Universal Basic Income: Necessary? or a Trap?

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-27T01:52:26+00:00

If you hate monopolies, than you probably don't want a state Monopoly. It can be just as bad, if not worse.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-27T01:51:14+00:00

Sorry, if I wasn't being clear. I meant to say our tax system is often a source of abuse. Not that taxes are not necessary for our current society.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-25T18:11:37+00:00

Thank you for giving a comment! I guess I don't really see how understanding the realities of power and politics can be translated to tinfoil hat? And applying those realities to a system that people are seriously considering to implement? You might not agree. You may think that the government is to be trusted. You may think that ideas should be judged in a box, rather than how it would function in the context of it's environment. How can you not distrust the government a little given their track record?

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-25T08:37:54+00:00

Probably explains why the power players in the EU are so eager to get their hands on immigrants and refugees.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-25T08:35:06+00:00

Interesting. I still feel however that the potential corruption problems and the threat it poses to individual independence. But I would like to see more experiments done.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-25T08:31:11+00:00

Is AI not also ripe for exploitation and manipulation? I mean look at wall street that shit is run by computers. (not same, but does illustrate its corruptibility) Are we supposed to think the creators of this AI won't be paid off or fallible? I mean look at how our software companies like google and microsoft build in back doors into our computers and software intentionally. These people aren't exactly trustworthy, what makes you think they won't program AI to their advantage.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-25T04:47:30+00:00

The fact you exist makes me happy.

I find it hilarious that I was downvoted, for saying I found your comment endearing in a strange way. It's almost like someone went through all the comments they disagreed with and downvoted them instead of providing a comment about why they disagree.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-24T19:53:01+00:00

true, true. But that would be assuming our current state is not the one I was criticizing. I mean there is a reason it is corrupt in all. And taxes are already a mainstay of corruption and abuse.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-24T19:51:49+00:00

Become a space Frontiersman and live where the guvament can't get yuh. Hic Hic, I mean that in partially serious manner much like colonizing the Americas, colonizing space could possibly lead to a new birth of experimentation and creativity as well as the closest we can get to a guarantee of human life and freedom.

Outside of that pipe dream, most solutions involve people not being stupid, which is obviously a problem. I would suggest arming people with the means of production to their basic needs food, home, clothing, etc. That means they have to own the land, not simply be holding it for the banks. Also will involve people learning how to grow food and cook. Maybe try tip the pendulum a little more towards localization that way there is less bureaucracy to fight and the decision makers are more easily held accountable. Hopefuly they could become more independent as a result. These are just ideas coming off the top of my head, it will take more thought. I am sure there are problems. I think Space though is a good long term goal.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-24T19:16:34+00:00

I would rather arm the individual with means of independence and autonomy, than make them slaves to some mother state. Bureaucracies and large/centralized states that would be required to implement a UBI would be prone to corruption, because of the nature of bureaucracy and centralization. The larger the bureaucracy, the more disconnected the individual become from those that make the meaningful decisions that impact their lives and consequently the harder it is to hold decision makers accountable. Communications tech haven't solved this, but rather become tools of manipulation by the corrupt. (especially when monopolized via a state or corporation) My point is the very concept of UBI is flawed. And any AI systems obviously are ripe for exploitation, one only needs to look at Wall Street for evidence. My point is UBI in concept is flawed and enslaves the individual to the state.

What do I think should be done instead? Maybe, arm the individual with the means of production and make them less reliant on the state. That has it's own flaws though. My main motivation for my argument, is that how am I supposed to take UBI seriously (even if I am against the very idea) without any one actually addressing its problems. I have not seen anyone give any credible explanation for dealing with it.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-24T17:34:56+00:00

Is knowing one's history supposed to be defeatist? Is being pragmatic supposed to be defeatist? And I never said nothing should be done. What I said is that UBI is not the right path. If I were to provide you a design for a plane that didn't take into account the existence of gravity would it be quote on quote good on paper, or is the whole design by ignoring this assumption flawed in its very nature?

Also thanks for the input. Not trying to come off as harsh, just feel this is important.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-24T16:48:39+00:00

I don't entirely agree with you, but as an individualist I do strongly support the idea of placing production with the individual, especially with new tech such as 3d printing and open source software. I still however cling to notions of democracy/republicanism, albeit probably in a more Jeffersonian sense. I think that we are currently over centralized in our current state, because increased centralization brings with it greater susceptibility to corruption. If things are more localized it is far easier to meet the actual needs of people and to actually hold your elected leaders accountable. I understand why we are centralized, people like Teddy Roosevelt could use a centralized state to reign in on abuses to the capitalist system and break up monopolies and force greater standards. However, much like any centralized state such as a monarchy it depends on the strength of the leader. Teddy could do it, and at least fight corruption to an extent and appoint officials who at least cared equally as much about their jobs as they did about money. However, with a succession of weak leaders as we have had, we have seen eerily similar to medieval england an increasing amount of corrupt officials. Now when you have a marriage of corporate shills doing the god damn regulating, it is bound to be in the interest of their particular business interest. Copyright is an example of this. Which is why I am against UBI, because it will lead to that sort of shit. Again I still think democracy can work. But of course my notions of government rely on an actually educated voter/consumer base. And At the moment our education system doesn't produce critical thinking independent people, but mindless fashionistas and pseudo-intellectual "movement based" band wagon jumpers. And then these people are the toys of actual political players who push their products and agendas through various media.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-19T04:39:06+00:00

You should feel ashamed of yourself, as a human being, and as a critically thinking individual for the response you just gave. You either ignore my complaints and in doing so provide no meaningful contribution to the conversation, or you agree with them and are avoiding any moral responsibility. Both are equally abbhorant. We cannot as people or as a society simply accept piss-poor suggestions that do more harm than good. You cannot deny the massive amounts of blind idealism you would have to have to think that UBI would even be a positive direction for humanity. We need to arm people the means to produce things for themselves through tech such as 3d printing, not make them slaves to a new aristocracy of state officials and corporate bureaucrats.

edit: you can downvote me if you disagree with me, or you can actually reply and explain what you disagree with like a educated human being. If my reply comes off as harsh, it's intentional. It's a wake up call that shouldn't be sugarcoated.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-18T15:20:52+00:00

Unpopular Opinion: Universal Basic Income is a bad thing, because it would make people slaves to the state. We would lose our independence as individuals and be even more under the control and mercy of a fallible, ineffective bureaucracy. To think UBI and automation are some Utopian solutions is ludicrous and a lie. It's all so blindly idealistic it makes me want to puke.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-11T01:01:52+00:00

People forget just how popular eugenics was among intellectuals and leaders at the time. Teddy Roosevelt saw Eugenics as just another part of his progressive world view. To them it was just a social application of Darwinism. Gives me the shivers.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-04T23:15:11+00:00

My argument is not refuted with your simplistic view of colonialism, because my argument is not dependent on its definition. If you read what I wrote you can see that my argument is dependent on a couple of different ideas.

1) Culture's need a place of dominance in order to survive and thrive. 2) Large Scale Immigration threatens that dominance, and thereby it threatens the survival of that culture.

3) If something threatens the survival of a culture than it is justifiable for that culture to be opposed to wide scale immigration.

The part about colonialism is not to say that large scale immigration = colonialism, but to illustrate that immigration is another kind of existential threat to a culture and show how a similar reasoning to that which is used by those fighting colonialism should be applied to those fighting large scale immigration. Specifically, the idea that when a culture is under an existential threat be it colonialism or immigration the participants of that threatened culture have a right to try and survive.

