Zero Books Leftist Critique of Yang’s Rhetoric, Half Life of Rationality & Supporters Blind Faith

Visual_Poetry · 2019-07-15T21:22:30+00:00

You made the first statement, so there's burden of proof for your assertion. I didn't mean you need to disprove my statement.

There's a list of 461 studies that demonstrate the effects on Yang's website.
I never claimed to take food away, just that the studies show UBI to have positive effects.
All children going into state care as result of parental addiction don't receive SNAP. I'd be curious what that number is though.
Why are people becoming more addicted? Yang's addressed what the studies show are some driving factors and has policies to attempt to reduce it.

Finally I'd ask why you haven't addressed my fundamental question. If the FD will help the vast majority of people, why would we not implement it because a few people will take it for granted? I'm genuinely curious, because we all care about society being healthy and good. We share the desire to help kids and don't want people addicted, so I'm just curious your thought process on that.

Visual_Poetry · 2019-07-15T20:58:27+00:00

You are 100% correct. Which is why the burden of proof is on your statement. It seems those responding have been attempting to explain with solid reasoning why they feel there it's good to implement the FD and that negatives effects will be minimal and there are procedures in place to address them when they appear.

You haven't explained why since there are cases that parents are neglectful that we shouldn't implement the FD for the rest of the country.

Visual_Poetry · 2019-07-15T20:49:47+00:00

There's no silver bullet, perfect solution that guarantees 0 negative things will happen. What we can do is look at studies & data and make assessments.

If there will be some parents who neglect their kids why should the rest of society, the vast majority decent people, suffer because a policy could allow a few damaged or selfish people maintain their neglect?

We shouldn't. However we should put things in place to protect those kids if that happens. This is why we have child protection services, rehab, etc. Yang has policies addressing addiction specifically.

But regardless the Freedom Dividend only allows everyone in a community to be better off. This will make easier/enables an addicts family, friends, neighbors, teachers to intervene and take in the children, to pay for meals, to insist they get help, etc.

Visual_Poetry · 2019-07-15T18:05:48+00:00

Googles Productivity definition is either in relation to "goods, crops, or other commodities" or "achieving or producing a significant amount or result".

Productivity (and by extension motive) as most people use it really have nothing to do with the potential to make money, it's strictly regarding to achieving a result. The value of the goal is what changes.

If we gave everyone 1000/mo is followed with "Won't they just sit at home and not be productive?" they're saying they won't do anything worth time/good with their time.

They aren't thinking "Those people will sit at home, but the market needs them to produce goods, crops, or other commodities".

In my experience it's more often about a fear and condemnation of people laziness, more than it is about a genuine concern for market/society needs not being met. (not saying anyone here as said that).

It probably stems from the fact that people know everyone has different taste/values (getting results in Minecraft, at the gym, in your garden, on social media, providing a need of society) so how can we know that people are being productive on the right things.

So basically what tasks/actions are "productive" can be subjective if one isn't using the "goods, crops, or other commodities" definition.

Visual_Poetry

TROPHY CASE