GENIUS FORUMS

The "MINCOME" study in Canada showed that the provision of a subsistence-level guaranteed income resulted in only a 2-3% reduction in total hours worked. However, in order to be almost unreasonably pessimistic, I generally triple these numbers. That is still only a 6-9% reduction in total hours worked, which is quite acceptable by any reasonable standards.

Unidian wrote:I can't put it in any other language. If the cost is small and the benefit to someone else large, then yes, we are morally obligated to indulge such "blackmail" (in your terms) simply because the value of human life is far greater than the value of the pittance sacrificed.

That's what you are missing. What is sacrificed is not a pittance. What is sacrificed is not toast -- what is sacrificed is one's sovereignty as a human being. I don't give a fuck about toast. I can drop a grand on something, in cash, and it won't hurt me. The real issue here is that by giving in to blackmail, one becomes beholden to another's coercion. This sort of blackmail is genuine, true-blue coercion. See, if giving in to such blackmail is morally obligatory, then such blackmail is itself coercive -- just as, if someone holds a gun to my wife's head, it is coercion, even though I personaly am not threatened.

What you are advocating is real active coercion, not 'coercion' by the mere virtue of me existing, as you have been accusing me of.

Relying on voluntary charity to solve social problems was tried in the period before the Great Depression, and it was a disaster.

Good thing i am not suggesting that then, huh?

Another difference, of course (and one which also cannot be resolved through argument) is that I think people starving for any reason (including voluntary unemployment) actually is a social problem, and you don't.

oh, I do -- it's a problem of indolence and slave morality. i just think it's a problem best solved by letting them choose between starvation and work.

Again, different value frameworks. We can amuse ourselves with this tennis match all day, but you know as well as I do that no resolution is forthcoming, nor will any audience member be persuaded to adopt a view inconsistent with his or her own pre-existing moral framework.

Well, that's quite a change from you shouting from the corners how you out-argued Victor himself, hehehe. Remembering what it's really like, without the rose-tinted veil of memory, eh?..

Good for you. The concept of "deserving" on which your moral approach is based

it is not. Once again, it has nothing to do with deserts, or work ethic, or anything of the sort. it has everything to do with blackmail, freedom, and loss of freedom by giving in to blackmail.

Canadians may indeed be very hard working people, or working conditions are pretty good over there, or poverty is non-existent. Not all cultures are the same. For sure I know that in my neck of the woods, huge amounts of people would quit, especially the working poor. Think about it. Would you rather be poor and do nothing, or poor and slave away all day?

BTW, this web site is so temporarily overloaded that I had to submit this post over 10 times before it was accepted. Everybody seems to be posting at the same time. This sure is a popular topic.

The real issue is that right now, voluntary indolence is ostracized, so very few people will elect it. However, as it becomes normalized, which is exactly what Uni aims to do, the number of people opting for voluntary indolence with grow very fast. Give it a generation or two, and the numbers will probably be well into double digits.

That study only proved that as long as we treat the voluntarily indolent as asshole moochers, their numbers will remain low even under guaranteed income. it didn't look at the situation where voluntary indolence becomes normalized.

The real issue is that right now, voluntary indolence is ostracized, so very few people will elect it. However, as it becomes normalized, which is exactly what Uni aims to do, the number of people opting for voluntary indolence with grow very fast. Give it a generation or two, and the numbers will probably be well into double digits.

I agree with this, and I will add that most of us have been raised in a society that encourages work ethics. We are taught capitalist values since kindergarten. If we stop teaching these values, there would be a lot more moochers.

If we did not perceive work as mandatory, we'd raise our children very differently.

I'd say the moochers would easily reach 25%, if not more.

-

That's what you are missing. What is sacrificed is not a pittance. What is sacrificed is not toast -- what is sacrificed is one's sovereignty as a human being. I don't give a fuck about toast. I can drop a grand on something, in cash, and it won't hurt me. The real issue here is that by giving in to blackmail, one becomes beholden to another's coercion. This sort of blackmail is genuine, true-blue coercion. See, if giving in to such blackmail is morally obligatory, then such blackmail is itself coercive -- just as, if someone holds a gun to my wife's head, it is coercion, even though I personaly am not threatened.

What you are advocating is real active coercion, not 'coercion' by the mere virtue of me existing, as you have been accusing me of.

