Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
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.
|
I like the idea of some sort of community work/volunteering being part of it. Society only works if it balances out between give and take. Some people will always take more than they give and others will give more than they take. Adding in a UBI could easily put that off balance, so tying that to some sort of active community involvement would help keep the balance.