Mark Zuckerberg calls for new equality, new social contract, and universal income

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg just wrapped up his Harvard Commencement speech
Zuckerberg touched on America's economics, health care system and the need to "modernize democracy"
Zuckerberg also called for universal basic income, echoing other elite members of Silicon Valley






Todd Haselton | @robotodd
Thursday, 25 May 2017 | 4:28 PM ETCNBC.com




Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called on the need to consider universal basic income for Americans during his Harvard Commencement Speech.

Zuckerberg's comments reflect those of other Silicon Valley bigwigs, including Sam Altman, the president of venture capital firm Y Combinator.

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."

Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.

Altman's view is similar. A year ago, Altman said he thinks "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs—no matter what, especially if there are enough resources to make it possible. We don't yet know how it should look or how to pay for it, but basic income seems a promising way to do this." Altman believes basic income will be possible as technological advancements "generate an abundance of resources" that help decrease the cost of living.



http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html



..

[Mordan]

i agree with the universal income. I come from the left on this issue. We are social animals. Universal income is the only way to deal with the robots taking over.

[dannno]

Universal income is the only way to deal with the robots taking over.

Based on what logic?

Robots are NEVER going to be able to literally do everything.. they will have to be programmed for production of new types of goods, they will have to be maintained.. and there are other things people like, art, music, massages, intimacy, these can't be replaced by robots.

Society has been mechanizing for centuries, and what has happened? The standard of living has drastically increased, people in poverty in many cases live better than kings and queens did centuries ago.

I mean, you could have 100% employment if we removed all technology and all mechanization and went back to farming.. and everybody would be poor as fuck and have nothing..

No, we are much better off with mechanization.

What will happen as it takes less resources to produce things, is that they become cheaper. It may be that some day, things are so cheap that you can work for a week, make a salary, and pay for 6 months of goods and services. Or you can work for a year and retire.

Don't fuck that up by creating a bunch of freeloaders. We'll never even get there that way.

Plus, taxation is theft.

[tod evans]

Zuckerberg can fund this BS all by his lonesome...

Maybe he and Gates can open up free-shit clinics and give away vaccines and money.

[otherone]

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-his-need-karl-marx-347471.jpg

[nobody's_hero]

I thought the Romans already modernized democracy when they invented the republic.

We're going the opposite direction.

If you want to modernize democracy, get rid of it.

[Mordan]

Based on what logic?

Robots are NEVER going to be able to literally do everything.. they will have to be programmed for production of new types of goods, they will have to be maintained.. and there are other things people like, art, music, massages, intimacy, these can't be replaced by robots.

Society has been mechanizing for centuries, and what has happened? The standard of living has drastically increased, people in poverty in many cases live better than kings and queens did centuries ago.

I mean, you could have 100% employment if we removed all technology and all mechanization and went back to farming.. and everybody would be poor as $#@! and have nothing..

No, we are much better off with mechanization.

What will happen as it takes less resources to produce things, is that they become cheaper. It may be that some day, things are so cheap that you can work for a week, make a salary, and pay for 6 months of goods and services. Or you can work for a year and retire.

Don't $#@! that up by creating a bunch of freeloaders. We'll never even get there that way.

Plus, taxation is theft.

I understand my stance is not popular here but that's my views. Freeloader? What is a freeloader? Are you a freeloader when paid to live?

I am not against Robots. I like them very much thank you. But most work will be done by robots and AI. Bitcoin and smart contracts will replace banks and back offices..

Taxes are unavoidable. It is a social contract.
Do you think people will stop working ? Think about continuous mathematical functions. Now start the UI income at 1 dollar and increase it by 1 dollar every month until it reaches the maximum, say 500 dollars.
This brings more security, thus more buyers, thus more profit. Rich people don't care about the UI. But Rich people are scared not to find cheap labor ahahahaha yes that's true! While people earning 1000USD will like it and it will enhance their lives.

[AuH20]

Tom Woods chimes in:



Every generation expands its definition of equality," said Mark Zuckerberg in his Harvard commencement speech, before going on to endorse the idea of a basic income guarantee.

This is what M.E. Bradford -- the guy the neocons attacked viciously when he was nominated to head the National Endowment for the Humanities -- tried to warn about in his famous print debate with Harry Jaffa in the 1970s.

Equality with a capital E, Bradford said, is the enemy of every conservative principle. It is relentless and revolutionary, overturning any settled practice that cannot justify itself by its ever more demanding criteria. (Jaffa, by contrast, considered equality to be the foundational conservative principle.)

At one time, equality meant no special privileges from government (the "equal rights" of Jacksonianism).

To some it meant school desegregation.

To others it meant forcible integration, even if that meant busing students two hours each way to achieve racial balance.

(Result of that: parents simply moved far enough away that their kids couldn't be bused, so leftists actually wound up sabotaging their own goal.)

For some it means "equality of opportunity."

For others it means affirmative action, since "equality of opportunity" is meaningless when some people lack "privilege."

For still others it means safe spaces and censorship.

For some it means the equal right to earn a living.

For others it means the right to an equal share of the pie.

And on and on it goes, like an acid, eating away at individual rights and private property.

The state, meanwhile, loves the idea: an ever-changing concept that demands more and more state power to enforce, and which can never actually be achieved? This is the state's dream!

Bradford warned about precisely what Zuckerberg cheers: that there's no stability under the regime of Equality. What it demands of you, and how it will transform society, are constantly changing.

If you haven't heard episode 519 of my show, where I discuss and debate the "universal basic income" idea, I think you'll like it. (But listen all the way to the end, or you'll miss the best part and my great triumph.)

[AuH20]

Nothing is free. What does Mark Zuckerberg expect in return? I wonder.

[Dr.3D]

Ah, the equal freedom to be lazy. Now if everybody thinks that way, who would grow the food?

[timosman]

Nothing is free. What does Mark Zuckerberg expect in return? I wonder.

POTUS. Zuck 2020

[Madison320]

Think about continuous mathematical functions

How about this math:

Current tax receipts = 3 trillion a year

300 million people * $12,000(universal income) = $3.6 trillion a year

Not sure how we'd afford this.

[CCTelander]

Then go ahead and use YOUR billions to provide it motherfucker.

I am sick of billionaires being "generous" with other people's money.

[devil21]

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-his-need-karl-marx-347471.jpg

"We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." - famous USSR quote

The pretend pay is the universal blockchain based "income" tied into the chip. The pretend work is whatever the government decides you are best suited to do based on mandatory aptitude tests.

Since this is Zuckerberg giving a speech to the next generation of Rothschild schooled elites (Harvard logo is Red Shield), it's clear the NWO socialist agenda rolls on uninterrupted.



Then go ahead and use YOUR billions to provide it motherfucker.

I am sick of billionaires being "generous" with other people's money.

Far be it from me to defend Zuck but he did say he was selling his FB stock to further these sorts of things. Of course, once Zuck's (his handlers, really) dream is realized, there won't be any "dollars" to speak of and his on-paper wealth will be long gone.


How about this math:

Current tax receipts = 3 trillion a year

300 million people * $12,000(universal income) = $3.6 trillion a year

Not sure how we'd afford this.

By that point, expect the population of the country to be substantially lower than the current 300M figure.

[Swordsmyth]

Once they get Joe Average to take the money they will suddenly turn "right" and tell him he has to be in the "civilian national security reserve force" otherwise known as junior G-Men if he wants to keep it. And they will a stampede to get a badge and start finking on everybody.
After all you can't just give away money for nothing.

[euphemia]

Wait until people get the money then decide to vote that people like Zuckerberg have to live by the standard they set for everyone else.

[timosman]

Money for nothing, chicks for free.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

[Brian4Liberty]

Then go ahead and use YOUR billions to provide it motherfucker.

I am sick of billionaires being "generous" with other people's money.

Socialism is always about other people's money. It's just that the hypocrisy goes to a whole new level when it's billionaires that want to take money from others and redistribute as they want, which usually means a big cut for them and their cronies.

[Mordan]

How about this math:

Current tax receipts = 3 trillion a year

300 million people * $12,000(universal income) = $3.6 trillion a year

Not sure how we'd afford this.

Depends on the UI. You decided it was 1000 USD per month. Do it again with 500-600.

Let me remind you that the UI replaces existing social payouts. No more food stamps.

[Swordsmyth]

Let me remind you that the UI replaces existing social payouts. No more food stamps.

HAHAHAHAHA!
No handout ever has or ever will result in the end of another handout.

[Mordan]

Socialism is always about other people's money. It's just that the hypocrisy goes to a whole new level when it's billionaires that want to take money from others and redistribute as they want, which usually means a big cut for them and their cronies.

The funny thing about the Universal Income is that many socialists don't want it. They don't want the universal income because it would force personal responsibility upon people. The socialists say the UI will destroy solidarity. They say the UI is cold darwinism. Take the money and survive with it.

[Mordan]

HAHAHAHAHA!
No handout ever has or ever will result in the end of another handout.

well then you cannot fund the UI.

[Swordsmyth]

well then you cannot fund the UI.

Debt, Inflation, massive Taxes. Haven't you ever heard of those?

[Brian4Liberty]

The funny thing about the Universal Income is that many socialists don't want it. They don't want the universal income because it would force personal responsibility upon people. The socialists say the UI will destroy solidarity. They say the UI is cold darwinism. Take the money and survive with it.

One of the common denominators I have seen with people who are on the government dole is that they have no ability to plan ahead or conserve. Give them a $1000, they tend to spend it immediately, often in a frivolous manner. "Woo hoo! I have some money! Filet Mignon and lobster for dinner tonight!"

[parocks]

However it is that Facebook gets its money - tax that thing. Generally don't want any taxes or government, and if everyone just started killing each other at least there would be fewer crowds.

Ads on TV on facebook in newpapers and magazines should all be heavily taxed. Ever since I've been alive, and longer, it's been - find the decent, normal people and take as much from them as possible. Everyone else - free for you.

[parocks]

One of the common denominators I have seen with people who are on the government dole is that they have no ability to plan ahead or conserve. Give them a $1000, they tend to spend it immediately, often in a frivolous manner. "Woo hoo! I have some money! Filet Mignon and lobster for dinner tonight!"

food is pretty cheap. lobster really isn't all that expensive. I'd like it if the wheat wasn't poisoned by glyphosate, but Monsanto owns the government. It really doesn't bother me at all if people are buying good things that aren't poison to eat, like lobster.

I wouldn't have a problem with, would like, if the government could give good non poison wheat to everybody. Big bags of it. but I don't really have confidence that, if given the opportunity, the government wouldn't just poison everyone intentionally. That's the world we live in now.

[AZJoe]

Taxes are unavoidable. It is a social contract.

No they aren't. and No its not.

[Mikezelot]

The biggest problem with UI is that prices will go up. If you are alowed to use $30 on bread products you know what the price of bread is going to be?

Answer: $30

[AZJoe]

i agree with the universal income. I come from the left on this issue. We are social animals. Universal income is the only way to deal with the robots taking over.

This is just Statist BS in favor of theft, and more government power. Taxation is theft.

No. More theft by government, more dependence on political elites, and more government control is not the answer. The answer is more freedom.

"I would end the income tax, and replace it with nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul.

"About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes. ... We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to ‘replace’ the income tax at all." - Dr. Ron Paul.

You want to really see an economy take off? See wealth, and innovation, and standard of living explode? End the income tax. That gives everyone, as well as business and corporations an up to 50% increase in take home income. People can choose to work less if they want. People have more disposable income. They can spend more on themselves and children. They can focus on innovation, ideas, inventions, art and more. All that of course means more business for all sorts of businesses. It also means much larger profit margins for businesses. That allows competition to drive the prices down while still allowing more income for business. So not only does everyone have more income. Their money goes much farther buying more for less.

It will unleash “the biggest boost in prosperity that America has ever seen. There will be a job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone who can’t.” - Harry Browne

"Without the burden of an income tax, private education will flourish. Parents will be able to afford the education they think best for their children. Families where both parents are now forced to work fulltime will be able to afford, if they wish, to let one parent stay home and devote their time to their children. Nothing will do more to strengthen family values than ending the income tax. ... Ending the income tax will limit government power and force government to act with far more restraint and responsibility." - Advocates for Self Government (https://www.theadvocates.org/making-case-ending-income-tax/).


"Imagine what would happen if we repealed all forms of federal income tax — including the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, Social Security, the estate tax, and the gift tax. A world of benefits would quickly come in the wake of repealing these taxes.
The first benefit is the most obvious: all the money you’re paying in income taxes will be yours — to spend, to save, to give away as you see fit, not as the politicians think is best for you…
When we repeal the income tax, all that you pay now in income and Social Security taxes will be yours at last — to do with as you see fit.
If yours is the average American family, that means over $10,000 dollars a year that’s been going to the politicians that will stay in your hands.
Every dollar you earn will be yours — to spend, to save, to give away as you see fit…
So what will you do with that money when they no longer take it away from you?
Will you put your children in private schools — where you could get exactly the kind of education you believe best for them? …
Will you start that business you’ve always dreamed of?
Will you move into a better neighborhood, take your family on a better vacation, arrange a much more comfortable and much more secure retirement?
Will you help your church or your favorite cause or charity in a way you’ve never been able to do before?
What will you do with that money?
At last, it will all be yours — and the government will no longer have a claim on it. …
There will be a similar increase in take-home pay for everyone you do business with — your customers or your employer — meaning that people will have more money to spend on what you have to offer.
A similar increase in take-home pay will occur throughout America, unleashing the biggest boost in prosperity that America has ever seen. There will be a job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone who can’t.
Your life will be your own again: an end to government snooping into your finances, an end to keeping books for the IRS, an end to fear of an audit, an end to rearranging your financial life to minimize your tax burden.” - Harry Browne, 2003 (http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/IncomeTaxDay.htm).



Dr. Ron Paul: End the Income Tax. Abolish the IRS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBu8hb-HeHc

[Natural Citizen]

i agree with the universal income.

How would you enforce it?

[Brian4Liberty]

This is just Statist BS in favor of theft, and more government power. Taxation is theft.

No. More theft by government, more dependence on political elites, and more government control is not the answer. The answer is more freedom.

"I would end the income tax, and replace it with nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul.

"About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes. ... We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to ‘replace’ the income tax at all." - Dr. Ron Paul.

You want to really see an economy take off? See wealth, and innovation, and standard of living explode? End the income tax. That gives everyone, as well as business and corporations an up to 50% increase in take home income. People can choose to work less if they want. People have more disposable income. They can spend more on themselves and children. They can focus on innovation, ideas, inventions, art and more. All that of course means more business for all sorts of businesses. It also means much larger profit margins for businesses. That allows competition to drive the prices down while still allowing more income for business. So not only does everyone have more income. Their money goes much farther buying more for less.

It will unleash “the biggest boost in prosperity that America has ever seen. There will be a job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone who can’t.” - Harry Browne

"Without the burden of an income tax, private education will flourish. Parents will be able to afford the education they think best for their children. Families where both parents are now forced to work fulltime will be able to afford, if they wish, to let one parent stay home and devote their time to their children. Nothing will do more to strengthen family values than ending the income tax. ... Ending the income tax will limit government power and force government to act with far more restraint and responsibility." - Advocates for Self Government (https://www.theadvocates.org/making-case-ending-income-tax/).


"Imagine what would happen if we repealed all forms of federal income tax — including the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, Social Security, the estate tax, and the gift tax. A world of benefits would quickly come in the wake of repealing these taxes.
The first benefit is the most obvious: all the money you’re paying in income taxes will be yours — to spend, to save, to give away as you see fit, not as the politicians think is best for you…
When we repeal the income tax, all that you pay now in income and Social Security taxes will be yours at last — to do with as you see fit.
If yours is the average American family, that means over $10,000 dollars a year that’s been going to the politicians that will stay in your hands.
Every dollar you earn will be yours — to spend, to save, to give away as you see fit…
So what will you do with that money when they no longer take it away from you?
Will you put your children in private schools — where you could get exactly the kind of education you believe best for them? …
Will you start that business you’ve always dreamed of?
Will you move into a better neighborhood, take your family on a better vacation, arrange a much more comfortable and much more secure retirement?
Will you help your church or your favorite cause or charity in a way you’ve never been able to do before?
What will you do with that money?
At last, it will all be yours — and the government will no longer have a claim on it. …
There will be a similar increase in take-home pay for everyone you do business with — your customers or your employer — meaning that people will have more money to spend on what you have to offer.
A similar increase in take-home pay will occur throughout America, unleashing the biggest boost in prosperity that America has ever seen. There will be a job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone who can’t.
Your life will be your own again: an end to government snooping into your finances, an end to keeping books for the IRS, an end to fear of an audit, an end to rearranging your financial life to minimize your tax burden.” - Harry Browne, 2003 (http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/IncomeTaxDay.htm).



Dr. Ron Paul: End the Income Tax. Abolish the IRS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBu8hb-HeHc

Amen brother!

[A Son of Liberty]

Taxes are unavoidable. It is a social contract.
Do you think people will stop working ? Think about continuous mathematical functions. Now start the UI income at 1 dollar and increase it by 1 dollar every month until it reaches the maximum, say 500 dollars.
This brings more security, thus more buyers, thus more profit. Rich people don't care about the UI. But Rich people are scared not to find cheap labor ahahahaha yes that's true! While people earning 1000USD will like it and it will enhance their lives.

GET. OUT.

Unbelievable, what this place has come to...

[nobody's_hero]

food is pretty cheap. lobster really isn't all that expensive. I'd like it if the wheat wasn't poisoned by glyphosate, but Monsanto owns the government. It really doesn't bother me at all if people are buying good things that aren't poison to eat, like lobster.

I wouldn't have a problem with, would like, if the government could give good non poison wheat to everybody. Big bags of it. but I don't really have confidence that, if given the opportunity, the government wouldn't just poison everyone intentionally. That's the world we live in now.

If they're going to poison anyone, it'll be the ones who are well off enough to buy their own wheat from whomever they choose.

Poor, desperate people are easy to control and will give up their votes to the first unicorn-distributing politician that promises endless promises if only the desperate will elect them.

People who are disciplined and good stewards of their own money are threats because they are harder to buy.

Don't eat any wheat today.

[Mordan]

GET. OUT.

Unbelievable, what this place has come to...

I am free to think the UI is a good thing. What's your stance on paid holidays??? Holy shit!! People are PAID to go on holidays???? This is insane. What has the world come to?

[H. E. Panqui]

...it seems obvious to me that we should be treated equally with respect to the issuance of 'newly-created' money...call it 'a guaranteed income' if you want...this would result in a much more decent system/society than the one we have now:...a society where the secret-squirrel banksters/'corporations' control and/or are STRONGLY favored with respect to the issuance of 'newly-created' money...a society where the rest of us must grovel to the goddamned banksters/corporate chieftan$ for 'money'...

[Dr.3D]

This reminds me of some animal out in the wild, thinking, I shouldn't have to hunt for food, it should be given to me so I can have food without having to do anything for it.

Them that works, eats.

[tod evans]

This reminds me of some animal out in the wild, thinking, I shouldn't have to hunt for food, it should be given to me so I can have food without having to do anything for it.

Them that works, eats.

'Society' is a failure...

Too many ticks not enough hosts....

[Dr.3D]

'Society' is a failure...

Too many ticks not enough hosts....
Even a tick has to work to find a host. lol

[H. E. Panqui]

Them that works, eats.

...unless you call the fraud of 'deposit creation' [tapping some new number$ that did not previously 'exist' into a computer] 'work' :rolleyes: then surely you must understand the bankster people who eat the be$t don't truly 'work' at all....zuckerberg's plan probably does suck but the status-quo (never honestly discussed publicly) really really sucks...anyone who complains about zuckerberg's plan and is silent about and/or without an honest understanding of the current stinking rotten order (most all people i've ever met!) is worthy of contempt...

...as one wag put it, "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take this power away from them, and all the great fortunes disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit."

[The Northbreather]

Anything a government has to give was stolen by force from another- Ron Paul

[A Son of Liberty]

I am free to think the UI is a good thing. What's your stance on paid holidays??? Holy $#@!!! People are PAID to go on holidays???? This is insane. What has the world come to?

Have you suffered a brain injury?

Seriously... just leave.

[JK/SEA]

zuckerberg watches too much Star Trek.

[Anti Federalist]

Ah, the equal freedom to be lazy. Now if everybody thinks that way, who would grow the food?

Robot farmers.

And automated Soylent Green centers

[Anti Federalist]

Them that works, eats.

Unless you are in a zoo...

[Mordan]

Have you suffered a brain injury?

Seriously... just leave.

hahaha i knew you would choke on the paid holiday

[enhanced_deficit]

http://www.thehindu.com/migration_catalog/article10283802.ece/ALTERNATES/LANDSCAPE_615/Modi%20zuckerberg

Fantastic, equality is the way to go.

Hindu extremist government bans beef in attack on Christianity and poor (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511032-Hindu-extremist-government-bans-beef-in-attack-on-Christianity-and-poor/page2&)

http://images.indianexpress.com/2016/08/untitled-6.jpg
July 11: Some 35 gau rakshaks attacked 7 Dalits in Mota Samadhiyala village of Una taluka in Gir Somnath district, accusing them of slaughtering a cow. Beat them with iron rods and sticks, kidnapped four Dalits and took them to Una, tied them to a car and flogged them publicly through the town. 7 Dalits were admitted to hospital. 5 gau rakshaks and a mob of 35 booked for attempt to murder and for subjecting SCs to atrocities. 31 persons, including two minor boys, held. Dalits have said they were merely skinning a dead cow.

http://www.southasiasolidarity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/modi1.jpg

https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2015/04/16/modi-harper-visit-toronto-memorial-to-air-india-terror-attack/sr-modi-09jpg.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x724.jpg

http://images.indianexpress.com/2016/08/cow-map1.jpg

http://indianexpress.com/article/exp...-govt-2954324/ (http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/gujarat-dalit-protests-una-gau-rakshaks-mohammad-akhlaq-modi-govt-2954324/)


Narendra Modi, a man with a massacre on his hands, is not the reasonable choice for India
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...minister-india (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/narendra-modi-massacre-next-prime-minister-india)



Related

Bill Gates praises PM Modi’s efforts to end open defecation in India (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510135-Bill-Gates-praises-PM-Modi%E2%80%99s-efforts-to-end-open-defecation-in-India&)

[Natural Citizen]

hahaha i knew you would choke on the paid holiday

Firstly, There is no Federal law that requires an employer to provide time off, paid or otherwise, to employees on nationally recognized holidays.

It is a choice for an employer to do that. We call this economic liberty.

Do you know why Socialism never works? I'll tell you why. Socialism doesn't work because it can't calculate profit and loss. It's not possible. There's no such thing as loss and profit if everyone is making the same. Consequently, there can be no competition. Only the free market creates loss and profit. Only the free market creates competition.

What you're posturing for here is a government run, socialist, market. That won't work. It will fail. Again, competition cannot exist. Competition cannot exist when people aren't permitted to compete by setting their own costs.


Actually, the founders would have hung your silly ass in the town square. lolol.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm surprised you don't have more red bars to be honest. Why the heck you have full green bars escapes me considering most of the posts I've read from you.

That can be reversed in about 3 days if you're not careful. It's been done.

Of course, I'm not saying that we should all do this. I'm just saying that's it's been done. :)

[Anti Federalist]

I'm surprised you don't have more red bars to be honest. Why the heck you have full green bars escapes me considering most of the posts I've read from you.

That can be reversed in about 3 days if you're not careful. It's been done.

Of course, I'm not saying that we should all do this. I'm just saying that's it's been done. :)

Mordan caught a case of Trumpitis.

From April of 2013 to April of 2016 he was a no show around here.

Prior to that he seemed a pretty solid Paul supporter.

He was pro Trump on his return in 2016 and has been since.

[Mordan]

I'm surprised you don't have more red bars to be honest. Why the heck you have full green bars escapes me considering most of the posts I've read from you.

That can be reversed in about 3 days if you're not careful. It's been done.