I already know you think of it as coercion. What you fail to acknowledge is that I also think of the "work or starve" gun-to-the-head choice which you refuse to get rid of as coercion as well, and I think it's a much worse form. The pressure I apply to you through the "contribute to universal welfare or be known as an asshole" choice has much tamer consequences than the coercion you apply to the voluntarily unemployed through your advocacy of "work or starve." The
pressure I apply to you would result in you either making a small sacrifice or being known as an asshole (from my perspective). The coercion you apply to the voluntarily unemployed by supporting "work or starve" (when it is easily preventable) would result in them either sacrificing the majority of their waking lives to what they see as slavery or starving. The consequences for them are much worse.

oh, I do -- it's a problem of indolence and slave morality. i just think it's a problem best solved by letting them choose between starvation and work.

Yeah, we know.

BTW, what's with this new "slave morality" mantra? Pick up some Nietzsche at Waldenbooks recently? I never realized you were so into him until now, although it makes total sense. One more step toward the John Birch Society.

Well, that's quite a change from you shouting from the corners how you out-argued Victor himself, hehehe. Remembering what it's really like, without the rose-tinted veil of memory, eh?..

You are comically egotistical.

it is not. Once again, it has nothing to do with deserts, or work ethic, or anything of the sort. it has everything to do with blackmail, freedom, and loss of freedom by giving in to blackmail.

Boo hoo. Grow up, and realize that compromises must be made all over the place to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

The real issue is that right now, voluntary indolence is ostracized, so very few people will elect it. However, as it becomes normalized, which is exactly what Uni aims to do, the number of people opting for voluntary indolence with grow very fast. Give it a generation or two, and the numbers will probably be well into double digits.

With any luck. The Earth could certainly use a break from all this frantic and totally irrational "production."

Note that I'm not advocating any reduction in scientific, technological, or social work. But huge chunks of the consumer economy could be flushed without significantly impacting these vital fields.

That study only proved that as long as we treat the voluntarily indolent as asshole moochers, their numbers will remain low even under guaranteed income. it didn't look at the situation where voluntary indolence becomes normalized.

Ah, the "be evil for a good cause" argument. How Machiavellian, or perhaps reverse-Machiavellian. Either way, there have been no studies whatsoever done on the impact of "treating the voluntarily indolent as asshole moochers" on rates of work-refusal. I wouldn't deny that there must be a correlation, but to assert such a correlation as if it were clearly-defined and well-understood when no statistical evidence has been presented is not much different from saying "Bigfoot must exist because it just stands to reason that he does."

Show me the studies documenting it, or go pound poop.

Another important thing to realize is that if voluntary indolence ever becomes normalized, there will be no humane turning back. The society will probably collapse, because nobody is going to forcibly put the indolent to work, but they will be too many for the workers to sustain, so the productive citizens will band together to protect themselves and the results of their work from moochers, and the moochers will band together to forcibly take what they are unwilling to earn.

it's a huge risk. if the number of the voluntary indolent gets too high for the society to sustain, there will be nothing we could do about it. it would be like trying top stuff toothpaste back into a tube.

I am personally unwilling to wager our society on a completely untried and generally uncontrollable policy hatched in the mind of some selfish idiot with a self-esteem problem.

Shar,

I agree with this, and I will add that most of us have been raised in a society that encourages work ethics. We are taught capitalist values since kindergarten. If we stop teaching these values, there would be a lot more moochers.

If we did not perceive work as mandatory, we'd raise our children very differently.

I'd say the moochers would easily reach 25%, if not more.

Possibly. I think that would be an acceptable outcome, and perhaps a desirable one. We need to make the transition to sustainable rates of production and consumption anyway. So far, efforts to convince Western culture to do so have been marginally effective, at best. But what would happen if we gave people a real incentive to produce and consume less, such as the option of "dropping out" in exchange for a subsistence income? I firmly believe that universal welfare might just have the potential to save the planet. But, of course, the catch there is that we would have to install it very soon, and that doesn't seem likely. How unfortunate.

And would you mind not using the term "moochers," which is a bigoted term of abuse?

Unidian wrote:It's a matter of small cost vs. great benefit. If someone comes up to me with a gun to his own head and says "give me a slice of toast or I will shoot myself," I will not start arguing with him over whether or not he is to be held responsible for his own predicament, etc. I will just give him the goddamned piece of toast. Why? Because it's easy for me to do and it obviously means a hell of a lot to him. Faced with such a scenario, I would willing to make a small sacrifice in order to effect an enormous positive change in someone else's life. It's a no-brainer for me.

I would not give him the toast. Fuck that.

I might be persuaded to buy him a bullet, though (assuming he will only use in on himself).

Another important thing to realize is that if voluntary indolence ever becomes normalized, there will be no humane turning back. The society will probably collapse, because nobody is going to forcibly put the indolent to work, but they will be too many for the workers to sustain, so the productive citizens will band together to protect themselves and the results of their work from moochers, and the moochers will band together to forcibly take what they are unwilling to earn.

it's a huge risk. if the number of the voluntary indolent gets too high for the society to sustain, there will be nothing we could do about it. it would be like trying top stuff toothpaste back into a tube.

This can't be taken seriously in the slightest, because you've shown zero evidence that an enormous number of people would trade their materially-rewarding lifestyles for a subsistence-level existence, while I've show evidence that they won't.

Your dystopian scenario disregards human nature. While I will concede that the number who would trade work and material luxury for idleness and subsistence may be greater than the 2-3% suggested in the existing data, there is absolutely no reason to believe it would be an enormous number. Even if the voluntarily unemployed are no longer ostracized, the simple fact remains that most people like to have something to do and they also like to have nice stuff. Employment provides both and idle subsistence provides neither.

This desperate attempt to play the fear card by prophesying doom and gloom falls totally flat in the face of human psychology.

hodges,

I would not give him the toast. Fuck that.

I might be persuaded to buy him a bullet, though (assuming he will only use in on himself).

Understood. Can't be any clearer than that - thanks for letting us know who you are.

Unidian wrote:BTW, what's with this new "slave morality" mantra? Pick up some Nietzsche at Waldenbooks recently? I never realized you were so into him until now, although it makes total sense. One more step toward the John Birch Society.

You have the attention span of a field mouse on crack.

I had always been into Nietzsche. Remember, back in TPG days, before you went insane the last time, before this whole thing about mooching started, I had said that Nietzsche was probably the world's greatest misunderstood humanist, because he saw man as he could become, nor just as he is?.. Nothing new here, just as there's nothing new about my libertarian leanings and my concern for freedom.

Boo hoo. Grow up, and realize that compromises must be made all over the place to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

And as i have just argued above, indulging and normalizing mooching will actually unleash great harm upon the greatest number.

With any luck. The Earth could certainly use a break from all this frantic and totally irrational "production."

You would sing a different tune when the people running your internet, the power grid, and making your cheetos will also choose to become voluntarily indolent.

Note that I'm not advocating any reduction in scientific, technological, or social work. But huge chunks of the consumer economy could be flushed without significantly impacting these vital fields.

You won't get that choice. When indolence becomes normalized, it will become normalized everywhere. You won't be able to sit at the top and direct where the remaining workers will put their effort. Guess what? long-term investments, like science and education, will be the first to get the axe, because survival will become the first priority.

Ah, the "be evil for a good cause" argument. How Machiavellian, or perhaps reverse-Machiavellian. Either way, there have been no studies whatsoever done on the impact of "treating the voluntarily indolent as asshole moochers" on rates of work-refusal. I wouldn't deny that there must be a correlation, but to assert such a correlation as if it were clearly-defined and well-understood when no statistical evidence has been presented is not much different from saying "Bigfoot must exist because it just stands to reason that he does."

No, idiot, i am asserting that we don't know how big the impact would be, but it could be huge. it's like with climate -- the impact of GW could be negligible, but given what's at stake, we must err on the side of paranoia. Same here: give that the stake might very well end up being the survival of our very society, adopting your blaze attitude is something only an indolent, thoughtless idiot would do.

The very point of cost/benefit analysis is that you consider costs -- very, very carefully.

vicdan wrote:Another important thing to realize is that if voluntary indolence ever becomes normalized, there will be no humane turning back. The society will probably collapse, because nobody is going to forcibly put the indolent to work, but they will be too many for the workers to sustain, so the productive citizens will band together to protect themselves and the results of their work from moochers, and the moochers will band together to forcibly take what they are unwilling to earn.

