Well that was predictable
Well that was predictable
According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still -- when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
You're viewing a single thread.
Not really. You have to wonder about countries that think it's ok to reward people with the work of others for doing... What again? Just existing? Seems like free food leads to confined circumstances. That is something the US knows all too well. The US currently gives food away simply because you exist. Guess what that, without competent education, has led to. Drug epidemics, mass poverty, mass murder, and partridge in a pair tree. Them that work, eat.
Not starving to death is not a "reward" and judging ones worth by their ability to provide labor is a disgusting point of view.
Fun fact, universal basic income leads to more people improving their lives and getting educated, working better jobs, reducing homelessness, and strengthening the job market, etc.
That's more than just free food! And yet it reduces all the bad things you blame on free stuff!
Then they should have talked about universal basic income. You gotta dig deeper than that. I'm responding to the bait that I saw. And UBI reduces all of the bag things for drones. Who's paying for this again? Btw, I grew up in it, and fought my way out. The depressing truth is that if the situation you are in isn't enough motivation to get yourself out, then I have to believe that you don't want to get out. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not saying that we don't get out heads, and hearts stepped on by all the crabs wearing timberland boots over here. The tendency ought to be to look to our own, as opposed to others. Others keep us in bag life situations. They didn't put us there. Out own did that. All of this is general stuff. Something for nothing isn't a lifestyle I can abide.
Get a load of the temporarily embarrassed billionaire over here. He's currently pulling him self up by his bootstraps good and proper right now and those proles can f off if they think they can get their unwashed hands on his (future) money.
So, first off, what exactly is the most important thing people buy? It's food, and it'd water. So free food is the next best thing after universal basic income, and is in itself a form of universal income. Second, you say that it's not rich people and corporations that put us into this situation, and I just want to know where you got this idea, because it's not poor people who established a capitalist society, or artificially inflated the price of basic needs, causing people to give up less necessary items because they couldn't afford both housing and food. It's also not poor people who decided that the minimum wage shouldn't be livable. All of those things where done by rich people who were born into the right families and didn't work for a single day in their lives. So tell me again how this is poor people's fault?
Tell the heirs of rich people to give up their free money first
I am on disability and can easily live on it
I still work because it turns out I like to feel useful, even if I can't contribute fully
The vast majority want to feel useful, few will choose to just subsist on UBI. Even outside my own anecdote, this has been proven with every single UBI experiment
Friend, I'm sorry but you're fucked up in the head.
Ask yourself the question: does human life have value by itself? (independent of everything, including age, race, employment, etc).
If your answer is yes, then every human life should be protected, and we as a society need to be organised in a way that provides the minimum necessities for survival (like food, water, etc). This is what the whole world, except the US, just said.
On the other end, what you're saying is that life in itself is worthless and that value is given by some other factor (like being employed). This means that, until proven otherwise, everyone is disposable. If you think through the implications of this, you'll realize you can do whatever to them - kill them on the spot, harvest their organs, cut them to pieces to feed your pigs, ... Is this the world you want to live in?
For the sake of completeness, let's explore the implications of #1, where people get "money for nothing". What's usually tested is giving people just enough money to cover their most basic needs. Would some people stop working, if they didn't have to worry about starving? I'm sure some would. But would you?
Because I, for one, like to be able to afford my luxuries, and will keep working to not give them up.
Let's go another way with this.
I don't know if you have any kids or not -- this is entirely hypothetical. But I have discovered people think more about a topic the less abstract it is.
You have two kids, aged 4 and 5. Then you get hit by an asteroid that kills you. No one else can take them in.
Wouldn't you like for the state to look after them? To at least give them food, water, shelter and care until they grow up until they are eighteen? To do all this whether they can earn their way or not? To do it just because it is the right thing to do?
Not because they believe the kids will pay them back or be worth something when they grow up, but because they believe the kids have worth now simply because they are living, sentient human beings?
Or would you rather that your kids are left out on the street to die? forced to make their own way in the world at the age of 4 and 5? that they will only be fed if they can show they have worth?
Just curious.
Thats actually an interesting train of thought imo.
I personally believe every person that is, or will be in the future, a valuable part of society should get access to social help. Be it food, basic income, housing etc etc.
