Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Socialism is never successful in the realm of giving the majority of people better and freer lives which I would think would be the main goal of any political ideology not just a Capitalist one. Because prioritising individual liberty has shown it *can* provide these things when done right in a way prioritising collectivism has shown it does not, because most people recognise their own mortality and the fleeting nature of life so want to have the liberty to choose how to live their life rather than bring told they have to certain things or make certain decisions because the state or a syndicate or a collective decides that was better for the collective even when all individuals are different and have their own unique goals etc. and Socialism and collectivism cannot take those into account and always sucks the freedom for individuality out of the individual.

 

It's why the Berlin Wall came down - because people saw the choice and freedom to be an individual on the other side of it and rose up against it, because life is too short to have it dictated by the decisions of others be it the state or some democratic syndicate or what have you - I don't see what's specifically Capitalist about wanting individual liberty as an ultimate life goal.

 

That is not necessarily about Capitalism specifically. It's just that historically Capitalism has shown to be the best promoter for individual liberty while still helping people's lives generally get better over the long-term, despite all its flaws and downturns.

1

I think we've crossed swords on this before, Sampson.

 

I agree entirely that many people are driven exactly by the motivations you describe here, but also for reasons gone into before now that this might well be fatal for the future.

[Sampson]

41 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

You could argue that people in capitalist systems only have an illusion of freedom.

 

Certainly your average slave wasn’t free in any way. The fact that today’s low wage workers have more freedom than a slave is not thanks to capitalism. 

I'm not sure on your point here? You think slavery was down to capitalism and slavery didnt exist in Socialist states or in Feudalist or Mercantalist ones? 

 

No, it doesn't have anything to do with Capitalism that your average individual has more liberty than a slave, I never claimed it did. But it is down to Capitalism that an average individual has more liberty than an individual did in a Socialist, Feudalist or Mercantalist society, that's all I'm claiming.

 

I don't think you could argue the average individual has more individual liberty in a Capitalist society is an illusion at all - unless you're going into a libertarian free-will vs deterministic debate in which case I completely agree that libertarian free-will strikes me as kind of silly and I certainly think the universe is either a deterministic or random one and we have no ultimately conscious choices - but in terms of actual day to day individual liberty which actually matters in terms of our day to day lives and emotional responses - and if you mean like, because in Capitalism you have to work 40 hours a week in a depressing job you hate to pay upur bills etc. and then deciding between living in a tiny room in a cheaper city in a shared house so you can save money to start a family and go travelling - nah, of course that's shit, but it's still so much better than the alternative, I don't think there's much of an argument that's an illusion that we actually have that kind of day-to-day individual liberties more than we would in a Socialist society which put Collectivism above Individual liberty at all.

 

Socialism and collectivism by nature is a forceful and restrictive ideology which forces the decisions of what is considered best for the collective on the individual. I've never understood the argument that Socialism is great in theory but humans are just too selfish for it to work - Socialism theory itself for me is vile and treats human beings as though they should spend their mortal lives as herd animals and accept the collective decisions over their own - what sets humans apart from herd animals is we understand our own mortality and what to make of it every single day.

 

For someone who doesn't want a Socialist society you sure defend its core philosophy a lot.

[Rogstanley]

28 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I'm not sure on your point here? You think slavery was down to capitalism and slavery didnt exist in Socialist states or in Feudalist or Mercantalist ones? 

 

No, it doesn't have anything to do with Capitalism that your average individual has more liberty than a slave, I never claimed it did. But it is down to Capitalism that an average individual has more liberty than an individual did in a Socialist, Feudalist or Mercantalist society, that's all I'm claiming.

 

I don't think you could argue the average individual has more individual liberty in a Capitalist society is an illusion at all - unless you're going into a libertarian free-will vs deterministic debate in which case I completely agree that libertarian free-will strikes me as kind of silly and I certainly think the universe is either a deterministic or random one and we have no ultimately conscious choices - but in terms of actual day to day individual liberty which actually matters in terms of our day to day lives and emotional responses - and if you mean like, because in Capitalism you have to work 40 hours a week in a depressing job you hate to pay upur bills etc. and then deciding between living in a tiny room in a cheaper city in a shared house so you can save money to start a family and go travelling - nah, of course that's shit, but it's still so much better than the alternative, I don't think there's much of an argument that's an illusion that we actually have that kind of day-to-day individual liberties more than we would in a Socialist society which put Collectivism above Individual liberty at all.