What I think would happen is that wages would rise for the remaining workers, due to the change in the supply of labor. This might compensate for the additional taxes to pay for the moochers (depending on the shape of the supply and demand curves).

In the long term, though, that would tend to drive labor to countries that don't have such overhead. You'd "outsource" pretty much anything you could.

Unidian wrote:This can't be taken seriously in the slightest, because you've shown zero evidence that an enormous number of people would trade their materially-rewarding lifestyles for a subsistence-level existence, while I've show evidence that they won't.

No, you haven't. What you have shown is that they won't in our current cultural and economic context. That's like jumping off of a chair, seeing that you are OK, and concluding that you can jump from the roof just as safely.

Your dystopian scenario disregards human nature. While I will concede that the number who would trade work and material luxury for idleness and subsistence may be greater than the 2-3% suggested in the existing data, there is absolutely no reason to believe it would be an enormous number.

But it's a risk -- and the cost/benefit value of any risk must be its probability multiplied by the magnitude of the outcome. A 1% probability of death is much worse than a 50% probability of losing a dollar.

This desperate attempt to play the fear card by prophesying doom and gloom falls totally flat in the face of human psychology.

Dude, you wouldn't know human psychology if it bit you in the face. You are mentally defective, remember? You don't know how typical human thinks. You can no more really understand a normal person, than a sociopath can.

So much abuse and so little substance. You declined to address my crucial point that regardless of cultural attitudes toward idleness, most people will want something to do and to have nice stuff. That's because you can't address it without abandoning your implausible doomsday scenario and you know it.

Unidian wrote:Understood. Can't be any clearer than that - thanks for letting us know who you are.

You got it.

This seems to be the old argument of "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome".

Stressing equality of outcome over equality of opportunity is one of the few things I am willing to call evil without qualification.

Unidian wrote:I think that would be an acceptable outcome, and perhaps a desirable one. We need to make the transition to sustainable rates of production and consumption anyway.

There are two options for a sustainable population:
1) Low birth rates and low death rates.
2) High birth rates and high death rates.

The former is, these days, called "developed". All "developed" countries' populations are sustained like this. I would rather call it tamed, infertile.

The latter has been termed "evil" by Christians who then passed this view on to moralists and democrats. It is now thoroughly imbued throughout our whole society and most other societies around the world, many thanks to us going in with weapons to either fight or "peace keep", AKA spread our values.

The former: Continue to approach a peaceful world with a maximized human population and universal equality. Stretch the earth to its limit and try to reach 0 population growth accompanied by 0 species growth (evolution, 0 due to offsetting natural selection) and hence total stagnancy.

Or the latter: Restore war and terror to the world and unlock the passions and instincts. Restore happiness along with suffering. This will naturally result in or begin with a removal of a large chunk of the population.

Personally I think the latter will win out either way. It is natural. Even in this era the discontent rises because people are starting to realize, the hard way, that suffering is required for happiness. We don't have to suffer anymore in this society. Isn't that lovely? All those incapable of handling it rejoice, but the rest desire to suffer. Christianity is fading and morality is dying as we find out its real source. There is no longer any reason why people should be confined to a boring moral "nothingness" drone existence in the middle of a super-sized society full of other drones.

You got it.

This seems to be the old argument of "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome".

Stressing equality of outcome over equality of opportunity is one of the few things I am willing to call evil without qualification.

And letting people come to harm for the sake of ideological purity is one of the few things I consider truly evil in the fullest sense of the term.

Most people would agree with me if they were able. They can't connect the objections to voluntary unemployment in this thread to the value framework that built Nazi Germany. But the connection does exist, and is the cause of much suffering today and throughout history. It will continue to serve as the antithesis of fully-developed human rights until a new social synthesis is achieved.

hahaha. Godwin is spinning in his grave! Or would be, if he were dead.

Most people, dude, would stridently disagree with you, and you know it. unlike you, most people do not lack the cognitive chunk responsible for the sense of fairness, and they thus hate mooching and moochers.

Stressing equality of outcome over equality of opportunity is one of the few things I am willing to call evil without qualification.