Of course, I'm not saying that we should all do this. I'm just saying that's it's been done. :)

Green bars are not a measure of libertarian orthodoxy. You are threatening my green bars so that I espouse your ideas. Extreme libertarians are just as toxic as communists or fascists.

Life is full of compromise. You don't have a free market. It is a theoretical thing.

[Anti Federalist]

Extreme libertarians are just as toxic as communists or fascists.

:rolleyes:

[A Son of Liberty]

hahaha i knew you would choke on the paid holiday

What the FUCK are you talking about? I didn't say anything about paid holidays.

I just love this type of response by the way... pose non-sequitur, to which one doesn't respond because why would you, then declare victory.

[Suzanimal]

I am free to think the UI is a good thing. What's your stance on paid holidays??? Holy shit!! People are PAID to go on holidays???? This is insane. What has the world come to?

I'm not following. What do paid holidays have to do with UI? :confused:

[Danke]

I'm not following.

That's because you're a girl.

[Suzanimal]

Green bars are not a measure of libertarian orthodoxy. You are threatening my green bars so that I espouse your ideas. Extreme libertarians are just as toxic as communists or fascists.

Life is full of compromise. You don't have a free market. It is a theoretical thing.

- rep


That's because you're a girl.

- - rep

[Anti Federalist]

- - rep

Pay him no mind, he's all full of piss and vinegar because he flew to China or some damn place...prolly get a few days off in Bangkok.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWKM9LoTNLA

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjosYYwdqSo

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2DUILIaZkU

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UAKAG9llRU

[oyarde]

I read this thread and it makes no sense . All I got from it was that I support pd holidays for me but think the rest of you slackers should be working . Do something Danke .

[oyarde]

I think this is at least the second Decoration Day I have not been pd since '79 or so and I do not care . If that zuckerburg twit was my kid I would have him pulling weeds or something all weekend .

[Madison320]

Depends on the UI. You decided it was 1000 USD per month. Do it again with 500-600.

Let me remind you that the UI replaces existing social payouts. No more food stamps.


Ok, that's 1.8 trillion. And that's only 6K a year to live on.

What about SS and Medicare? Does it replace that?

By the way food stamps cost only 70 billion a year.

[Mordan]

I'm not following. What do paid holidays have to do with UI? :confused:

State mandated paid holidays were fought toes and nail before they become law in some countries. They argued that it was immoral to give something free to workers and employees.

[Mordan]

Ok, that's 1.8 trillion. And that's only 6K a year to live on.

What about SS and Medicare? Does it replace that?

By the way food stamps cost only 70 billion a year.

It will depend on each country and what their citizens want. They are trying out the UI in Finland with 2000 unemployed people. 560 euros per month. No conditions.

[tod evans]

State mandated paid holidays were fought toes and nail before they become law in some countries. They argued that it was immoral to give something free to workers and employees.

Tooth and nail is the American euphemism...

[Suzanimal]

State mandated paid holidays were fought toes and nail before they become law in some countries. They argued that it was immoral to give something free to workers and employees.

1. It's NOT free, lol.
2. It is immoral to force someone to give something to someone they don't want to give them.

[Mach]

How about this math:

Current tax receipts = 3 trillion a year

300 million people * $12,000(universal income) = $3.6 trillion a year

Not sure how we'd afford this.

Oh c'mon, that's easy, just double everyone's taxes......... :rolleyes:

[Mach]

Money for nothing, chicks for free.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

You can't get something for nothing.

You can't have freedom for free.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-k8zBWLQFM

[VIDEODROME]

Life is full of compromise. You don't have a free market. It is a theoretical thing.

Don't you need a government to have any kind of Market? I mean if you draw up contracts between parties, some entity has to enforce them right?


I'm not sure how I feel about the potential for price inflation. Haven't people been complaining for years about stagnating or even declining wages? If that prices were so closely tied to income, would we see a wide range of products like cars becoming cheaper? I'm not sure bread makers can really assume a significant amount of this new money would be for buying their bread and they should spike up their prices.

UBI is an interesting idea almost like Minimum Wage that came before.

[Swordsmyth]

UBI is an interesting idea almost like Minimum Wage that came before.

And just as bad or worse.

[Mordan]

UBI is an interesting idea almost like Minimum Wage that came before.

The amount of religious animosity towards it is staggering. The idea is attacked by both the right and the left, albeit for different reasons.

[otherone]

The amount of religious animosity towards it is staggering. The idea is attacked by both the right and the left, albeit for different reasons.

UBI is nothing more than corporate welfare. No one on the dole is going to build, invent, create, or produce wealth or capitol. The money will go to comcast, verizon, walmart, pepsico, etal., just like welfare works now. And just like now, working slobs will pay for it, inhibiting their ability to build, invent, create, or produce wealth or capitol.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ahh, Hubris. The Zuck thinks he can be President. Well.... it will make an interesting race! We'll see if he's read his Cialdini. He thinks he has a giant mind-control device so he can't be beat. He's certainly right on the first clause: he does have a giant mind-control device. So that will help him. But on the second, I don't think he can beat a natural like Trump. Plus he's 5′ 7″. And his looks aren't quite right.

Sorry, I'm calling it: Trump in 2020. Massive Trump victory.

Facebook delenda est.

[helmuth_hubener]

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-his-need-karl-marx-347471.jpg

To each according to his Stupidity,
And also, according to his Seed.

Dysgenics matter. It will destroy us, just like it has destroyed everybody else. And there are no promising barbarians waiting in the wings this time. When Anglo-Western Civilization collapses, everything we love (well, at least everything I love) may be done for good.

It may never come back.

Fade to Black.

Darkness Forever.

[VIDEODROME]

Ahh, Hubris. The Zuck thinks he can be President. Well.... it will make an interesting race! We'll see if he's read his Cialdini. He thinks he has a giant mind-control device so he can't be beat. He's certainly right on the first clause: he does have a giant mind-control device. So that will help him. But on the second, I don't think he can beat a natural like Trump. Plus he's 5′ 7″. And his looks aren't quite right.

Sorry, I'm calling it: Trump in 2020. Massive Trump victory.

Facebook delenda est.

I follow Zuckerberg's feed on Facebook and do have mixed feelings about him as a social problem solver. I do like how he gets behind technology or cleaner energy projects as he comes from a technical background.

I'm not sure about his views that seem to be that bringing people closer together is always a good thing or leads to social harmony, especially when I've just seen the vicious political arguing last year to the point of people unfriending each other.

There is something off about a computer programmer or technology CEO feeling ready to solve problems of sociology. Maybe he thinks he just needs the right algorithms.

[Republicanguy]

I think that Universal benefit system may be a serious option for the future. Society has moved quicker than I thought. A decade ago I was a firm believer in the energy crisis, and I haven't let that go. But certain innovation is changing society, and some energy efficiency may be gained from new technology for vehicles, like the electric engine. This has certain to be confirmed, and even if proven to of discarded this subject to history, eventually another global problem will occur such as medical/health, or just over population. And Environment destruction.

As for certain job roles, well those have been gone as the began to be phased out a century ago, with the new changes in society, so that is nothing new. But yes the world of employment is changing to due to the use of personal computers of all sizes, compared to society twenty years or twenty five, where you could buy a pizza on Pizzahut.com if you lived in America, that was the first change.

Or the now early development of AI or powerful computers to drive a vehicle. Less money may be paid to drivers in the future as a result, or even take off an hour out of a day's employment.

[Danke]

I think that Universal benefit system may be a serious option for the future. Society has moved quicker than I thought. A decade ago I was a firm believer in the energy crisis, and I haven't let that go. But certain innovation is changing society, and some energy efficiency may be gained from new technology for vehicles, like the electric engine. This has certain to be confirmed, and even if proven to of discarded this subject to history, eventually another global problem will occur such as medical/health, or just over population. And Environment destruction.

As for certain job roles, well those have been gone as the began to be phased out a century ago, with the new changes in society, so that is nothing new. But yes the world of employment is changing to due to the use of personal computers of all sizes, compared to society twenty years or twenty five, where you could buy a pizza on Pizzahut.com if you lived in America, that was the first change.

Or the now early development of AI or powerful computers to drive a vehicle. Less money may be paid to drivers in the future as a result, or even take off an hour out of a day's employment.


What is an "electric engine?"

