The "plague" is inevitable.
(Voters will continue to vote themselves largess.)
The question is which strain we'll endure.
I prefer the most benign.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Guaranteed Income in the news...
- Thread starter beenherebeforeagain
- Start date
(Voters will continue to vote themselves largess.)
The question is which strain we'll endure.
I prefer the most benign.
What righteousness? Kids from homes where monogamy is a thing do better in every conceivable way in life even if they come from poor neighborhoods. Monogamy is a good thing, it's good for the parents and the children. Adults in these relationships have lower stress, live longer, and have a higher quality of life. People don't like to hear it, but I don't care what they like to hear.
The masters of the world didn't invent monogamy it is our natural orientation so it became a norm. Societies where monogamy is not a thing (think Africa) do poorly as a rule. And the point was?It's not for the people receiving the money -- I don't know anyone who receives money who is going to complain about it or feel they are worse off. But, the catch is that mostly we already have problems with motivation among the workforce. I mean, I've run job sites and it's hard to get people who you are paying twice the minimum wage to do things with motivation. I can't imagine how it would be when these same people don't even need your money. I mean, money is like a vote -- you vote for the people who do you good, and they vote with their money for what is good to them. What happens when your vote no longer matters? This is ugly to me, I mean... money is so much more than money... It is pride, generosity, and it is also a pat on the back. These things are good for people to have. This devalues the meaning of the act of paying someone to nothing. Perhaps that is what bothers me the most being someone who has paid many people, and knowing how much that experience meant to me in the past.
Man, people seriously underrate the experience of working and getting paid. It's good for your soul to do constructive things, it isn't just about the money. I wish more people would see it that way.
I agree, & favor a social welfare system which encourages it.
I can't do away with it, much as I'd like to, so I advocate improvement in a libertarian direction.
I'm heading to bed but in order to help this discussion along- and as we seem to be rapidly descending in this direction anyway- I leave you with this gross misrepresentation of the works of Thomas Malthus:
"Man is born of Sin and Welfare encourages poor people to do nothing but reproduce! We can't support them as they'll breed like rabbits. RABBITS I tell you! They have no self-control! They need the discipline of the market. let them die in wars and famines instead as market forces establish a new equilibrium. It's not injustice, it's the judgement of evolution! The weak shall perish and the strong shall thrive! Let the cry ring out: Freedom from the iron grip of social security, bring back the work houses and Death to the Surplus Population!"
Good night all.
"Man is born of Sin and Welfare encourages poor people to do nothing but reproduce! We can't support them as they'll breed like rabbits. RABBITS I tell you! They have no self-control! They need the discipline of the market. let them die in wars and famines instead as market forces establish a new equilibrium. It's not injustice, it's the judgement of evolution! The weak shall perish and the strong shall thrive! Let the cry ring out: Freedom from the iron grip of social security, bring back the work houses and Death to the Surplus Population!"
Good night all.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Then why do so many superior products fail? Why do so many talented people never have the chance to shine? Why is it that Windows made Bill Gates rich, even though he made a crappy product that is still today crappy, and he only got to his position because of Steve Jobs? And if the most useful and beneficial are rewarded, why is that Linux is pretty much a "geek OS?" And then there is mainstream music, where the most uninspiring, least talented, and least creative make the most money?
Or is it the idea of things such as "chance encounter" and "available opportunities" do not set well with you?
And under this "free market" (and, do remember, economic freedoms do not guarantee civil freedoms), they want homosexuals to shut up and transsexuals to be miserable. If you don't conform to the standards, be it in mannerisms, dress, and thought, you don't get far. Such as, those with Asperger's are typically very talented, skilled, and highly intelligent, but it's estimated they make up a significant chunk of the chronically employed and often live with their parents long into adulthood.
Or system benefits "yes men," those who can put on a "likable" social front, and realism isn't thought highly of because it can mean raining on someone's unsustainable parade.
Worthless bags of meat? Such Social Darwinism is disgusting and it ignores the reality that poor people aren't "worthless," and they are often really no different than rich people. It's nothing more than allowing oneself to feel better about exploitation, unfair labor practices, and various disorders that keep people down.