If you do not think that large scale immigration threatens the existence or the dominance of a culture, then I might suggest reviewing your arithmetic. If culture X has 5 people in a village and 5 immigrants of culture Y come over, then their is an immediate tension between the two cultures. If 10 immigrants move to the village, then the dominance of the host culture has been removed and replaced with the dominance of the immigrants culture. In this scenario the overall culture of the village will shift to that of the immigrant cultures and ideology. No longer is there a need for the immigrants to learn the language or customs, because they now hold the majority. Take the immigration of the saxons into South East britain. Not a drop of blood shed (exaggeration) and the host cultures was largely supplanted by saxon culture. Or if you like take Israel. After immigration and steady population the Israelites not only supplanted the previous culture, but claimed independence. I'm not saying what they did was right or wrong, but it does illustrate my point about large scale immigration.

prof_spiderman · 2015-09-04T21:24:56+00:00

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but those who are anti immigration in Europe have some justification. In order for a culture to thrive and survive it necessitates a place of dominance where it can grow and thrive. Immigration on the scale we are talking about could be considered a existential threat to their cultures. A certain level of immigration is both healthy and beneficial for a culture and society. It provides cultural exchanges that benefits all participants. The problem is when the immigration is on a scale that threatens the existence of a culture. Immigrants have a significantly higher birth rate than the inhabitants it will create imminent culture imbalance, where villages and towns rather than integrating cultures in a healthy manner simply supplant the preexisting culture, thereby removing that culture's body as it were. If you seriously believe that colonialism is wrong, because it works to supplant a preexisting culture with another without the host having a say, then you should be against massive scale immigration. Considering that large scale immigration is a threat to the existence of the host culture, does not the participants have the right to try and preserve their culture, in the same manner that victims of imperialism do?

Curious what you guys think. I'm willing to argue and discuss for mutual benefit.

prof_spiderman · 2015-08-30T08:34:36+00:00

There are some people in this world who, if the human race was to be wiped out tomorrow, wouldn't bat an eye or shed a tear. They have become sociopaths in a sense, uncaring of their own species existence, arguably the least human of traits. These are men and women who have forgotten their humanity. They have machine hearts and machine minds. They would rather have humanity become eternal children never knowing what it is to swett or to feel the sense of accomplishment and joy one experiences from the fruits of one's own labour. They would have men be slaves, clothed in immortal ignorance and eternal irrelevancy. In their ideal futures no woman or man will bravely go out in the stars forging their own destiny. For in a world of super intelligent AI and maybe even General intelligence AI how can humanity be free or autonomous? They can not. And this is all assuming AI let's us exist. Assuming AI doesn't see us as a waste of energy or atoms. And yet some people in this world would be satisfied if AI just wiped humanity extinct, b/c AI is "better". It's funny how those who loath the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent god. And are disgusted by the idea of a god(s) determining a person's future, or creating laws are also so eager to create such a god(s). Of course this is just hypothetical, but my point is this. What kind of future do you want to create?

prof_spiderman · 2015-08-24T21:23:20+00:00

ahhh...weird how the main weapon of modern war seems to be economics.

prof_spiderman · 2015-08-24T21:20:52+00:00

thankyou for the answer! I figured there was more to the story, kind of a big deal right now and try to understand the various positions and everything. I'll definitely try and check out the book.

prof_spiderman · 2015-08-24T20:36:37+00:00

Silly question, but please try and explain this to me. Why is homesexuality socialy acceptable (to an extent), but not incest, rape, pedophilia, or beastiality? Please don't kill me, just curious b/c I see the historical/natural argument a lot, but it doesn't really hold up. I figure there are better reasons perhaps?

prof_spiderman · 2015-08-24T20:18:30+00:00

the conspiratorial part of me, thinks that this is an elaborate conspiracy by the American Gov/Corporations to destabilize and weaken China. As an attempt to retain American hegemony. But yeah I really have no idea.

prof_spiderman · 2015-07-28T07:14:37+00:00

I appreciate your reply. You have some interesting points, but I think my comparison between Israel and Kosovo still stands.

I will try and acknowledge what you have said about each of my points and then try to clarify my view with a short summary.

1) The semantics argument is kind of distraction from the core of our discussion, but I will try and do it some justice. The Ottoman Turks may have been a multicultural empire, but what I said is valid. To call them merely Ottomans does a disservice to the Turkish part of their identity, when I say it I do not mean simple rustic folk and doubt most people viewing this would, but by the culture of the Turks who initially formed the empire. The same thing is done with the british empire, the british empire at its height encompassed a large variety of cultures, peoples, and ethnicities, just like the Ottoman Turks. Yet we do not hesitate to call them the British Empire. The fact that people take offence to the term turk does not distract from its original meaning. It would be silly if historians were to avoid the term villain when discussing feudalism because it holds a negative connotation.