 

Socialism and collectivism by nature is a forceful and restrictive ideology which forces the decisions of what is considered best for the collective on the individual. I've never understood the argument that Socialism is great in theory but humans are just too selfish for it to work - Socialism theory itself for me is vile and treats human beings as though they should spend their mortal lives as herd animals and accept the collective decisions over their own - what sets humans apart from herd animals is we understand our own mortality and what to make of it every single day.

 

For someone who doesn't want a Socialist society you sure defend its core philosophy a lot.

I didn't mention socialism at all in that last post. I'm not arguing for socialism as an alternative to capitalism. 

 

Slavery was definitely a consequence of capitalism. Slaves were just a cheap source of labour. Owning a cheap labour force was incentivised and rewarded by capitalism. Before capitalism, slavery as we recognise it today was unknown. It's only thanks to hard won social changes that most of us aren't slaves now. 

 

Regulated capitalism is the best fit for present day society, but times are changing more quickly than ever. It might not be the best fit forever and we need to be open to thinking about alternatives, or at least significant changes.

 

The point of bringing up slavery is thst it shows what capitalism ultimately is - a properly ruthless drive for profit. This has many benefits, but can also lead us to some quite dark places. In a changing world, i think it's sensible to keep our options open, and not worship capitalism as if it's a God that can never be criticised.

Edited 18 February 2018 by Rogstanley

[woollett the bullet]

13 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I'm not sure on your point here? You think slavery was down to capitalism and slavery didnt exist in Socialist states or in Feudalist or Mercantalist ones? 

 

No, it doesn't have anything to do with Capitalism that your average individual has more liberty than a slave, I never claimed it did. But it is down to Capitalism that an average individual has more liberty than an individual did in a Socialist, Feudalist or Mercantalist society, that's all I'm claiming.

 

I don't think you could argue the average individual has more individual liberty in a Capitalist society is an illusion at all - unless you're going into a libertarian free-will vs deterministic debate in which case I completely agree that libertarian free-will strikes me as kind of silly and I certainly think the universe is either a deterministic or random one and we have no ultimately conscious choices - but in terms of actual day to day individual liberty which actually matters in terms of our day to day lives and emotional responses - and if you mean like, because in Capitalism you have to work 40 hours a week in a depressing job you hate to pay upur bills etc. and then deciding between living in a tiny room in a cheaper city in a shared house so you can save money to start a family and go travelling - nah, of course that's shit, but it's still so much better than the alternative, I don't think there's much of an argument that's an illusion that we actually have that kind of day-to-day individual liberties more than we would in a Socialist society which put Collectivism above Individual liberty at all.

 

Socialism and collectivism by nature is a forceful and restrictive ideology which forces the decisions of what is considered best for the collective on the individual. I've never understood the argument that Socialism is great in theory but humans are just too selfish for it to work - Socialism theory itself for me is vile and treats human beings as though they should spend their mortal lives as herd animals and accept the collective decisions over their own - what sets humans apart from herd animals is we understand our own mortality and what to make of it every single day.

 

For someone who doesn't want a Socialist society you sure defend its core philosophy a lot.

Sorry mate i realise i am showing my ignorance here but I really didn't understand much of that at all

[Izzy]

5 minutes ago, woollett the bullet said:

Sorry mate i realise i am showing my ignorance here but I really didn't understand much of that at all

Come and sit with me over here in the dunces corner 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, woollett the bullet said:

Sorry mate i realise i am showing my ignorance here but I really didn't understand much of that at all

 

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Come and sit with me over here in the dunces corner 

Don't worry!

 

Feudalist = medieval idea where one lord ruled an amount of land on behalf of the Crown and everyone else on it was peasant filth.

Mercantilist = later idea where a country maximises trade in pretty much anything they can get their hands on in order to make dough, often the things that were traded were living human beings.

