Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
...
The video said autonomy, mastery, and purpose... not just mastery. It also talked about how people tend to operate at their best when they aren't thinking about money and stressing out over their finances.
What's more, a person spending all their days on hobbies is actually doing more good for society than a person who is getting involved in criminal activities. Like Carlin said, "You show me a lazy prick who's lying in bed all day, watching TV, only occasionally getting up to piss, and I'll show you a guy who's not causing any trouble."...
|
In the long run, Carlin is wrong though. Assuming that UBI does in fact promote proliferation of those lazy pricks, society will decay and become an easy target for suppression by countries who don't encourage their population to do so. Autonomy, mastery and purpose goal starts with purpose, not autonomy.
I do not have a strong position on UBI, because we already have some of it... sort of. But as I start building up qualifiers, answering the questions yes or no becomes much tougher.
Should taxpayers support some people (children, disabled, sick) to live comfortably? YES.
Should taxpayers pay for everyone to live comfortably? /NO
Deserved vs entitled?
Who determines comfort level and how do you choose them?
How to determine a universal comfort level?
Is it fair to price comfort level differently for different locales?
The most important question (to me) is: Should the society require physically–able, healthy UBI recipients to pay back (in community work, volunteering, other forms of repayment) or should it come with no strings attached? I answer it unequivocally in favour of the former. Then it starts making more sense.