[merkelstan]

Well 1) 560 euro in Finland isn't enough to survive with their welfare-state standards of having your own apartment - not by a long shot. They must subsidize housing as well.

2) UBI as an alternative to complicated, costly to maintain systems of managed welfare has the same appeal as simplifying the tax code. If the welfare state is a given, then UBI could reduce overhead.

3) Vountary charity, not force or fraud, is OUR answer to helping the destitute. Once upon a time it was the Christian tradition to tithe 10% of your income to charity. This ecology of giving enabled those without means to survive in an era that was 10 times poorer than our current society. Today even less than 10%, administered through churches and private organizations, would support the basic survival needs (plus internet and a grotty computer) of those who can not work or find friends and family to support them.

4) Nobody who is a follower of Ron Paul or libertarianism thinks the state should be in charge of alms to the poor. If they do they're a traitor to our cause. Period.

P.S. Helmuth is spot-on: Dysgenics is death. It is managed, elite-driven devolution.

[Mordan]

Well 1) 560 euro in Finland isn't enough to survive with their welfare-state standards of having your own apartment - not by a long shot. They must subsidize housing as well.

2) UBI as an alternative to complicated, costly to maintain systems of managed welfare has the same appeal as simplifying the tax code. If the welfare state is a given, then UBI could reduce overhead.

3) Vountary charity, not force or fraud, is OUR answer to helping the destitute. Once upon a time it was the Christian tradition to tithe 10% of your income to charity. This ecology of giving enabled those without means to survive in an era that was 10 times poorer than our current society. Today even less than 10%, administered through churches and private organizations, would support the basic survival needs (plus internet and a grotty computer) of those who can not work or find friends and family to support them.

4) Nobody who is a follower of Ron Paul or libertarianism thinks the state should be in charge of alms to the poor. If they do they're a traitor to our cause. Period.

P.S. Helmuth is spot-on: Dysgenics is death. It is managed, elite-driven devolution.

The UBI is not being in charge of the poor. It is providing an unconditional basic income to kick start the social ladder and happiness. It is better than everything we have..

Dysgenics lol. Guys, genes don't care. as long as you live and make children, your genes are happy. AI and genetic engineering will solve that anyways

So now you are whining that 560 euros is not enough? Well the UBI is not supposed to allow you to live like a prince. Get the 560 and you are on your own. That's why the left hates the UBI. And that's why I love it. It is liberty!!! Give people the money and let the cards fall where they want. If the UBI is really becoming a reality, there will be a market for 300 euros one bed room apartments.

[tod evans]

It is liberty!!!

Ummm, NO!

Free shit ain't got 'nuthin to do with liberty.

[Origanalist]

Ummm, NO!

Free shit ain't got 'nuthin to do with liberty.

Lol, my sig line is too full already or I would keep that one too.

[Origanalist]

The UBI is not being in charge of the poor. It is providing an unconditional basic income to kick start the social ladder and happiness. It is better than everything we have..

Dysgenics lol. Guys, genes don't care. as long as you live and make children, your genes are happy. AI and genetic engineering will solve that anyways

So now you are whining that 560 euros is not enough? Well the UBI is not supposed to allow you to live like a prince. Get the 560 and you are on your own. That's why the left hates the UBI. And that's why I love it. It is liberty!!! Give people the money and let the cards fall where they want. [snip].

No sparky, liberty requires that you provide your own basic income. That way you aren't dependent on mommy/daddy government.

[Weston White]

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/zuvkerberg.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kwz4BqmMfpo/S5KOrkv6VrI/AAAAAAAAA-o/Z058Y7_dM2E/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/zucklaugh1-thumb.jpg

[specsaregood]

This is coming from the guy that buys other mansions next to his mansion just for privacy and so he wont have neighbors? Yeah, sounds legit.

[H. E. Panqui]

enhanced deficit ?mocks: 'Fantastic, equality is the way to go.'

....ummm, yes, 'equality under the law' and/or 'equality of opportunity' IS the way to go... [...if you are mocking 'equality of outcome,' i agree with you...]

...'money' is 'the great $coreboard of life'..

...i guess it's too much to ask for a system where everyone is treated equally, PARTICULARLY as to the creation and issuance of 'new money'...(hint for anyone with a republicrat-level understanding of money/economics: ...'we' are SURELY NOT treated equally here!!...)

...any decent person who truly understands the current system of creation and issuance of 'new money' is horrified by this economic order under which we are en$laved...unfortunately not enough people truly understand...abject, miserable ignorance of the HIDEOUS $tatus quo is near-complete among republicans and democrats...ugh...

[Todd]

No they aren't. and No its not.

"social contract" is the lamest logicalyl fallacious bullshit ever conceived for Taxation apologists.

Because those that came before us made the rules, by virtue of being born late we are subject to them. :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

UBI is nothing more than corporate welfare. No one on the dole is going to build, invent, create, or produce wealth or capitol. The money will go to comcast, verizon, walmart, pepsico, etal., just like welfare works now. And just like now, working slobs will pay for it, inhibiting their ability to build, invent, create, or produce wealth or capitol.

And that, right there, is what is wrong with the technocratic nightmare we're rushing headfirst into.

In a world where people are superfluous and unneeded, what incentive will there be for anybody to create or do anything?

[helmuth_hubener]

Dysgenics lol. Excellent! Some people want to talk about dysgenics!

Or at least to mock the very concept and its mention.



.....Good enough for me! :D Let's dive in!



Guys, genes don't care. As long as you live and make children, your genes are happy. Right! Exactly right! That is what we, or at least I, am concerned about. My fundamental understanding of this fact about genes leads to my concern.

Allow me to post a brief excerpt from a book. People may not read books any more, but we can at least find the time to read paragraphs, right? Come on, please. Just humor me.




THE TRIUMPH OF THE FUNDAMENTALISTS

There is no God but Allah. —The Quran

Imagine a society where epidemic diseases are common and most children die before the age of five, and yet the birth-rate is so high that only famine keeps the population in check. Women are illiterate and confined to the home, their sexuality rigidly controlled. They can be beaten or even killed at the whim of their menfolk. Many gain little pleasure from sex as a result of genital mutilation in childhood. Life for everyone is a grinding struggle for survival, with much of the slender agricultural surplus taken by the rapacious tax agents of an alien and hated power. Religion and tradition are all-pervasive.

This is the traditional culture of the Middle East and it is arguably the most advanced culture on Earth. Most advanced not in terms of technology or wealth but in its ability to endure and reproduce. It is the end product of thousands of years of cultural evolution. In the future, it may well be our world as well.

You see, we may look at the Mohommedans and laugh at them. They are hopelessly backward. They are unbelievably impoverished. They seem utterly incapable of being convinced of the virtues of high technology such as, say, toilet paper. Ha, ha, ha! We are so far superior to them! They are not the most advanced culture, but one of the least advanced! Right?

Right?

It would seem so from our perspective. But genes don't really care how many cars you have. Genes are remarkably non-avaricious. Your Ferrari is only a plus factor from nature's perspective if you are using it to make more babies.

Well, or using it to run over would-be competitors. :eek:

Other than that, it's evolutionarily irrelevant.

The West has a lot of money. Whoopie! Are we using it to out-breed everybody else and "take our rightful place as the top dogs of the world?" No? The percentage of Europeans in the world is going down, not up?

Wait, what, you say? Even the absolute number is going down? But the West rules the world! We are the Big King Daddies! The Phat Enchiladas! We have all the best toys. We totally the best, dawg! And don'chu fogetit!

Mother Nature needs to sit us down and have a little Talk with us. A little heart-to-heart. "I'm sorry son, but your toys just are not interesting to Mommy. What is important to me is that you have lots and lots of children, who in turn have lots and lots of children, in perpetuity. That is how to win my favor and my graces. That is how to play my game."


AI and genetic engineering will solve that anyways. This is an optimistic view. I would welcome it coming true. I cannot share in your optimism, though. I wonder if you have seriously thought it through. A few questions:

1. What percentage of people do you think would be comfortable having children they knew were significantly smarter than they are?

2. What percentage of people do you think are even comfortable with the idea that a significant number of people anywhere might be much smarter than they are, much less in their own homes? The problem is much worse than the ~100% of drivers who are above-average. Our society has fetishized intelligence to such a degree, it's now considered the apex quality, and the one people are the most sensitive and defensive about by far. No one is comfortable thinking of themselves as of below-average intelligence. No one. Even though 50% of people most assuredly are.

So how, again, exactly, is genetic engineering going to solve this? The below-average 50% are the ones having kids right now. The above average 50% don't need genetic engineering. They already have what it takes. All they need to do is stop using contraception and voila! Their kin will be kenned, san high-tech helix rend.

So how are you going to convince the bottom 50% that a) they are kind of stupid, and b) they should spend the next 25 years with a couple insufferable brats with IQs 20 points higher than theirs and who know it? That's gonna be a tough row to hoe. You're paddling uphill against a lot of very strong human nature. People fundamentally want offspring that are what? Like them! Especially in today's over-the-top narcissistic world, people are going to use genetic engineering (assume it all works perfectly and is wonderful and predictable, etc., etc.) for one thing: to make babies who are more like them. Because.... they are awesome. I mean, what could be greater than wonderful, glorious me? Break out the photocopier and let's bless the world.

In sum:

Genetic engineering does not solve nor even address the problem of the top 50%, which is: disinterest in and indeed antipathy towards the idea of reproducing themselves.

Genetic engineering seems highly unlikely to catch hold among the hispanic and black welfare mothers of the world as a wonderful way to give them a bunch of kids to whom they can't relate and can't understand. Instead of kids they can understand and love and who will love them, they'll get some arrogant jerks who will probably resent and look down on them. Great. What a deal!

[Mordan]

no time right now to answer you bro.. just that intelligence is a human concept. nature does not care.

nature cares about genes, like those


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNhCWsDVQI&t=5s

PS: I am not that smart obviously since i support UBI :). Some people are smarter than me. So what? i want my children to be smarter than me.

[Madison320]

It will depend on each country and what their citizens want. They are trying out the UI in Finland with 2000 unemployed people. 560 euros per month. No conditions.

I think the population of Finland is more than 2000. It's not UI unless it covers the whole population.

I'll admit I was briefly interested in the idea as complete replacement to ALL welfare programs. Obviously I'd prefer no welfare system at all. But the numbers don't make sense. If you make the UI amount low enough for us to afford, like around $400 a month (that's about 1.5 trillion), no one could come close to living off that. That won't even pay your rent.

[Mordan]

I think the population of Finland is more than 2000. It's not UI unless it covers the whole population.

I'll admit I was briefly interested in the idea as complete replacement to ALL welfare programs. Obviously I'd prefer no welfare system at all. But the numbers don't make sense. If you make the UI amount low enough for us to afford, like around $400 a month (that's about 1.5 trillion), no one could come close to living off that. That won't even pay your rent.

The way to introduce the UI is to start with a UI of 10 dollars and remove 10 dollars from every other benefits. Go up slowly until equilibrium. The UI is not supposed to allow your to pay rent or anything. it is an unconditional income that nobody can remove.

[Madison320]

The way to introduce the UI is to start with a UI of 10 dollars and remove 10 dollars from every other benefits. Go up slowly until equilibrium. The UI is not supposed to allow your to pay rent or anything. it is an unconditional income that nobody can remove.

But the numbers would be so low you'd be better off with no UI.

[helmuth_hubener]

No time right now to answer you bro.. just that intelligence is a human concept. Nature does not care.

No worries, I can wait. But again: I am agreeing with you that nature doesn't necessarily care about intelligence.

At the same time: I do! I would see it as a tragedy if our civilization collapses (as it is right now, and will most certainly continue to do unless we take drastic measures to stop it) and the entire world becomes the Middle East. Becomes fundamentalist.

No more innovation.

No more new technology.

No more trips to the moon.

Just starving in the mud with Malthus, forever.

Mother Nature wouldn't care. But maybe you would. She'd label it success! But maybe you wouldn't.

[helmuth_hubener]

In the long term, biological and cultural success is based not on wealth or even happiness but on the number of surviving children and the status they hold.

[tod evans]

In the long term, biological and cultural success is based not on wealth or even happiness but on the number of surviving children and the status they hold.

And ultimately their ability to kill....

No culture survives without killing its enemies...

Peaceful coexistence is a fallacy.

[Origanalist]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBEoP5eVYAAdgLE.jpg

[Mordan]

I feel this is going stupid. We talk about Nature as some human entity or thinking entity.

what's Nature to you? The sum of physical laws? Do physical laws care about anything? Nature just is.

We as human inject purpose. We are the product of meta systemic transitions. My own statement about Nature caring about genes is incorrect and stupid. You care about civilization. About moon trips and stuff. If you send a simple program to nearby stars.. it won't care. An complex sentient AI will care about its power supply and EM flare protection. Care is want. I want this and that. I want health and power over my neighbor.

Muslims may or may not take over the world. Their reproductive strategy might be better. Neanderthal disappeared. Genes bad relative to the purpose of survival. Luck bad good luck who knows. They (Neanderthal men) don't care. They are not conscious anymore. Maybe our western civilization is the doom of humanity because we will create an AI that will destroy us all. Muslims should actually take over the world. There are millions of possibilities.

Personally I like the idea of a human bred AI colonizing the galaxy. do I really care? not that much. I won't be there. I want Bitcoin to become a banking standard :).

[merkelstan]

I feel this is going stupid.. We are the product of meta systemic transitions.

Achievement unlocked.

[helmuth_hubener]

Do I really care? Not that much. ... There are millions of possibilities. Well, when one does not care about outcomes, then one can believe -- and do! -- whatever one wants. I guess that's one of the perks?

Or does it mean one can't believe anything at all?

Aww, whatever. Why do anything? For example, finishing this post: why b

[Origanalist]

Well, when one does not care about outcomes, then one can believe -- and do! -- whatever one wants. I guess that's one of the perks?

Or does it mean one can't believe anything at all?

Aww, whatever. Why do anything? For example, finishing this post: why b

Do you sometimes feel as though you're talking to a b

[merkelstan]

The UBI is not being in charge of the poor. It is providing an unconditional basic income to kick start the social ladder and happiness..

Don't know if troll or just stupid.

What is this 'social ladder' you speak of? How does being on the dole incentivize someone to become a productive member of society, gain useful skills, earn an income?

[Origanalist]

Don't know if troll or just stupid.

What is this 'social ladder' you speak of? How does being on the dole incentivize someone to become a productive member of society, gain useful skills, earn an income?

I'm going to pick the latter.

[H. E. Panqui]

...it seems 'libertarian' icon robert heinlein is in some agreement with 'socialist' mark zuckerberg...

Economic independence[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Cu stoms&action=edit&section=8)]

At a number of points in For Us, the Living, Heinlein describes an environment in which individuals are able to choose whether or not to accept a job. Passing references are made to the large number of individuals who take up art or other careers that traditionally do not pay well. The book also points out the short working hours and high wages paid to employees. The book ascribes this flexible working environment to the social credit system (the "Dividend") adopted by the United States which provides enough new capital in the economic system to overcome the problems of overproduction while providing a guaranteed minimal income for all members of society.
For Us, the Living also depicts an early example of homesourcing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homesourcing) in fiction. The character of Diana, a nationally renowned dancer, is shown performing in her own home for a broadcast audience, which sees her dancing on sets added by the broadcasting company to her original feed. The mechanism for this homesourcing is not described in much technical detail, but it appears to be similar to a high-definition video signal interfaced with something like modern chroma key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key) technology.
The biggest economic impact in the book, however, is Heinlein's Social Credit system, that he takes many pains to explain: the Heritage Check System, an alternative form of government funding, in place of taxation. The heritage check system is a moderately altered Social Credit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) system.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-VE-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-CBCHeinlein-6) Its modification reflects Heinlein's more libertarian views and Heinlein's interpretation on how financial systems are affected by the relationship between consumption and production.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-7)[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-8)
The system could be construed as a libertarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian)'s approach to a socialist idea, creating an alternative to a tax system that puts fewer requirements on individuals, while simultaneously providing more for the common welfare.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-mikestreet-9) This is not too surprising, as Heinlein (a proclaimed libertarian) was also fascinated by Social Credit plan that appeared in Canada (which was later shot down by their Federal Government).[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-HeinleinInDialogue01-10) In this role, the government becomes less a part of the economy and more a facilitator of it.
The Heritage System in "For Us, the Living" can be summarized by four major actions:


A required end to fractional reserve banking. Banks must always have a 100% reserve for any loan they give out.
New money is printed only by the government, and then, only enough to counteract the natural deflation that would occur in a system without fractional reserve banking.
The government uses this money (and only this money), divided among all of its necessary roles. Any extra is divided evenly among citizens and businesses that over-produce, to offset the loss of not selling their over-production (the government buying the over-production for its own use, which can be bought by citizens later if they so desire at the same price.)
Goods bought by the government are later sold by the government (or used by it), and normal governmental services (such as postage) are sold. These goods and services provide the standard backing for the currency, similar to how gold is used to back the gold standard.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-11)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs

[Ender]

I thought the Romans already modernized democracy when they invented the republic.

We're going the opposite direction.

If you want to modernize democracy, get rid of it.

Exactly.

We also have a problem in thinking that the way we live is "normal". That the 9-5 job w/benefits, taxation, and being worked to death for someone else in our best years is "normal".

It is not.

Americans are slaves to a system designed to make them so; this is why public education came about- to make the populace compliant factory workers. Americans must wake up to a better way of life than the current slavery most consider "normal".

I'm sure many of you have heard this story before but it definitely bears repeating:


The Mexican Fisherman and the Investment Banker (Author Unknown)

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “only a little while.”

The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.

The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, and stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.”

The American scoffed. “I have an MBA from Harvard, and can help you,” he said. “You should spend more time fishing, and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, and eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middle-man, you could sell directly to the processor, eventually opening up your own cannery. You could control the product, processing, and distribution,” he said. “Of course, you would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles, and eventually to New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “Oh, 15 to 20 years or so.”

“But what then?” asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time was right, you would announce an IPO, and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions!”

“Millions – then what?”

The American said, “Then you could retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you could sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, and stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play guitar with your amigos.”

[TheCount]

Mordan is doing a great job of illustrating the socialist tendencies of nationalist movements.

[bunklocoempire]

How would you enforce it?


You know, with more fear-filled group liberty.
Just pretend man isn't in the equation and that liberty is a widgit to be manufactured, and anything is possible!

"Oh great god of algorithms, deliver us from Ramen and robots. Let us cast off our individual relationships and cling to the unaccountable government of man" :rolleyes:

The amount of "we" used to try and sell this crap tells all. Group fear about "life" pushed by dead men walking. Lame.

[Swordsmyth]

...it seems 'libertarian' icon robert heinlein is in some agreement with 'socialist' mark zuckerberg...

Economic independence[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Cu stoms&action=edit&section=8)]

At a number of points in For Us, the Living, Heinlein describes an environment in which individuals are able to choose whether or not to accept a job. Passing references are made to the large number of individuals who take up art or other careers that traditionally do not pay well. The book also points out the short working hours and high wages paid to employees. The book ascribes this flexible working environment to the social credit system (the "Dividend") adopted by the United States which provides enough new capital in the economic system to overcome the problems of overproduction while providing a guaranteed minimal income for all members of society.
For Us, the Living also depicts an early example of homesourcing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homesourcing) in fiction. The character of Diana, a nationally renowned dancer, is shown performing in her own home for a broadcast audience, which sees her dancing on sets added by the broadcasting company to her original feed. The mechanism for this homesourcing is not described in much technical detail, but it appears to be similar to a high-definition video signal interfaced with something like modern chroma key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key) technology.
The biggest economic impact in the book, however, is Heinlein's Social Credit system, that he takes many pains to explain: the Heritage Check System, an alternative form of government funding, in place of taxation. The heritage check system is a moderately altered Social Credit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) system.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-VE-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-CBCHeinlein-6) Its modification reflects Heinlein's more libertarian views and Heinlein's interpretation on how financial systems are affected by the relationship between consumption and production.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-7)[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-8)
The system could be construed as a libertarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian)'s approach to a socialist idea, creating an alternative to a tax system that puts fewer requirements on individuals, while simultaneously providing more for the common welfare.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-mikestreet-9) This is not too surprising, as Heinlein (a proclaimed libertarian) was also fascinated by Social Credit plan that appeared in Canada (which was later shot down by their Federal Government).[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-HeinleinInDialogue01-10) In this role, the government becomes less a part of the economy and more a facilitator of it.
The Heritage System in "For Us, the Living" can be summarized by four major actions:


A required end to fractional reserve banking. Banks must always have a 100% reserve for any loan they give out.
New money is printed only by the government, and then, only enough to counteract the natural deflation that would occur in a system without fractional reserve banking.
The government uses this money (and only this money), divided among all of its necessary roles. Any extra is divided evenly among citizens and businesses that over-produce, to offset the loss of not selling their over-production (the government buying the over-production for its own use, which can be bought by citizens later if they so desire at the same price.)
Goods bought by the government are later sold by the government (or used by it), and normal governmental services (such as postage) are sold. These goods and services provide the standard backing for the currency, similar to how gold is used to back the gold standard.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs#cite_note-11)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs


Heinlein also wanted only Active Duty/Retired military to have the vote. Any argument to authority (other than GOD) is inherently weak.

[CaptUSA]

It should be noted that a Universal Basic Income has been suggested by MANY libertarian-ish thinkers as a replacement to the welfare state.

In theory, it would be much better.

But my problem with it is that the State never "replaces" anything! The EITC is a form of UBI... What did it replace?! Nothing. It just builds onto the existing system of theft and handouts.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Okay, so I went thru all the replies, and I did not see anybody post the obvious.

If it's a universal basic income, then everybody gets the same amount, right? If that is the case, then you're just passing money in a circle and you're back to square one. Everybody ends up where they started.

If everyone does not get the same amount, then you're just advocating the system you have now.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Mordan is doing a great job of illustrating the socialist tendencies of nationalist movements.

And you're doing a great job illustrating the socialist tendencies of progressive movements.

[Madison320]

If it's a universal basic income, then everybody gets the same amount, right? If that is the case, then you're just passing money in a circle and you're back to square one. Everybody ends up where they started.


That would be true but not everyone is contributing the same amount.

I think the solution is to only allow net contributors to vote in elections. Parasites should not have a vote.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That would be true but not everyone is contributing the same amount.



I debated someone on a forum about this topic, except this person said every adult receives the exact same amount. Every adult. I think the amount quoted was 12k per year. This person could not see that such a program is just passing money around to one another, leaving everyone with the exact same amount. Furthermore, this person could not account for the money lost to administer such retardedness.

The person I debated held many (in my opinion) extreme progressive views. This is the logic you're up against. No child left behind.

[Madison320]

I debated someone on a forum about this topic, except this person said every adult receives the exact same amount. Every adult. I think the amount quoted was 12k per year. This person could not see that such a program is just passing money around to one another, leaving everyone with the exact same amount. Furthermore, this person could not account for the money lost to administer such retardedness.

The person I debated held many (in my opinion) extreme progressive views. This is the logic you're up against. No child left behind.

I agree that the definition of UI is that everyone receives the same amount, but I don't think it's just passing money around. That would only be true if everyone paid in the same amount. For example if everyone received 12K but they also paid 12k in taxes, you'd be right. But some people pay millions in taxes and only get 12K while others pay nothing and get 12K.

[Dr.No.]

Instead of universal income, why not have a job guarantee? Many government departments are understaffed, at all levels. Why not offer jobs for $10/hour, with full 401K, vacation time, and healthcare? This provides the dignity of work, training/education, etc. If the person finds a job in the private sector, they can leave. This also eliminates the need for any kind of welfare save for serious disability.

These people could work on cleaning the streets. Fixing/painting buildings. Shortening lines at the DMV or Post Office. Etc. etc.

[devil21]

Instead of universal income, why not have a job guarantee? Many government departments are understaffed, at all levels. Why not offer jobs for $10/hour, with full 401K, vacation time, and healthcare? This provides the dignity of work, training/education, etc. If the person finds a job in the private sector, they can leave. This also eliminates the need for any kind of welfare save for serious disability.

These people could work on cleaning the streets. Fixing/painting buildings. Shortening lines at the DMV or Post Office. Etc. etc.

See my post on page 1. Been there, done that. How did it work out in the USSR? Or will it be different this time?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Instead of universal income, why not have a job guarantee? Many government departments are understaffed, at all levels. Why not offer jobs for $10/hour, with full 401K, vacation time, and healthcare? This provides the dignity of work, training/education, etc. If the person finds a job in the private sector, they can leave. This also eliminates the need for any kind of welfare save for serious disability.




I totally agree with you. I think we need to reauthorize the Americans with No Abilities Act. This blue text is from an article about the act:

The Americans With No Abilities ACT (ANAA)

The Democratic Senate is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many more Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills and ambition.


“Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.”







These people could work on cleaning the streets. Fixing/painting buildings. Shortening lines at the DMV or Post Office. Etc. etc.


Yes, yes! Nancy Pelosi addressed this:

In a Capitol Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).







http://www.theonion.com/article/cong...lities-act-541

[H. E. Panqui]

Okay, so I went thru all the replies, and I did not see anybody post the obvious.

If it's a universal basic income, then everybody gets the same amount, right? If that is the case, then you're just passing money in a circle and you're back to square one. Everybody ends up where they started.

:confused:

...just because everyone gets treated equally as to the benefits of using 'newly-created' money in 'the first round of spending' doesn't mean everyone 'ends up where they started'...the outcome(s) after the 2nd 3rd 4th etc.............'rounds of spending' will be widely different based upon the multitude of different exchanges/transactions...harder/smarter working people who economize will certainly accumulate many many more 'point$ in the great scoreboard of life' than people who don't/won't 'work'...

..[btw ncl, i edited out your last sentence and i wish i hadn't...it was a good/sound point]...

[H. E. Panqui]

That would be true but not everyone is contributing the same amount.

I think the solution is to only allow net contributors to vote in elections. Parasites should not have a vote.

:confused:

...you wouldn't necessarily have to fund this with DIRECT taxation if 'the government' created 'its own' 'debt-free money' rather than borrowing from private secret-squirrel banksters number$ that said banksters create 'out of thin air' and then 'lend at interest' to 'the government' (us)....ugh...

...btw, we've had more honest, insightful conversation here about 'money' than rush, glenn, sean and ALL the rest, in their stinking years of 'providing :rolleyes: information'... truly 'low-info' republicrats abound...and as ?ford put it, roughly, 'if they ever figure it out, there will be a revolution before tomorrow morning'...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But some people pay millions in taxes and only get 12K while others pay nothing and get 12K.




...just because everyone gets treated equally as to the benefits of using 'newly-created' money in 'the first round of spending' doesn't mean everyone 'ends up where they started'...


Maybe it does not matter, but that change is my whole point. If the millionaire gets 12k and has to give it to the deadbeat, then the net effect means its no longer universal. This idea is sold with a cute name, but just ends up taking money from one person to give to another. That's no different than what we have now, except you're just taking even more from the millionaire.

It's just chicanery with a slick name to boot.

[Madison320]

Maybe it does not matter, but that change is my whole point. If the millionaire gets 12k and has to give it to the deadbeat, then the net effect means its no longer universal. This idea is sold with a cute name, but just ends up taking money from one person to give to another. That's no different than what we have now, except you're just taking even more from the millionaire.

It's just chicanery with a slick name to boot.

I agree. I don't see how it can possibly work.

[helmuth_hubener]

Neanderthal disappeared.

They are not conscious anymore. By the way: are you so sure? Perhaps you should ask a Basque.

[jllundqu]

What is an "electric engine?"

A Battery

[CaptUSA]

I agree. I don't see how it can possibly work.

Really? I mean, in theory, it works fine. Let's use your $12K number. You give each person $12K - they either deduct it from their tax bill if they're wealthy or they get paid the difference if they're not (Milton Friedman suggested a sliding scale to encourage them to grow their way out of dependence. It wasn't a one-to-one, so by earning more, you actually made more).

But you cut all federal welfare, health care spending, and education dollars - each person decides where they want to put that $12K. In theory, this would re-introduce market forces on both the supply and demand side.

The problem with it is political - not economics. No politician is going to cut any existing program. And the last thing they want is for people to feel responsible for themselves - that's their job! So you'd end up with both. All programs remain intact and a new welfare program. (see EITC)

[specsaregood]

Neanderthal disappeared. Genes bad relative to the purpose of survival. Luck bad good luck who knows. They (Neanderthal men) don't care. They are not conscious anymore.

Their descendants are still here and some of us are doing just fine.

[Madison320]

Really? I mean, in theory, it works fine. Let's use your $12K number. You give each person $12K - they either deduct it from their tax bill if they're wealthy or they get paid the difference if they're not (Milton Friedman suggested a sliding scale to encourage them to grow their way out of dependence. It wasn't a one-to-one, so by earning more, you actually made more).

But you cut all federal welfare, health care spending, and education dollars - each person decides where they want to put that $12K. In theory, this would re-introduce market forces on both the supply and demand side.

The problem with it is political - not economics. No politician is going to cut any existing program. And the last thing they want is for people to feel responsible for themselves - that's their job! So you'd end up with both. All programs remain intact and a new welfare program. (see EITC)

I should've said it something like "it doesn't really do anything". The problem is that for the UI to be affordable from a tax revenue perspective, the amount is way too low for anyone to be able to live off of it. 12K is 3.6 trillion a year. We only take in 3 trillion a year in tax revenue. So it would have to be around 4 or 5 K a year, max, which wouldn't come remotely close to paying for someone who couldn't work so you'd have a huge demand to help those people. So we'd be right back where we started except with another layer of welfare.

Basically what I'm saying is, what's the point? Might as well have no welfare since the UI amount would be so low.

[H. E. Panqui]

If the millionaire gets 12k and has to give it to the deadbeat, then the net effect means its no longer universal. This idea is sold with a cute name, but just ends up taking money from one person to give to another. That's no different than what we have now, except you're just taking even more from the millionaire.It's just chicanery with a slick name to boot.

:confused:

...if 'the government' exercized the prerogative of creating 'its' own money [thereby taxing us INDIRECTLY through 'inflation'] there would be no need to DIRECTLY tax your 'millionaires'...

...madison and ncl, think of it this way: ..if you took away the privilege/power of money creation that PRIVATE, SECRET SQUIRREL BANKSTERS NOW ENJOY FOR THEMSELVES (hopefully you understand this EXISTING hideous privilege...if you don't, nothing i say will make sense to you) and issue this sum, pro-rata, to americans [after deducting monies for legitimate 'government expenses'...!talk about a way to lower government expenses/costs!!] THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THE TYPE OF DIRECT TAXATION ABOUT WHICH YOU WRITE!!...

...and before you criticize my idea, PLEASE LOOK AT THE CURRENT MISERABLE ROTTEN SYSTEM OF 'WELFARE' PRIVILEGE ENJOYED BY BANKSTERS, etc. corporate shysters galore!!

[Mordan]

Basically what I'm saying is, what's the point? Might as well have no welfare since the UI amount would be so low.

The point of the UI is personal responsibility. Take a beggar in the street. Give him a UI on a monthly basis. The community can take his UI by a judge order and house him or get out of the city. Today a beggar has nothing to lose.

Or those nice people who want to help beggars could use this unconditional income to fund a peace and loving community of beggars.

[H. E. Panqui]

The point of the UI is personal responsibility. Take a beggar in the street. Give him a UI on a monthly basis. The community can take his UI by a judge order and house him or get out of the city. Today a beggar has nothing to lose.

Or those nice people who want to help beggars could use this unconditional income to fund a peace and loving community of beggars.

:confused:

...again....can/will anyone admit/understand that the current system of 'money issuance' is an abomination which enthrone$ certain individuals..WHY WOULDN'T AN EGALITARIAN SYSTEM OF MONEY ISSUANCE (call it 'UI' or whatever you want) BE MUCH PREFERABLE TO THE CURRENT INSANE, RIGGED SYSTEM FAVORING "THE BANKSTER$?!"...waaaaaay past time to get real, people...