 

Libertarianism = belief that fvck you I won't do what you tell me.

Determinism = belief that everything is part of a larger pattern, everything can be mapped out, and as such free will is BS.

Collectivism = belief that the interests of a larger group supersede that of an individual in at least some circumstances.

 

Hope that helps!

Edited 18 February 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Sampson said:

It's not just the modern Socialist states of the 20th century which didn't work, ideas of mass wealth redistribution, wage fixing and stuff like price fixing and price controls have been around since Roman times and the likes of Tiberius Gracchus etc. and it never works.

 

Whether you like it or not, people only live once and most people won't waste their while life (and they're perfectly right not to) training extra for something if there's no monetary gain at the end of it. People wouldn't put all that extra work into becoming specialised in particular fields if specialised jobs weren't more valued to the market place than unskilled or unspecialised jobs which millions of people in this country can do. No way in hell I'd put in the extra hours to become a doctor or architect when I could the same or even a decent amount less at a supermarket as said above, life is far too short for that.

 

It's shitty, of course it is, those unspecialised people don't work any less hard and specialised people often dedicate their life to something only for it to become obsolete by technology, but that's just part of life I'm afraid, it's much better than the alternative. At least we benefit as a society from brain surgeons and pilots and town planners and technological innovators this way.

Of course socialism and communism like capitalism and laissez faire don't work other than in specific conditions but that is irrelevant to my argument. You're confusing your "ics" like politics and economics and moreso you're confusing ideologies with practicalities. Humans are basically a pragmatic species, they go with what works over a pure idea.

 

I'm pretty sure you'd agree that free education for all, the NHS and a welfare safety net are all socialist ideas, yet I can't believe you don't see how they help capitalism or that you'd argue a more capitalist idea of educating only those who can afford it or letting the poor die would be better for our society.

 

I agree with your point that people only live once but again your reasoning after that is irrelevant to my argument and I'll try to explain below why that is the case.

 

 

21 hours ago, Colourmy said:

How could that work though? So many, many things wrong with that notion.

Why would you put 5-10 years of hard graft in to become a neurosurgeon, to only get the same as a cleaner, who just walked into the office and said I want a job?

Socialism doesn't work, history proves that.

Of course many things can go wrong but then again many things are wrong now and our present model is going to implode unless it's changed. We are on the dawn of a new era. The Technological era started many decades ago, the robotic modification then followed and we are now on the verge of an AI explosion which will make the industrial revolution look like a sand bank compared to a dune. Again I'll answer your questions about jobs below.

 

 

20 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

If the money is the same I am NEVER choosing to work 12 hour shifts with people's lives in my hands over putting loaves of bread neatly on the shelf in Waitrose.

 

There will be a few determined souls out there who'd do it anyway but they would be the exception. 

 

And this is the beauty of UBI.

 

Everything I read and see tells me that AI is about to explode in the west. We are already in a position where many jobs, especially menial jobs, could be done by robots (or machines if that word is less threatening for you - like the washing machine cleaning your clothes instead of a washer woman) and AI is already showing the capability of replacing many non-menial jobs and will be able to organize the machines and our daily lives far more efficiently than humans can.

 

Now Sampson says people only live once and don't want to waste their lives - what is more wasteful than a menial or boring job for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years (that's if we can afford to keep the socialist idea of a retirement pension, meaning we can stop working at 65 or 70)?  I have a colleague who has worked tirelessy teaching (and teaching well) for 35 years, she got cancer 2 years ago and died on Wednesday - she won't get the healthy retirement she deserved, she won't benefit from the long hours she put in to help society.

 

Lifted says he is never choosing to work 12 hour life saving shifts over putting loaves on a Waitrose shelf. Why would you choose to stack shelves - have you ever done it? It is as boring as hell for anyone with half a brain cell or more. However if you don't want to save lives, you don't have to. and certainly you'd never need to do 12 hour shifts. would you be interested if you only had to do 20 hours a week, or 10 hours a week, or 20 hours a month?