Yes, you did make a racist claim. You're arguing that working class and poor black people and Latinos are dumb serfs who just want a free ride. Nevermind that "race" is not a biological reality, at least not in terms of how layman tend to use it. There is no "black race", "white race", "yellow race", etc. The only field that racial categories are really used in is in forensic anthropology and how they categorize race is very different from how popular culture sees it. It has nothing to do with skin color and is mostly about bone structure (since they mostly deal with, well, bones and identifying them). According to how they categorize race, a Somali woman is the same race as a Scandinavian - Caucasoid. Outside of that, racial categories really have no meaning. There simply is not enough genetic/biological diversity within the human species to merit discrete categorizations. We're an extremely inbred species, basically:
"Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa,[134] with first migrations placed at 60,000 years ago. Compared to the great apes, human gene sequences—even among African populations—are remarkably homogeneous.[135] On average, genetic similarity between any two humans is 99.9%.[136][137] There is about 2–3 times more genetic diversity within the wild chimpanzee population, than in the entire human gene pool.[138][139][140]"
"Humans of the same sex are 99.9% genetically identical. There is extremely little variation between human geographical populations, and most of the variation that does occur is at the personal level within local areas, and not between populations.[140][171][172] Of the 0.1% of human genetic differentiation, 85% exists within any randomly chosen local population, be they Italians, Koreans, or Kurds. Two randomly chosen Koreans may be genetically as different as a Korean and an Italian. Any ethnic group contains 85% of the human genetic diversity of the world. Genetic data shows that no matter how population groups are defined, two people from the same population group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different population groups.[140][173][174][175]
Current genetic research has demonstrated that humans on the African continent are the most genetically diverse.[176] There is more human genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on Earth. The genetic structure of Africans was traced to 14 ancestral population clusters. Human genetic diversity decreases in native populations with migratory distance from Africa and this is thought to be the result of bottlenecks during human migration.[177][178] Humans have lived in Africa for the longest time, which has allowed accumulation of a higher diversity of genetic mutations in these populations. Only part of Africa's population migrated out of the continent, bringing just part of the original African genetic variety with them. African populations harbor genetic alleles that are not found in other places of the world. All the common alleles found in populations outside of Africa are found on the African continent.[140]
Geographical distribution of human variation is complex and constantly shifts through time which reflects complicated human evolutionary history. Most human biological variation is clinally distributed and blends gradually from one area to the next. Groups of people around the world have different frequencies of polymorphic genes. Furthermore, different traits are non-concordant and each have different clinal distribution. Adaptability varies both from person to person and from population to population. The most efficient adaptive responses are found in geographical populations where the environmental stimuli are the strongest (e.g. Tibetans are highly adapted to high altitudes). The clinal geographic genetic variation is further complicated by the migration and mixing between human populations which has been occurring since prehistoric times.[140][179][180][181][182][183]
Human variation is highly non-concordant: most of the genes do not cluster together and are not inherited together. Skin and hair color are not correlated to height, weight, or athletic ability. Human species do not share the same patterns of variation through geography. Skin color varies with latitude and certain people are tall or have brown hair. There is a statistical correlation between particular features in a population, but different features are not expressed or inherited together. Thus, genes which code for superficial physical traits—such as skin color, hair color, or height—represent a minuscule and insignificant portion of the human genome and do not correlate with genetic affinity. Dark-skinned populations that are found in Africa, Australia, and South Asia are not closely related to each other.[152][182][183][184][185][186] Even within the same region, physical phenotype is not related to genetic affinity: dark-skinned Ethiopians are more closely related to light-skinned Armenians than to dark-skinned Bantu populations.[187] Despite pygmy populations of South East Asia (Andamanese) having similar physical features with African pygmy populations such as short stature, dark skin, and curly hair, they are not genetically closely related to these populations.[188] Genetic variants affecting superficial anatomical features (such as skin color)—from a genetic perspective, are essentially meaningless—they involve a few hundred of the billions of nucleotides in a person's DNA.[189] Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex.[140][174][190]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Biological_variation
Sorry, cousin, we're just not all that different.
Did you even bother to read the page you linked to? The answer from Søren Lassen addresses the racial issue and he points out that it's more a matter of environment than fixed biological factors. If you look at maps of IQ distribution, the lowest recorded IQs are concentrated in areas that are experiencing great social instability, such as wars, social breakdown and collapse, disease, malnutrition, etc. which would impact intelligence and performance. Also, IQ statistics change over time. The average IQ of all Americans, regardless of ethnicity, has gone up over the decades. So the average African-American would have a higher IQ than the average white American from the '50s.
What righteousness? Kids from homes where monogamy is a thing do better in every conceivable way in life even if they come from poor neighborhoods. Monogamy is a good thing, it's good for the parents and the children. Adults in these relationships have lower stress, live longer, and have a higher quality of life. People don't like to hear it, but I don't care what they like to hear.
Literally, everything you are opining about is debatable.
Here's the thing, open relations allow for monogamy, naturally. Where as (righteousness of) monogamy forbids open relationships, though with high degree of inconsistency and/or hypocrisy.
I don't see the connection between this and the point I raised, which was: "If people are guaranteed an income and incentivized to earn more (for pure profit, not having to pay much on certain taxes that take up to 40% and are ripe with abuse), then it's challenging to see how this would be worse than what we have now."
The only point you are stating that I see directly related is: "I can't imagine how it would be when these same people don't even need your money." And that point seems to neglect the point of we already have large economic situation set up where some people don't need your specific money because they get it from the government. If they start working, the incentive to earn money goes way down realizing they'll be cut off from what is essentially guaranteed income. So everyone that could use the money will have it, and those that don't won't need it. But the incentive to obtain your money won't be based on money alone. But more on the value of contribution. Treat them like crap, and they'll have no problem walking away, realizing their contributions probably don't mean anything to you. Treat them well, and money is icing on the cake. Promote them based on value of their overall contribution and suddenly they are in the same boat as you as not needing the UBI annual grant.
Walter Russell
Member
I live in Amurica, my government doesn't possess any wealth, the Federal Reserve does and my government is in debt up to its eyeballs to it and I get robbed bi weekly to pay the interest on that debt.
Amurica, huh?I live in Amurica, my government doesn't possess any wealth, the Federal Reserve does and my government is in debt up to its eyeballs to it and I get robbed bi weekly to pay the interest on that debt.
I live America, where the government owns quite a bit of wealth (real estate, mainly, but other properties as well, including a military infrastructure that cost many trillions of dollars), the Federal Reserve is an operation of the Federal government, created by Congress, with officials appointed as per the Constitution by the Executive (the President) with the advice and consent for the Senate. The government is indeed in debt at a level higher than I personally prefer, but I as a citizen pay my due share of taxes to run the government programs and pay the debts that We the People, In Congress Assembled (that is, through our elected officials) have decided that we as a nation should have. If you are dissatisfied with what has happened up to this point in terms of programs and debt, I suggest that you get involved in governance of this nation, and work to convince our elected officials to reduce the debt, etc., just as I do.
Walter Russell
Member
The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE Bank. It is not a part of the government. Its also not the first PRIVATE Central bank we've had, its actually the 4th...
Do alittle more research into how it was passed.
From the time of the founding of our nation there has been in a battle to remove or keep out Central Private Banks. The Bank of North America, The First Bank of the United States, the 2nd First Bank of the United States and the current Federal Reserve.
Our congress does have the authority to print its own paper or mint its own coin BUT IT DOESN'T!! Abe Lincoln tried to do that with the Greenback but he didn't live very long...
You can't reduce debt under this system and thats by design. This is the mechanism banks use to take over nations through debt.
If your working WITH this system, your part of the problem, not the solution.
Oh and i'm glad to hear you "prefer" not to be in over 19 trillion dollars debt.
And yet, by not wanting to fix the system (Don't like the Fed? get Congress to do away with it!), I see YOU as part of the problem, not part of the solution. Our system of government was set up so that it CAN BE CHANGED. It seems you would rather abolish it than try to fix it? YOU are the problem.
Walter Russell
Member
Yes abolishing the Fed, setting term limits on congress and removing the cronies that currently occupy our government and represent the bankers, not the ppl are the first steps and i'm doing my part in that fight.
Neither party has represented the ppl for some time, thats clear. Denying this doesn't change the reality of it.
I say your part of the problem if you can't see it.
I lost everything in the 08 crash. The money Bush and the Democratic congress gave to bail out the banks could have been used to bailed out the people who were losing everything due to corrupt crony capitalism.
It was Iceland if I remember correctly that threw the bankers and politicians that got them in that mess in jail, and got their economy back in order quicker than any of the developed nations hit hard in the crash.
I won't bother replying to anymore of your ignorant quotes. Your approach has been the approach for 15 years with not one achievement worth noting.
I don't believe I've denied any of these things...In fact, these things are not really much to do with the thread's purpose: finding out what people think about the proposal for establishing a guaranteed income for Americans.
Not sure what quotes and approach of mine you're referring to, but whatever. I posted links to two articles on a subject, and asked for responses, which you among others have provided.
Actually, Milton Friedman considered himself a (small "l") libertarian rather than a conservative.
Sorry to ruin your partisan insult.
Nah...I'm not.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It wouldn't surprise me if they called him a socialist.
And his right-winged libertarian stance is why he is an economic conservative to distinguish him from a social conservative. But he is still a conservative.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Doesn't matter. Its just not going to happen anyways.
I seriously hope this is a joke because it sounds like your seeing into something that probably isn't there. Seriously? Every single one? Unless you are saying they cheat sometimes, but straight people do that too you know.
Actually, the only non-monogamous couple I've ever known was a straight couple (they were in an open relationship) and every gay couple I've known was monogamous.
And just because some may not be monogamous doesn't mean all are not, same as not all straight people are monogamous or even faithful. Do you really think that no gay person can be monogamous?