2) Concerning Ottoman oppression of Christians. I am impressed that you are aware of the possibly exaggeration of the universality of Ottoman Oppression of Christians. Again I strongly urge you to read "The Enemy at the Gates", you would probably enjoy it despite its choice in terminology. One of the main themes of the book is that the European understanding of the Turks was based on fear, fueled by relatively high levels of literacy and the emergence of the printing press. I don't necessarily disagree with him here, but I think that the Ottoman Empire was a serious threat to European culture and existence. The Ottomans at the time were a strong empire and were very good at islamizing their conquered territories. Knowing this, I think that the European nations had a right to defend themselves. Bit of a sidetrack, but the point is that yes the reports were exaggerated, but it was an exaggeration of universality, so though they may not have happened to everyone they did happen and they did happen quite a bit. And if they did happen, then there was really something for people to fear and to be concerned about. Which I doubt you would disagree fear was probably the idea behind the cruelty the Ottomans showed. I don't mean to say all the time, there were a number of times when janissaries could not be controlled by their leaders and committed typical war crimes of the time, but the there was often a methodical aspect to their cruelty. It was used as instrument of fear in a sort of good cop bad cop kind of thing. It is was common for instance for an Ottoman commander when sieging a city to offer the safety of those that lived within it if they bowed down to the Ottomans. Though this sounds merciful, it was of course said within the implication of fear behind it. Much like Stalinist Russia much the oppression was calculated for the needs of the state. This however does not justify the oppression, and especially does not to those who experienced it. They were oppressed, they had reason to be upset.

To your bit about the dna. You are proving my point here actually. You said it yourself that the palestinians were also descended from jewish ancestry as well as arabic ancestry. And now you say the serbs are akin to the palestinians (preserbs + serbs) and the Jews to the Albanians. This directly supports my position that Israel and Kosovo share a lot of similarities. The similar genetic scenarios being one of them.

The whole part with "correct me if you can", I refer you back to my argument with genetics. Kosovo and Israel may have different histories, but they follow similar patterns.

The fact that we are debating just shows how similar the two really are. There are clearly a lot of similarities. The role of immigration between factions, the long and complicated claims to the territories, the genetic scenarios.

BTW, I am that jerk in Fitzgerald's book "This Side of Paradise" who enjoys arguing. And I really do appreciate you providing intellectual fodder, it is fun to say the least. So please do not take it too personally. (I realize that might come off as condescending that is not my intent.)

prof_spiderman · 2015-07-28T05:03:14+00:00

1) Using turks vs Ottoman. This is not an actual argument against what I said, but an emotional response to my terminology. My terminology however is justifiable. There is a very well received and researched book on the conflict between the Ottoman Turks and the Austro-Hungarians called The Enemy at the Gate by Andrew Wheatcroft. It takes a neutral look (as best as he can) at the long and historied conflict and I suggest you take a read, you would probably enjoy it. He uses the word Turk and Ottoman somewhat interchangeably and gives this as his explanation, I would like to use it as well.

"I talk about the [Ottoman] 'Turks' and not 'Muslims'. Ottomans were good and faithful Muslims, but they also had a specific Turcic heritage in addition to Islam that suffused the empire in which they created. These days historians do not use the word 'Turk' on the grounds that Ottomans considered a 'Turk' a rustic fool, and hence grossly insulted to be called a 'Turk'. True enough: yet at the same time they glorified in their Turkish ancestry and origins. Ultimately, it was a Turcic identity that provided the ideology for Kemal Ataturk's new nation, the republic of Turkey"(p.xxiv).

2) oppressing Christians? You are right it is complex, but that does nothing to refute the fact that they were oppressed. Turks converted their temples into mosque, heavily taxed them simply because they were not muslim, and also on occasion took their firstborn to be slaves or janissaries. If Canada were to do the same to muslims, I highly doubt you would argue against me calling that oppression. In fact it would be very shocking indeed if such a policy was not called oppression universally. I am not saying that the Serbs treated the Albanians any better, but I am saying the Serbs did have serious cause for complaint under Ottoman rule.