 

Coulourmy says why would you put yourself through 10 years graft to become a neurosurgeon only to earn the same as a cleaner? Firstly, no-one has to be a cleaner. Would you rather be a neuro-surgeon or an artist or a musician? If you want to become any of those you need to put in the graft, if you want to sit on your settee watching daytime TV or smoking dope you can do that instead. You'd be surprised at how many people would rather work to become something they want to become rather than do nothing. I think after a while of doing nothing you may also come to that conclusion. It's a reason that many old people don't fully retire or take up hobbies after they retire.

 

So UBI and the future:

 

Robots (machines) and AI have removed the need for many or most jobs especially the menial and boring jobs. There are too many people on the earth (or in the country) for the jobs that remain. Far too many. Unemployed people on low or no salary is a danger to the country and would be crippling for any economy. No wages, no purchases, no sales, no profit, no production, economy collapses. The UBI gives everybody money to spend. People spend money, they buy goods and services, companies make profit, governments get taxes (I'm sure you are aware that income tax is already a much lower earner for govts. than VAT) profits are invested in production, taxes are used to pay UBI (among other things) and the cycle is renewed. UBI is actually good for a generally capitalist system, capitalism depends on people buying goods and economies and countries remaining stable.

 

Now even though my own philosophy believes that an hour of my life is worth as much as an hour of everyone else's life (we only live once, don't we Sampson?) and I see no reason that my hourly pay shouldn't be the same as a footballer (who certainly can't teach as well as I do) or a cleaner (whose job I would never want) I can see the argument (at least during the first few decades) that people who wish to work, and who actually work should be paid on top of the UBI - this is the common thought on UBI anyway. In a transition period that would be a must. In a transition period it would be advantageous if people (those capable) still had to work a set number of hours a week (10 or 20) in order to obtain their UBI. Education would need a massive transformation (but haven't we educationalists argued that for decades) and personally I'd make education compulsory for everyone to the age of 20 and optional after that age for the rest of a person's life. 

 

In this utopic view of society people could do the things they want to do in the limited time they have to live. If you want to paint or play sport or create music you can. This in turn should mean that people are happier and society more peaceful.

 

 

[Colourmy]

6 minutes ago, FIF said:

Of course socialism and communism like capitalism and laissez faire don't work other than in specific conditions but that is irrelevant to my argument. You're confusing your "ics" like politics and economics and moreso you're confusing ideologies with practicalities. Humans are basically a pragmatic species, they go with what works over a pure idea.

 

I'm pretty sure you'd agree that free education for all, the NHS and a welfare safety net are all socialist ideas, yet I can't believe you don't see how they help capitalism or that you'd argue a more capitalist idea of educating only those who can afford it or letting the poor die would be better for our society.

 

I agree with your point that people only live once but again your reasoning after that is irrelevant to my argument and I'll try to explain below why that is the case.

 

 

Of course many things can go wrong but then again many things are wrong now and our present model is going to implode unless it's changed. We are on the dawn of a new era. The Technological era started many decades ago, the robotic modification then followed and we are now on the verge of an AI explosion which will make the industrial revolution look like a sand bank compared to a dune. Again I'll answer your questions about jobs below.

 

 

And this is the beauty of UBI.

 

Everything I read and see tells me that AI is about to explode in the west. We are already in a position where many jobs, especially menial jobs, could be done by robots (or machines if that word is less threatening for you - like the washing machine cleaning your clothes instead of a washer woman) and AI is already showing the capability of replacing many non-menial jobs and will be able to organize the machines and our daily lives far more efficiently than humans can.

 

Now Sampson says people only live once and don't want to waste their lives - what is more wasteful than a menial or boring job for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years (that's if we can afford to keep the socialist idea of a retirement pension, meaning we can stop working at 65 or 70)?  I have a colleague who has worked tirelessy teaching (and teaching well) for 35 years, she got cancer 2 years ago and died on Wednesday - she won't get the healthy retirement she deserved, she won't benefit from the long hours she put in to help society.

 

Lifted says he is never choosing to work 12 hour life saving shifts over putting loaves on a Waitrose shelf. Why would you choose to stack shelves - have you ever done it? It is as boring as hell for anyone with half a brain cell or more. However if you don't want to save lives, you don't have to. and certainly you'd never need to do 12 hour shifts. would you be interested if you only had to do 20 hours a week, or 10 hours a week, or 20 hours a month?

