mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Correct, that is the problem with morality. It is subjective and in the end beliefs, even for an atheist like you.
-
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!
NAACP issues travel advisory for Florida...
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Correct, that is the problem with morality. It is subjective and in the end beliefs, even for an atheist like you.
Now I know how Deep Thought felt whenCorrect, that is the problem with morality. It is subjective and in the end beliefs, even for an atheist like you.
conversing with Majicthise & Vroomfondel.
For the unfamiliar...
Deep Thought 1
www.earthstar.co.uk
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, felt is a subjective feeling. Try being objective or admit that you are in effect as subjective as the rest of us.
But if so why not?
Socialist is a relative term. I am certainly not as much as a socialist as someone who recommends universal basic income.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You said it was a Marxist idea. You said the shoe fits. But it's not. It was Immanuel Kant, someone so very different from Marx that he's a "front lines philosopher" who championed theism and did it without the lame afterlife insurance of Descartes.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I've mentioned it to him before his ideas a very fair and generous compared to the Libertarian authors I've read like Milton. They'd find his lack of faith in the Free Hand disturbing.
But most important thing is it would take tax payer money and transfer it to the corporate overlords.
You favor the more government intrusive approach,
ie, regulation of wages based upon employee needs.
This is to take even more control over the means of
production, ie, more socialist.
The UBI is a social program paid for by taxes, which
requires even less regulation (eg, minimum wage)
of business than we have now. Smaller government
with less control of business is far less socialistic.
Of course, what I post is based upon dictionary
definitions of "socialism". I have little idea what
your personal definition of the term is.
I didn't say it quite that way.
You missed the humor of his echoing Marx's slogan.
I don't expect accuracy from him, but I do expect
more from you.
He proposes much more regulation of business.
And oddly, he appears to oppose the UBI, which
means no assistance for the unemployable class
his system would enlarge.
Kant is irrelevant. If the poster If he leans
towards Marxism, this remains so even if
his beliefs originate in a different source.
Last edited:
The UBI would be paid to individuals, who would
likely continue to work for businesses...& government.
The poor who cannot survive (so you claim) on the
best wages they're able to qualify for could also
continue working, with a much improved lifestyle,
or quit, & live on the UBI. Their choice...which i
maximizes their liberty.
Your hostile language suggests feeling that people
are victims...being paid only what they're worth,
& not what they need. This suggests focusing upon
punishing businesses more than helping the poor.
But this is dysfunctional, ie, requiring much higher
wages for workers who aren't worth the cost would
mean never hiring them in the first place. Your
approach creates problems without solutions.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They usually don't like taxes. At least a few Libertarian authors advocated abolishing taxes outright or just enough taxes for an ultraminimalist state that doesn't even provide an army (the author who wrote that last one, lafer in life he wrote he had distanced himself from much of his works when he was younger, which included that boneheaded book).
The reason I added the prefix "pragmatic" is that while
I'm philosophically a doctrinaire libertarian, in the real
world (which is full of faulty humans) would never work.
So my political philosophy is to steer government in
the direction of libertarianism to the extent possible
in our current system. When faced with multiple
possible policies to do some non-libertarian thing,
I advocate for the most libertarian among them.
Think of it as the "most moral of evil options".
The UBI is less burdensome on both the poor & on
taxpayers. The latter is because the UBI could replace
a myriad of complex dysfunctional social safety net
programs, while doing a better job of lifting up the
poor.
Who could complain of welfare queens when anyone
complaining gets the same benefit, eh. Tis odd that
this is a hard sell to liberals.
BTW, the Cato Institute (libertarian) proposed the UBI
many decades ago. It was ignored by Dems & Pubs.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Some places maybe. Or perhaps there's no consistency. Three distribution centers close eachother in Indiana, Walmart paid wages almost as good as UAW workers in the area, Dunhams was the middle despite it being a much smaller corporation, and Dollar General pays laughably low wages for that work. They seem to do well for themselves despite a revolving door model of employment and the permanently erected now hiring sign. There's always someone who needs a job, they know it, amd are able to pay people, like me, a buck more than minumum wage for that kind of work.
You want the government to take money from everyone so that corporations can maximize their profits. And you think that is less government intrusion?
Last edited:
Not everyone.
Just taxpayers.
Taxes are already used to assist low poor folk.
The UBI would do a better job of helping more
of them, with less infringement on their liberty,
eg, curbing the intrusive qualification procedures.
The UBI would likely cost more than the various
programs it would replace, but the marginal cost
would have a high benefit/cost ratio.
Profits will be maximized under your proposal too
(unless you've plans to illegalize that). Profit is
what enables paying taxes, eg, property, income,
payroll. And under your proposal, paying someone
more than they're worth would incentivize not
hiring them, replacing them with automation,
out-sourcing, etc, & even contracting or closing
the business. Everyone stands to lose.
The UBI would be for all. Qualification is basically
to be alive. But current social programs have
requirements that are byzantine & onerous.
Examples...
Taking benefits away if the person earns a wage.
Section 8 housing requires landlords to surveil
tenants for unauthorized occupants.
I recommend thinking not of punishing business,
but rather of what would best help the poor &
society in general, ie, pragmatism.
So you are saying that a minimum wage will maximize profit for corporations.
Interesting.
Do you ever read the posts you respond to?
Only when I think they are worth my time.