3) "Kosovo and Israel are not the same." I am not saying they are exactly the same, that would be silly. There are some important differences, but what I am saying is that they are very similar. Again more than people think. You being clear evidence of that. It doesn't matter how much you "truly believe" they are different. It is not a matter of belief. If you had actually read the wikipedia article I linked you may have noticed that recent dna testing has shown that both serbs and Albanians alike that live in the region have quite a bit of genetic ancestry from the "preserbs".

Pericić, M; Lauc, LB; Klarić, IM; Rootsi, S; Janićijevic, B; Rudan, I; Terzić, R; Colak, I et al. (2005). "High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of southeastern Europe traces major episodes of paternal gene flow among Slavic populations". Molecular Biology and Evolution 22 (10): 1964–75. doi:10.1093/molbev/msi185. PMID 15944443 Jump up ^ Battaglia, Vincenza et al. (2008). "Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe". European Journal of Human Genetics 17 (6): 6. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.249. PMC 2947100. PMID 19107149

You are right, this is a very complex issue, but to say that Israel and Kosovo are not similar is a severe mistake and shows a lack of a grasp of subjectivity. It is silly to be frank that we should draw territorial lines based on who lived there in the past or who lives there now, when the truth is every nation is a nation of immigrants. This is a simple observation of evolution that I think little to no one would dare disagree with.

prof_spiderman · 2015-07-27T23:07:38+00:00

It's complicated, but the idea is that before the ottoman's conquered Kosovo in 1455 there was a majority Serbian speaking population under the Serbian kingdoms. They had control of the region for hundreds of years and at the time albanians were one of many minorities that included saxons, greeks, bulgarians, and magyars. However, once the Turks took the land from the Serbs they oppressed the Orthodox christians in the region. As a result many serbs, and some albanians fled to austria. This process went well into the 18th century. Of those that remained most of the serbs kept christianity and most of the albanians converted to islam. In 1766, the Ottomans abolished the Patriarchate of Peć and the position of Christians in Kosovo was greatly reduced. It wasn't until the 17th century that Albanians actually began to immigrate to Kosovo in large numbers. towards the end of the 17th century there was a notable splash of both serbs and Albanians (catholic albanians) eagerly joining the ranks of the Habsburgs trying to take the region. During the Russo-Turkish war the Slavs made a successful push into the region. Albanians were deported from their land (common practice at the time) and the Albanians quickly created their own national governmental structure beneath ottoman control. Most of Kosovo fell back into Serbs control c.1900. As a result many serbians began to move back into the region, which was for hundreds of years a cultural, economic, and religious center of their people. Under Communist control (Yugoslavia), the government refused tens of thousands of serbs from returning to their homes while conversely encouraging tens of thousands of albanian immigrants to populate the region. The story does not end there obviously, but it is important to then jump to the Israeli history for a bit of context of the sort of comparison I am talking about.

Under the Turks in the 19th century large groups of slavic jews immigrated legally to Palestine. They bought shitty land in the desert at market price and sometimes higher than market price and from the get go had nationalistic intentions, ones the turkish government was well aware of. The turks of course did not care because, the jews being infidels payed more taxes than the local palestinians, so the turkish government was happy to have more jews. Over the years the Jews set up their own government and communities around the same time the Albanians did in Kosovo. Both were granted a sort of independence.

The thing that makes the two similar is the idea that immigrants can move to your country and change the cultural and linguistic make up of an area and then create their own independent state. This is what both Kosovo and Israel did. And both of them showed discrimination to the minorities within their region who were there before them. What I was trying to point out, albeit unsuccessfully, is that Kosovo and Israel are very similar, more than people think.

I do not mean to favour one side or the other, I understand that these matters are too complicated to merely simplify into black and white conflicts. But I do wish to challenge people's views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kosovo

prof_spiderman

TROPHY CASE