 

Coulourmy says why would you put yourself through 10 years graft to become a neurosurgeon only to earn the same as a cleaner? Firstly, no-one has to be a cleaner. Would you rather be a neuro-surgeon or an artist or a musician? If you want to become any of those you need to put in the graft, if you want to sit on your settee watching daytime TV or smoking dope you can do that instead. You'd be surprised at how many people would rather work to become something they want to become rather than do nothing. I think after a while of doing nothing you may also come to that conclusion. It's a reason that many old people don't fully retire or take up hobbies after they retire.

 

So UBI and the future:

 

Robots (machines) and AI have removed the need for many or most jobs especially the menial and boring jobs. There are too many people on the earth (or in the country) for the jobs that remain. Far too many. Unemployed people on low or no salary is a danger to the country and would be crippling for any economy. No wages, no purchases, no sales, no profit, no production, economy collapses. The UBI gives everybody money to spend. People spend money, they buy goods and services, companies make profit, governments get taxes (I'm sure you are aware that income tax is already a much lower earner for govts. than VAT) profits are invested in production, taxes are used to pay UBI (among other things) and the cycle is renewed. UBI is actually good for a generally capitalist system, capitalism depends on people buying goods and economies and countries remaining stable.

 

Now even though my own philosophy believes that an hour of my life is worth as much as an hour of everyone else's life (we only live once, don't we Sampson?) and I see no reason that my hourly pay shouldn't be the same as a footballer (who certainly can't teach as well as I do) or a cleaner (whose job I would never want) I can see the argument (at least during the first few decades) that people who wish to work, and who actually work should be paid on top of the UBI - this is the common thought on UBI anyway. In a transition period that would be a must. In a transition period it would be advantageous if people (those capable) still had to work a set number of hours a week (10 or 20) in order to obtain their UBI. Education would need a massive transformation (but haven't we educationalists argued that for decades) and personally I'd make education compulsory for everyone to the age of 20 and optional after that age for the rest of a person's life. 

 

In this utopic view of society people could do the things they want to do in the limited time they have to live. If you want to paint or play sport or create music you can. This in turn should mean that people are happier and society more peaceful.

 

 

24

We don't have the simple option of deciding what we want to be though. Would we not all be pop stars if that was the case?  No one would ever choose to be a cleaner if the money was the same, regardless. You'd struggle to get this collective to work with just 10 people for more than one month, never mind 60 million people. 

If everyone was born to live 30 years and no more, it could have a chance. Equality means in everything and not just wages, so if everyone that was born on a day, died on the same day 30 years later and earned the same money for every day of those 30 years, it wouldn't matter, no one would have anymore than anyone else through their efforts at work and the option would have never been there to try. 

 

It just couldn't work, ever.

[FoxesDeb]

7 minutes ago, Colourmy said:

We don't have the simple option of deciding what we want to be though. Would we not all be pop stars if that was the case?  No one would ever choose to be a cleaner if the money was the same, regardless. You'd struggle to get this collective to work with just 10 people for more than one month, never mind 60 million people. 

If everyone was born to live 30 years and no more, it could have a chance. Equality means in everything and not just wages, so if everyone that was born on a day, died on the same day 30 years later and earned the same money for every day of those 30 years, it wouldn't matter, no one would have anymore than anyone else through their efforts at work and the option would have never been there to try. 

 

It just couldn't work, ever.

I don't know about that, I enjoy doing my house work. It's therapeutic, I'm good at it, I get a lot of satisfaction from it, and it's quite good exercise. I wouldn't choose cleaning as a job now because it doesn't pay enough, but I would choose it over being a pop star, I'd hate that, especially if the pay was the same. 

[Colourmy]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

I don't know about that, I enjoy doing my house work. It's therapeutic, I'm good at it, I get a lot of satisfaction from it, and it's quite good exercise. I wouldn't choose cleaning as a job now because it doesn't pay enough, but I would choose it over being a pop star, I'd hate that, especially if the pay was the same. 

Yes, it was an example really of how things wouldn't work. It could be any job I suppose. I'd hate to be a pop star too but I'd take it over digging trenches for foundations if the money was the same. The point I was trying to make is that some people take low skills work because they have to but if money was no longer an issue, people would take the lowest effort required on offer and not necessarily the most labour intensive options, thus leaving a shortfall, much like we have now.

 

You would then get lots of his/her jobs easier than mine, I want more or I want to do their job. It just wouldn't work in any lifetime.

[FoxesDeb]

54 minutes ago, Colourmy said:

Yes, it was an example really of how things wouldn't work. It could be any job I suppose. I'd hate to be a pop star too but I'd take it over digging trenches for foundations if the money was the same. The point I was trying to make is that some people take low skills work because they have to but if money was no longer an issue, people would take the lowest effort required on offer and not necessarily the most labour intensive options, thus leaving a shortfall, much like we have now.

 

You would then get lots of his/her jobs easier than mine, I want more or I want to do their job. It just wouldn't work in any lifetime.

I'm still not sure that's necessarily true though. Many, many people already choose jobs they like rather than for the money don't they? Vocations like teaching, nursing and so on would surely remain the same choice for people, because they want to do the work, not for high salaries. Many people love working outdoors and would hate my office job as much as I would hate to work outside in the cold so we can't assume that jobs we think of as undesirable are thought of the same by everyone.  And ultimately skills, education and training would still have to be matched, so you wouldn't just be able to pick anything you fancied. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Colourmy said:

We don't have the simple option of deciding what we want to be though. Would we not all be pop stars if that was the case?  No one would ever choose to be a cleaner if the money was the same, regardless. You'd struggle to get this collective to work with just 10 people for more than one month, never mind 60 million people. 

If everyone was born to live 30 years and no more, it could have a chance. Equality means in everything and not just wages, so if everyone that was born on a day, died on the same day 30 years later and earned the same money for every day of those 30 years, it wouldn't matter, no one would have anymore than anyone else through their efforts at work and the option would have never been there to try. 

 

It just couldn't work, ever.

1

 

The Israeli kibbutz system works in pretty much this way and has done successfully since 1909.

 

 

[Bryn]

On 18/02/2018 at 09:26, FIF said:

People don't earn what they deserve. Some people are lucky to have certain skills or abilities others don't have, some are lucky to have the looks or the intelligence or the smarts others don't have and some happen to be in the right place at the right time and others don't.

 

I really wish that everyone was paid the same wage per hour whatever work they do, which is why I'm all for UBI and would prefer it went a step further. It wouldn't stop people from wanting to be doctors or footballers, it would give respect to cleaners and shelf stackers.

 

If not how can we oppose DNA modification, where parents can superhumanise their kids to give them the same chances as everyone else? It may also dehumanise them and make them all similar but at least getting low pay because your dumb would be a thing of the past.

 

 

 

?

[Lovejoy]

Tyson Fury is my favourite heavyweight boxer and I firmly believe he will take AJ when they inevitably meet.

[Colourmy]

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The Israeli kibbutz system works in pretty much this way and has done successfully since 1909.

 

 

Cheers Wiki! 

Israeli Kibbutz members were virtually all landworkers and farm hands. A little different to what is being proposed further up this thread.

[Steve_Walsh5]

There is something quite attractive about Jayda Fransen.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Steve_Walsh5 said:

There is something quite attractive about Jayda Fransen.

[Buce]

2 hours ago, Colourmy said:

Cheers Wiki! 

 

 

Actually, I'm speaking from first-hand experience.

 

 

2 hours ago, Colourmy said:

Israeli Kibbutz members were virtually all landworkers and farm hands. A little different to what is being proposed further up this thread.

 

Initially, yes, though that hasn't been the case for a long time now.

 

The principle remains the same.

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Steve_Walsh5 said:

There is something quite attractive about Jayda Fransen.

 

Yes, I'm imagining a quiet, romantic candlelit dinner. 

 

 

 

 

I suppose she must have 1 or 2 good points....

[Steve_Walsh5]

That last picture 

[Voll Blau]

On 9/13/2017 at 10:35, Voll Blau said:

The current generation of teenagers/young people are actually healthier, better behaved and more respectful than mine and others were.

 

Might extend this to them just being better in general after seeing the response of the school shooting survivors in America. Them kids are proper.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Colourmy said:

We don't have the simple option of deciding what we want to be though. Would we not all be pop stars if that was the case?  No one would ever choose to be a cleaner if the money was the same, regardless. You'd struggle to get this collective to work with just 10 people for more than one month, never mind 60 million people. 

If everyone was born to live 30 years and no more, it could have a chance. Equality means in everything and not just wages, so if everyone that was born on a day, died on the same day 30 years later and earned the same money for every day of those 30 years, it wouldn't matter, no one would have anymore than anyone else through their efforts at work and the option would have never been there to try. 

 

It just couldn't work, ever.

I think you've missed a major point - the machines are doing the jobs like cleaning. So if you want to be a singer you can be - that doesn't mean you'll be a pop star - is that even a job? - You'll have free tile to sing and if you want to spend your UBI on promoting yourself you could. The point is it's free time and you can do what you want with it. It's no different to the choices that retired people make now. They have a guaranteed income from the state which is enough to live on and they can continue working, travel, play sport, be a pop star! or sit writing on FT. The difference is that they would have their health and more time to do these things. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Colourmy said:

Yes, it was an example really of how things wouldn't work. It could be any job I suppose. I'd hate to be a pop star too but I'd take it over digging trenches for foundations if the money was the same. The point I was trying to make is that some people take low skills work because they have to but if money was no longer an issue, people would take the lowest effort required on offer and not necessarily the most labour intensive options, thus leaving a shortfall, much like we have now.

 

You would then get lots of his/her jobs easier than mine, I want more or I want to do their job. It just wouldn't work in any lifetime.

You really aren't getting this idea are you? Nobody needs to dig trenches, machines dig trenches. I think your idea that people would take the lowest effort required is more a reflection on you than on real life  but if that is what you want you can do nothing at all and still get your UBI. Most people would do things that interested them and they enjoyed. Even now many people choose to do jobs that don't receive ridiculous amounts of money not because they couldn't do something else nor because they are lazy.

[woollett the bullet]

20 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Don't worry!

 

Feudalist = medieval idea where one lord ruled an amount of land on behalf of the Crown and everyone else on it was peasant filth.

Mercantilist = later idea where a country maximises trade in pretty much anything they can get their hands on in order to make dough, often the things that were traded were living human beings.

 

Libertarianism = belief that fvck you I won't do what you tell me.

Determinism = belief that everything is part of a larger pattern, everything can be mapped out, and as such free will is BS.

Collectivism = belief that the interests of a larger group supersede that of an individual in at least some circumstances.

 

Hope that helps!

Thanks for the explanation mac , I've still bitten off more than I can chew though - cheers for trying bud.

[woollett the bullet]

Bohemian rhapsody is THE most hideous piece of shite ever released.

There said it !!

Right who's gonna be first ?

Form an orderly queue please folks

[Colourmy]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

I think you've missed a major point - the machines are doing the jobs like cleaning. So if you want to be a singer you can be - that doesn't mean you'll be a pop star - is that even a job? - You'll have free tile to sing and if you want to spend your UBI on promoting yourself you could. The point is it's free time and you can do what you want with it. It's no different to the choices that retired people make now. They have a guaranteed income from the state which is enough to live on and they can continue working, travel, play sport, be a pop star! or sit writing on FT. The difference is that they would have their health and more time to do these things. 

 

 

You really aren't getting this idea are you? Nobody needs to dig trenches, machines dig trenches. I think your idea that people would take the lowest effort required is more a reflection on you than on real life  but if that is what you want you can do nothing at all and still get your UBI. Most people would do things that interested them and they enjoyed. Even now many people choose to do jobs that don't receive ridiculous amounts of money not because they couldn't do something else nor because they are lazy.

I'm getting it perfectly. I'm using what we have now to work with, not something you are getting from your Flash Gordon box set!

What robot cleans under the stairs at schools? Which machine digs trenches and foundations and isn't operated by a human? Which robot is delivering the milk in the morning?

 

I do wonder sometimes what people's perception of reality is at times!