I got this believe because i myself came from a poor family, with my mom basically raising 5 very difficult children on her own. However, all 5 of us became very valuable people in society but have all become a positive influence around us. One is product manager, another is cto, another is data centre engineer, all us have helped people who need it etc etc Without the social support we would never have gotten there.I believe in those principals because i believe those people should be supported so they can flourish, personally, or help humankind as a whole.
What you said explains perfectly why i feel this way haha
Your example here has the nuance of future expectation, however. You're stating that taking care of the children is an investment, not just something done because they are human beings and should be treated as such. Gabe on the other hand is saying simply that it is the right thing to do, regardless of where the kids' lives lead down the road.
I know, and i understand the difference.
Before you read on, remember this is a view from a european guy who has known social support. I am not american, and the american way of being all on your own, with your own devices disgusts me tbh.
Im not saying taking care of children is an investment per-se, that is a must. They need to be taken care of, period. My argument for making it sound like an investment, besides basic human need, is one created to counter those that dont believe that and think of them as a waste of time and energy.
I see childeren in need as a hope, a potential for humanity to become better. Those that have known trouble and being poor are special, they have the potential. And yes, maybe you can see that as an investment, but please consider it an investment into humanity itself, and most certainly not an economic investment!What i will confess, is that this changes for me, when we are talking about adults. Things, and situations somebody is in, are very complex things as we in a world with infinite possibilities and infinite different type of people. There is like that 0.1% of human adults that would abuse the system, make it worse for everyone because they dont know or can do better in their lives. Ive grown up around such people and i consider them ... Not worth it. however, those people who spoil it should not ever ruin it for the others that want it, need it. A person that can not get basic needs fulfilled should always have the option to get support. Rules can be put in place for adults, yes, but the option should be there and a person should never be put on the street with nothing.
I appreciate the further clarification. I apologize if I put your example in a vacuum and projected solely that upon you. I think we're both pretty much on the same page regarding this, so don't really have anything more to add at this point. Cheers :)
No problemo, after your comment i read my comment again and agreed it could have been interpreted in a very different way. Hence a few edits i put in hehe.
I also had a look inside and i must admit part of me thinks of an economic investment, its an unescapable thought due to the world we live in. However, it is not even close to my real reason and drive to help people, which is hope, potential and letting the person flourish like i have been able to do!
Ditto.
I am also from Europe (the UK specifically) and whether someone is going to be the best person in the whole history of humanity or (for want of a better phrase) the most idle, useless wastrel known to humankind I still believe they deserve the basic support of the welfare system, and shouldn't be left to starve to death on the streets. Because what does it say about a society that does that to someone?
You don't help someone for a reward, or for what you will get out of them, you help them because they are a human being who needs help.
And if you need a better reason (because clearly some people do) you help them because if you were in that situation you hope someone would help you.
Because what does it say about a society that does that to someone?
I just wanted to single this sentence out right here, in agreement with you. The whole purpose of living in a society is taking care of one another. Those who are able should do what they can for those who cannot. They too someday will no longer be able bodied and thus require help themselves. I feel like so many people are just so shortsighted to even see the point. It's sad, really.
What a dipshit
Regards
A person from the Nordic welfare states
Education is a right, does it mean that teachers are not paid?
...what?
I don't agree with the comment you are responding to, but they're not talking about teachers not getting paid they're talking about reward for not doing anything, and that reward having to come from somewhere (workers who pay their taxes). Asking if teachers get paid doesn't work here, they're paid by the taxpayers but that has nothing to do with having a fundamental right to something (the US offers a public education as a right to all citizens). Teachers don't have a fundamental right to a teaching job.
I think the point being made is this :- teachers find a job. Then they teach. They produce the product (knowledge) which is given to kids and teenagers.
Kids and teenagers do not pay for this. They go to school (up to a given age) for free. And everyone seems happy with this point of view. Education is a right.
And sure -- teachers don't have a fundamental right to a teaching job, but that isn't the point. The point is kids have a fundamental right to the product the teachers make -- knowledge.
Food is not a reward, its a basic necessity.
And having a right to food does not mean the US to pay for everything just like the US does not pay for education on the rest of the world.
And ecucation IS a human right because its inscribed in the list of human rights recognized by the UN and approved by the US.