View Poll Results: Where do you stand?

Voters
95. You may not vote on this poll
  • I don't support Andrew Yang's UBI

    33 34.74%
  • I support Andrew Yang's UBI

    62 65.26%
Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
21
... LastLast
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    That makes zero sense, what or how does one even define "quality of person?" What does that mean in any real terms?
    Intelligence, strength, adaptability, etc. Catch 22. You can predict these things, albeit not perfectly, by looking at the indicators for success. Socioeconomic standing of the family, genetic history, etc. However, I'd argue that in even attempting to do this, you're opening up to a lot of corruption. Ergo, I'd prefer to just skip it and leave the minimums where they are instead of trying to even figure out what the criteria would be.

    That's kinda the point. It's not possible until it's too late (meaning until the person already exists and you have to decide they need to die since they don't meet the minimum standard). I'd prefer to let society freely decide who gets what resources on it's own instead of trying to force my views (or worse, someone else forcing their views on me because they get the governmental power) via government.

    In the same way it makes no sense to try and discern, objectively, what makes a person "worth it" to a society, it makes no sense to try and limit what a society thinks is "minimum standard quality of life." In reality, there is no such thing as minimum quality of human, and therefor there should be no minimum quality of life.

  2. #202
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    22,198
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Intelligence, strength, adaptability, etc. Catch 22. You can predict these things, albeit not perfectly, by looking at the indicators for success. Socioeconomic standing of the family, genetic history, etc. However, I'd argue that in even attempting to do this, you're opening up to a lot of corruption. Ergo, I'd prefer to just skip it and leave the minimums where they are instead of trying to even figure out what the criteria would be.

    That's kinda the point. It's not possible until it's too late (meaning until the person already exists and you have to decide they need to die since they don't meet the minimum standard). I'd prefer to let society freely decide who gets what resources on it's own instead of trying to force my views (or worse, someone else forcing their views on me because they get the governmental power) via government.

    In the same way it makes no sense to try and discern, objectively, what makes a person "worth it" to a society, it makes no sense to try and limit what a society thinks is "minimum standard quality of life." In reality, there is no such thing as minimum quality of human, and therefor there should be no minimum quality of life.
    Given the market is a social invention, yes, we can collectively define what is "worth it" since all of that is a social value judgement, not some hand of God thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Tankie Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics / Socialism with My Chemical Romance characteristics. Caramelldansen Nationalism. Kanye West 2020, Aimee Terese was right about Warren. If my ideology could be captured by one image, this is it.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Given the market is a social invention, yes, we can collectively define what is "worth it" since all of that is a social value judgement, not some hand of God thing.
    Right, but you don't need government to do that. Popular vote is a horrible system for discerning "what a society thinks" because it invalidates probably the most important parts of power and influence each individual has. It ropes everyone in together and holds them equal, when that is very obviously a farce.

    The freer the market, the more closely the full breadth of desire vs worth vs ability, etc, is accounted for in a society determining the "worth" of an individual. Government stepping in and telling society "nuh uh, you need to care for that bum just because he was born, even though you had no say in him being born" isn't society deciding that. Society already made the choice that, whatever his circumstances, he was dead weight and deserved to be on the street. It's just some people think they know better and should be able to tell other people what to do because their morals are CLEARLY the better ones that deserve to be enshrined in law.
    Last edited by BeepBoo; 2019-12-06 at 09:05 PM.

  4. #204
    The "Free Market" is nothing more than a sham...

    Robber Baron wannabees that have nothing to do with reality.
    de·fund
    /dēˈfənd
    prevent from continuing to receive funds.
    "the California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"


  5. #205
    I voted no, mostly because I haven't really looked into it.

    I support UBI only under the expectation that it is a replacement of other welfare services, and that it ultimately saves money compared to those welfare services by cutting administrative staff. I don't think there's a practical political reality in which that would ever happen.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  6. #206
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,425
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Right, but you don't need government to do that. Popular vote is a horrible system for discerning "what a society thinks" because it invalidates probably the most important parts of power and influence each individual has.
    It doesn't matter that it's horrible. A consensus-based system is the only known way for us to properly model society and have a feedback mechanism that involves everyone's input.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    It ropes everyone in together and holds them equal, when that is very obviously a farce.
    What??? All (functioning) people are qualitatively equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    The freer the market, the more closely the full breadth of desire vs worth vs ability, etc, is accounted for in a society determining the "worth" of an individual. Government stepping in and telling society "nuh uh, you need to care for that bum just because he was born, even though you had no say in him being born" isn't society deciding that. Society already made the choice that, whatever his circumstances, he was dead weight and deserved to be on the street. It's just some people think they know better and should be able to tell other people what to do because their morals are CLEARLY the better ones that deserve to be enshrined in law.
    Right that is a big problem that some think they "know better" and therefor justify coercion based on their personal opinion.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    What??? All (functioning) people are qualitatively equal.
    Nope. Not everyone has the brains to become a doctor. Or can run a marathon. Or can type 1000 words per minute. Just because we all have the same general design (mandated by the fact that we're a species) doesn't mean anything about our innate value as an individual.

    The coercion part I agree with.

    As for the "doesn't matter that it's horrible" I beg to differ, but that entirely depends on what you think the role of government is. I think it's to be a referee on actual natural universal rights and that's it.

  8. #208
    If you hate paying taxes then you have no business being in the country, since levying them is part of the US Constitution.
    de·fund
    /dēˈfənd
    prevent from continuing to receive funds.
    "the California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"


  9. #209
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,425
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Nope. Not everyone has the brains to become a doctor.
    Assuming the person isn't mentally disabled(non-functional) it has to be the case that anyone can learn anything from any discipline. There's no actual thing such as a brain that is better or worse at learning about medicine, or better or worse at mathematics. That idea is based on a misunderstanding of how the brain works.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Or can run a marathon. Or can type 1000 words per minute. Just because we all have the same general design (mandated by the fact that we're a species) doesn't mean anything about our innate value as an individual.
    Those are quantitative metrics so that is very much the case that people aren't quantitatively equal. But when it comes to issues like democracy and morality we give everyone the same voting power because we're qualitatively equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    As for the "doesn't matter that it's horrible" I beg to differ, but that entirely depends on what you think the role of government is. I think it's to be a referee on actual natural universal rights and that's it.
    Okay so if the government is the "referee" then it still needs to get the "rules of the game" from some source. That source is obviously the citizens and representatives who vote on what the rules of the game ought to be.
    Last edited by PC2; 2019-12-06 at 09:59 PM.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    As soon as everyone starts off the same then we can start to play the game of "quality person."
    Since I've never met a 1 percenter that wasn't dumb as a brick, rotten piece of shit.
    What about Kylie Jenner, the youngest self-made billionaire ever?

  11. #211
    Democrats. Always trying new ways to push Communism on everyone.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    I voted no, mostly because I haven't really looked into it.

    I support UBI only under the expectation that it is a replacement of other welfare services, and that it ultimately saves money compared to those welfare services by cutting administrative staff. I don't think there's a practical political reality in which that would ever happen.
    And that's what it should be. Taxes won't change with a UBI that I agree with.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sygmar View Post
    Democrats. Always trying new ways to push Communism on everyone.
    Is that better or worse that Authoritarianism?

    See, I can do it too!

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    And that's what it should be. Taxes won't change with a UBI that I agree with.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Is that better or worse that Authoritarianism?

    See, I can do it too!
    Authoritarianism?! You mean the 2nd thing that the Democrats try to push?!

    All I'm seeing these days is various democratic rich elites lecturing the plebs on who to vote and how to behave.

    The Democratic motto: Do as we say, not as we do.
    Last edited by The Butt Witch; 2019-12-06 at 10:06 PM.

  14. #214
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    21,827
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Assuming the person isn't mentally disabled(non-functional) it has to be the case that anyone can learn anything from any discipline. There's no actual thing such as a brain that is better or worse at learning about medicine, or better or worse at mathematics. That idea is based on a misunderstanding of how the brain works.
    A Stanford study disagrees with you but what do they know, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Sygmar View Post
    Authoritarianism?! You mean the 2nd thing that the Democrats try to push?!

    All I'm seeing these days is various democratic rich elites lecturing the plebs who to vote and how to behave.
    You realize that that's what people without the ability to see others' perspectives always think about 'the other guys' right? Basically every single argument you make about dems I can make about reps and vice versa.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Those are quantitative metrics so that is very much the case that people aren't quantitatively equal. But when it comes to issues like democracy and morality we give everyone the same voting power because we're qualitatively equal.
    Completely incorrect. The personalities, abilities, and every quality of a person is different. You going to tell me someone that gets angrier faster isn't qualitatively different from someone who is pensive and passive? Bullshit. Humans are not equal in any sense other than the fact that we're all the same species, which means exactly 0 to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Okay so if the government is the "referee" then it still needs to get the "rules of the game" from some source. That source is obviously the citizens and representatives who vote on what the rules of the game ought to be.
    Nope. Should be as close to objective, inarguable truths as possible so there is no room for interpretation. The same way we KNOW flat-earthers are wrong is the exact type of objectivity our laws should strive for. That leaves EXTREMELY few topics those rules can even begin to cover, which is fine.

    Murder, for instance, is objectively wrong, and provable by two different methods. I'm not getting into that here.

    Returning to the OP's post: under no circumstance is UBI something the government should be trying to push. There is no way it ends up doing good for anyone but the lazy, the unfortunate, or the incapable. None of whom I want to personally support without my explicit consent.
    Last edited by BeepBoo; 2019-12-06 at 10:22 PM.

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by OnlineSamantha View Post
    From what I understand, it's supposed to replace all the current social systems like food stamps and whatnot, right?
    It's opt-in, though, so if anyone feels that they're doing better with government assistance, they can just keep their assistance.

    Combines with, rather than replacing, SS and disability, though.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Sygmar View Post
    Authoritarianism?! You mean the 2nd thing that the Democrats try to push?!
    Your god-emperor Trump isn't a Democrat.
    de·fund
    /dēˈfənd
    prevent from continuing to receive funds.
    "the California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"


  19. #219
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    A Stanford study disagrees with you but what do they know, right?
    I haven't seen it but yes they have to be wrong. The brain is about changing information states(ie 0's and 1's) to gain new knowledge. The idea that some people(doctors, mathematicians, etc) have some kind of innate knowledge that can't be emulated and matched by any other functional person is basically saying the brain works through magic and not based on information that can be copied and shared with other people.

    Think of it like software on the computers we're using, every computer is capable of running every program. The computer you're using right now might have double the hertz and memory as my computer, but it doesn't change what algorithms and data could possibly be downloaded to each computer. The only thing that changes is how much time it takes to arrive at some goal.
    Last edited by PC2; 2019-12-07 at 04:54 AM.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

  20. #220
    Yang has this all spelled out clearly on his site.

    The really short version (but there's more to it) is:
    1) Replacing welfare spending as people opt-in.
    2) Savings on things like incarceration/emergency rooms.
    3) Economic growth (estimated at $2 trillion a year by a couple different studies, but you only capture a portion of that)
    4) A 10% Value-added tax to capture a portion of tech profits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •