[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Either I fundamentally misunderstand the nature of basic income, which is entirely possible ^^;, or you are expressing cognitive dissonance. how is basic income not giving people money?

No I'm saying giving them free money alone isn't enough to lift them out of poverty.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i agree with this. i am wildly unambitious too ^^ how large a component of upbringing would you say wealth is? I mean out of all the things parents give you, how important is money. you make a very god analogy below about life as a marathon and money as a head start. I believe discipline, knowledge, goal setting and reason are infinitely more important than money. it is after all why trump and bush are passed up by buffet and jobs.

Wealth is a very large part. It meant living in a nice area, having other wealthy friends and the social regulation that goes with that, access to excellent schools and excellent education, and not having to sell my labor just to survive meant I could do whatever the fuck I wanted with my time, and at least some of it was self improvement. But like I said several times, the behavioral/genetic aspects were important too (nutrition, instilling value of hard work/education, reading before bed)

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

im sorry I didn't respond to that originally. I'm not sure why I didn't ^^ probably was thinking about it. The military really is a fantastic example of how to best extricate people from poverty though. It does exactly what I argue needs to be done. it is a very poor substantiation of the efficacy of basic income though because it is radically different and here's why I say that: those who join the military become property of the government and are retrained as if children to be functional citizens. It teaches people discipline and goal setting and respect and work ethic among other things. people don't walk out of the military and succeed because they've been given free room and board and schooling in exchange for promising to kill people. It's the lifestyle changes that the military compels, which allow people to succeed by effectively utilizing the other resources available to them there and beyond.

That's one way to look at it and I don't think it tells the whole story. If you've ever been around military you know for every squared away recruit who takes advantage of his opportunities, there is a schmuck who spends his ~$20k/year on dirt bikes, corvettes, and alimony, and spends his G.I bill taking 8 years worth of classes in criminal justice before dropping out to work at the wal mart. My point is, there are a lot of people spring-boarded out of poverty who otherwise wouldn't have been, and a lot of that is because you've been provided opportunity.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

your comment on the rest of your siblings (similar to my own, though my parents are nowhere near wealthy despite having risen from significantly humbler beginnings). It speaks to the problem though and and that is, even if you are able to lift a man from poverty, train him to overcome his deficiencies, he still carries them and will generally be unable to effectively issue the necessary training to his children to overcome the innate deficiencies most of us face. Certainly his strengthened financial position will afford more opportunities for positive change, but the change is still left to chance. That is what I dislike about it. you are investing resources in conditions which may improve, but will certainly proliferate. it is a gamble and I see it as an unwise investment. I do not believe there are sufficient resources to elevate the billions who exist impoverished and the billions more who will spring from their loins.

My dad does not have behavioral deficiencies from growing up in poverty, nor did we inherit any. What we did inherit is various mental illnesses that run in my family. I was able to live with them, my two brothers weren't.

Even if you don't agree or understand why basic income fights poverty, it's worth it for no other reason than the other benefits:

1. When automation totally destroys the need for unskilled labor, it's going to save a lot of people from getting guillotined.

2. It gives unskilled labor greater bargaining power to avoid slave-wages, destroying business models that rely on pricing out competitors by exploiting slave labor.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

how is climate science denial not nationalistic? I mean it is pursuing energy policy that does not hamstring the competitive ability of your nation, while foreign nations eituer hamstring themselves, or are more likely to suffer the consequences of your actions. don't forget that even the church of climate science acknowledges that while the world is warming, the United States is cooling and even within the US, those likely to suffer the most are those who would be displaced by automation anyway. Clinging to fossil fuels and denying climate science is simply exercising our competitive advantage at the expense of foreign entities. sounds pretty nationalistic to me.

Because

1. You're literally destroying the planet (and your nation), and if you can't see the negatives in that, you're morally bankrupt and there's no point explaining it in more detail.

2. Climate science denial typically goes hand-in-hand with opposing environmental regulations, which means polluting the fuck out of everything in ways that are very harmful to your health. This is really the issue for me, because we're probably too late to fix the climate anyway, and probably incapable as species, but this directly affects your life and the life of your children/loved ones in a direct and measurable way. You are hurting your fellow countrymen for the short term economic benefit of energy enterprises. Fundamentally my issue is with people who are willing to destroy or poison the environment for economic gain, so my issue is with 99% of people.

3. As a matter of principle, it's an inability to accept facts and evidence, which I sometimes wish could be a capital offense.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, I've argued for material restrictions on the upper end, because it will not hinder genuinely superior conditions, while demoting inferior ones. restricting reproduction to average or superior conditions elevates the mean. qualifying reproduction does not necessitate it be based solely on material assets. to the contrary, there are a great many considerations that ought be included in condoning reproduction.

There are countless children of poor people who you may think shouldn't have been allowed to be born because of their parents' financial situation, but end up being far better people than you or I.