work 80 hours a week and earn $160k/yr or to work 40 hours a week and earn 80k/yr? The answer will be different for different people. There are many people who would even choose to work fewer hours at a lower hourly rate, just to get more free time -- just as there are many people who would choose the reverse. This misunderstanding is preventing us from solving many of our current societal problems.

autoboy
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Post by autoboy » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:38 am

jessekopelman wrote:
autoboy wrote: There are also some reasonable people with Business Degrees in this discussion asking for caps on salary. Putting a cap on opportunity puts a cap on productivity, innovation, and progress.
Salary does not equal opportunity. Which is better: to work 80 hours a week and earn $160k/yr or to work 40 hours a week and earn 80k/yr? The answer will be different for different people. There are many people who would even choose to work fewer hours at a lower hourly rate, just to get more free time -- just as there are many people who would choose the reverse. This misunderstanding is preventing us from solving many of our current societal problems.
And the fact that we are free to do either is what makes this system great. But when you work to enrich others, do you not think that you would be less inclined to work those 80hrs?

Why should I toil to help you when you do not toil to help even yourself?

autoboy
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Post by autoboy » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:45 pm

Cov,

You probably think of me as a callous man that doesn't have compassion for those around me? You likely think of me as selfish and uncaring. If you knew me you would certainly think otherwise. I think the difference is in what we define as compassion towards man. Let me illustrate it with a story:

On my way to my fishing boat one day I notice two young men on the pier begging for scraps of fish to eat, Jake and Paul. They both look in pretty bad shape. They looked like they had been begging for food their whole lives. They were sustaining themselves off the good will of strangers. They ask if I could spare some of my fish. Instead, I ask them if they would like to come with me to catch fish. I have two spare nets, and they are welcome to keep any fish they catch for themselves. Both reluctantly agree.

So, I take them on my boat out into the ocean and teach them how to cast their nets, where to search for fish, and how to drag the net in. Fishing is really hard work and both men struggle. After awhile they tire of the work and give up. Meanwhile, they see me pull in large numbers of fish without too much effort.

When we return to land, neither men had caught any fish. They saw me pull in lot of fish and ask if they could share in my catch. I tell them that was not the agreement. I would show them how to fish, lend them my equipment, and they could keep whatever they caught. This angered Jake who flew into a fit of rage, demanding that I share my bounty of fish. When I would not share, he tore my net into pieces and ran off.

The next day only Paul showed up to greet me at the pier. I asked what had happened to Jake. Paul answered that he was back to begging for scraps. At least then he didn't go hungry. So, Paul and I went back out fishing. Once again Paul really struggled. But, this time he caught a single small fish. It wasn't much food, but at least he didn't go hungry.

Paul met me every morning to fish. The two of us enjoyed each other's company and did very well for ourselves. Eventually Paul became an excellent fisherman. He went on to buy his own net, and eventually bought his own fishing boat.

One morning, as Paul and I were walking to see Paul's new boat, Jake came to us and asked if we could spare some of our fish. Paul, feeling compassion for his friend, insisted that Jake come fishing on his new boat. He could keep any fish that he caught. Jake scoffed at him and went on to beg from the next fisherman.

Who was more compassionate? Me, who taught Paul my wisdom but wouldn't feed him, or the men who gave Jake just enough food to keep him dependent?

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:39 pm

Cov wrote:
autoboy wrote:... I'll leave you with some great quotes from Margaret Thatcher ... (followed by neverending vomit)
And I shall be grateful if you won't return to this thread anymore.

Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister 1979 - 1990) favoured the upper class.
She ruined the NHS and was contra Unions.
No.3 on the list of the 100 worst politicians is something to be proud of.
She actually favoured the working class - as in people from any social class that work for a living. She was a grocers daughter if I remember correctly - hardly an upper class girl herself. She firmly believed that anyone from any background should have the opportunity to do the best that they could in life.
She took on the Unions to stop them from running the country in an undemocratic way by holding the government to ransom in order to get what they wanted. You probably don't remember how desperate it got in the UK in the 70's. She got the country out of that mess.

You shouldn't listen to left wing propaganda. And who compiled the list of politicians? Out of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Chairman Mao and many other mass murderers; Thatcher was worse than all but two of them? That is ludicrous and speaks volumes about the idiots that say these things.

autoboy
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Post by autoboy » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:43 pm

You shouldn't listen to propaganda at all. Make up your own mind based on your experiences. It helps to listen to all sides of the issue and apply your own life lessons. It is also advisable to study the history of where we came. Because all your ideas have been thought of before. If you don't know the past, then you will make those same mistakes in the future. And when you do study history, remember that history has been interpreted by the one writing the history. Those who are victorious, are the ones that write history. "Might makes Right"
Last edited by autoboy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply