How do you feel about Andrew Yang's UBI of 1,000 a month for every US Adult

[Elegiac]

A lot of people are thrilled if a charity or a church gives food assistance to the poor, but draw a HUGE red line at the government stepping in and doing it. This is because they are staunch proponents of small government, and believe big government ideas risk turning the nation into a dictatorship. They are not even willing to RISK it. At ALL.

Yes, these are called crazy people. And strangely enough they are usually benefiting from one or more forms of government assistance while espousing these "small government" viewpoints.

[Kokolums]

Yes, these are called crazy people. And strangely enough they are usually benefiting from one or more forms of government assistance while espousing these "small government" viewpoints.

They would argue the unfathomable amount of abuses committed by dictatorships over the course of human history would be something to be avoided at all costs.

[Elegiac]

They would argue the unfathomable amount of abuses committed by dictatorships over the course of human history would be something to be avoided at all costs.

Yeah, and they'd be wrong.

We're not under any obligation to consider counterfactual viewpoints as legitimate. It's about as bullshit a belief as being anti-vax or a flat earther.

[Kokolums]

Yeah, and they'd be wrong.

We're not under any obligation to consider counterfactual viewpoints as legitimate. It's about as bullshit a belief as being anti-vax or a flat earther.

That's probably the absolute worse defense you could possibly make. Just asserting that they are wrong without a shred of evidence.

[Blur4stuff]

Problem is anyone that supports Trump or even the republican party can't argue against UBI based on wanting small government or being opposed to handouts.

Only way to honestly have that position is if you don't vote republican or democrat.

[I Push Buttons]

Problem is anyone that supports Trump or even the republican party can't argue against UBI based on wanting small government or being opposed to handouts.

Only way to honestly have that position is if you don't vote republican or democrat.

The only way a UBI would make the government smaller is if you are ok with people dying in the street. Otherwise the conventional welfare state would continue to exist and a UBI would just be another thing on top of it.

[Elegiac]

That's probably the absolute worse defense you could possibly make. Just asserting that they are wrong without a shred of evidence.

Or, I'm asserting they're wrong because their position is not backed up by evidence and doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

[Endus]

That's probably the absolute worse defense you could possibly make. Just asserting that they are wrong without a shred of evidence.

Their position is fundamentally irrational. It doesn't bear any response beyond pointing out that it's irrational nonsense.

It's based on a slippery slope fallacy, hypocritically different treatment of two groups based on a standard that doesn't apply (most governments can't wield military strength against their citizenry, many churches have had armies and have so wielded force), etc.

Their position is abject nonsense and nobody should give it any serious consideration. They may as well be saying they're worried what Santa Claus will think.

[Mayhem]

That's probably the absolute worse defense you could possibly make. Just asserting that they are wrong without a shred of evidence.

Their evidence is "government might turn dictatorship if we allow poor folks to have stuff.", ... I mean.

[Beazy]

I personally want to vote for Yang, but I dont think he can win the primary. =o[

[Fahrenheit]

Probably necessary in some form or another in the not too distant future. I will say this, his run for President put the notion of Nation-wide UBI back into the mainstream, and I don't think it's going to go away, so props to him for that.

[Martymark]

Let's pay for it by charging it to the China credit card. I'm sure nothing bad will happen if we keep doing that.

[Mayhem]

Why do people always resort to classist arguments? Do you think poor people are unable to follow the law?

That's not what he said.

Unless of course, you're saying people are willing to starve to death as long as they're following the law?

[Orbitus]

Why do people always resort to classist arguments? Do you think poor people are unable to follow the law?

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about? If you take away the bare minimums that some people are barely scraping by on, crime will go up. That is simple fact. Just because they are doing anything they can to survive.

[Orbitus]

South Korea and Japan have a far less extensive welfare system than sweden, they have far more people living in poverty. Yet, their crime rates are far below Sweden's. Why is this, if poverty causes crime?

I don't know, I am not informed on the goings on of other countries like Japan and South Korea.

But in the US, it absolutely is there.

[Orbitus]

No, what you are doing is repeating an ideological mantra.

Because it is true, at least in the US. Just like you tried to call me out about your support of the fascist Swedish Democrats, and tried to claim I am not educated on them, even though I am because they have been brought up on this forum before, you have no fucking clue what it is like in the US and claim something doesn't cause other things, when we know that if someone is so desperate, they will do anything they can to survive, including criminal behavior like steal stuff and sell it.

Now, try to refute it. I dare you.

[Tulipmantra]

South Korea and Japan have a far less extensive welfare system than sweden, they have far more people living in poverty. Yet, their crime rates are far below Sweden's. Why is this, if poverty causes crime?

You maybe want to look up what the success rate of prosecution for crime is in Japan. It is 100% round-up. That is way higher than most dictatorships. They only prosecute if a prosecution is absolutely certain to succeed.

They have less crime because they prosecute less criminals. Pretending there is some kind of correlation with government benefits is like pretending it is because they eat more sushi.

[the game]

That's not what he said.

Unless of course, you're saying people are willing to starve to death as long as they're following the law?

Why would they starve to death? there's plenty of animals running around in the woods they can trap and eat.

[Orbitus]

It isn't true. People in usa are not different than people elsewhere. You're not some exception among humankind.

What I do know though is that a lot of people work hard to try to make it out that society is at fault rather than the individual who commits crime. Start holding the individuals accountable for their deeds and stop trying to pin the blame on society.

If you want to talk risk factors I'm all for it but poverty doesn't play a role in violent crime. It plays a role in crimes like shoplifting, theft and so on. Not murder, aggravated assaults, torture, rape etc.

The single biggest risk factor is gender. Men account for the vast majority of crimes. This is the case historically and in present time.

Yet people like you hone in poverty as if that's the only factor that exists and isn't even relevant to many crimes, especially those crimes deemed heinous by society.

Yeah, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would they starve to death? there's plenty of animals running around in the woods they can trap and eat.

If you can't afford to buy the food, you most certainly cannot trap or kill these animals. And especially since most of the people live in cities where the only animals are dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals or rats.

[Orbitus]

You not liking what criminologists have found doesn't make it any less true. You keep repeating an irrelevant mantra.

The rich people have far more deaths and injuries on their consciousness than the poor ever will. But when they kill people or injure them it's called a tragic accident, for some reason.

Yet, you can't cite a single source. Amazing.