Equality is one of the two core values of democracy, along with liberty. But in modern America, only liberty is trumpeted to the skies while equality is ignored and suppressed. We hear all about the Libertarian party, but where is the Egalitarian party? We have all been nearly drowned in hymns to majestic Liberty, but who has even heard the slightest whisper of Egality? Yeah, it's a word. Look it up.

Democracy cannot and will not stand with one of its legs cut off. Ironically enough, it is precisely this lopsided reverence for liberty at the expense of equality that is allowing America to be turned into a corporate fascist state.

And Americans have signed up in droves to help the process along, hook, line, and sinker. How sad.

Unidian wrote:

Stressing equality of outcome over equality of opportunity is one of the few things I am willing to call evil without qualification.

Equality is one of the two core values of democracy, along with liberty. But in modern America, only liberty is trumpeted to the skies while equality is ignored and suppressed.

Which part of equality of opportunity do you fail to understand?

.

-CORRECTED VERSION ABOUT AUSTRALIA-


Parasites everywhere!



-The Town Mooch-
Unidian - It's a matter of small cost vs. great benefit. If someone comes up to me with a gun to his own head and says "give me a slice of toast or I will shoot myself," I will not start arguing with him over whether or not he is to be held responsible for his own predicament, etc. I will just give him the goddamned piece of toast.

-tomas-
Of course you would... you didn't pay for it. The taxpayer did. Teach him the QRS way of 'live off the nazi state'




-The Town Mooch-
Why? Because it's easy for me to do and it obviously means a hell of a lot to him.

-tomas-
I'd rather he go to a pawn shop and sell the firearm. Then he could saunter over to Safeway buy a loaf of bread, peanut butter, er hmmm, perhaps run into you and rip off (pickpocket) your state debit card and buy even more bread!




-The Town Mooch-
Faced with such a scenario, I would willing to make a small sacrifice in order to effect an enormous positive change in someone else's life.

-tomas-
The state has taught you well...



-The Town Mooch-
It's a no-brainer for me.

-tomas-
Suppose it is for you, after all, you are a creature of the state. Are you a snitch for the state also? How about a police informant? The Town Directory (available at public library) tells all...

The state IS your sherherd, you shall not want...




-mr leslie-
I would not give him the toast. Fuck that.




-tomas-
Nor would i... he'd only return to ask for more. The Town Mooch can take him to the welfare office and show him the ropes on how to obey the government and bow lowly. Receive your daily bread, rent money, pocket money (bribe money) in exchange for allegiance to the state. (Small price to pay for being a philosopher of, by, and for the state). He's bought off! He sold out.




-mr leslie-
I might be persuaded to buy him a bullet, though (assuming he will only use in on himself).

-tomas-
No, give him cab fare and send to The Mooch and the girlfriend's place. The former gun nut may need to suffer a bit more and learn to be an apologist philosopher for the state. And stare at the Mooch's girlfriend while she makes him more toast :-|

Or, the Town Mooch can scrape some pennies together from his welfare buddies, buy a one-way plane fare to Australia. Doubtful the Aborigines would have anything to do with the leftie/rightie slouch... He could then become a man of the world and learn how to be a Mooching Philosopher for the United Nations. Brotherhood of International Moochers. Moochers Inc.




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

And would you mind not using the term "moochers," which is a bigoted term of abuse?

Hah hah! But why is Victor allowed to use it?

Are polls allowed in this forum? I'd like to see how many of us would choose comfort over consumerism and status.

-

It has been said (I don't know by who) that there are three types of people in the world:

1) Prey
2) Predators
3) Those who take responsibility for themselves and their actions.


As a person who tries to the best of my ability to be in the third category, besides refraining on preying on others, it also behooves me to take reasonable precautions against being preyed upon.

Someone who would justify their actions with arguments like 'it's only stealing a little bit' or 'you are already being stolen from in worse ways' has demonstrated which category they fit into. Those are not the words of an honest man. Those are not the words of a man who understands personal responsibility and has it as a value. Those are not the words of a man who has any integrity. They are not the words of a decent person. They are the rationalizations and excuses of a leech.

An honest man does not use "equality" as something to hide behind to demand special rights. The hypocrisy is staggering.

This is not a matter of conforming to mainstream views or ways of doing things. This is a matter of the basics of being a decent person; the basics of honesty, integrity and personal responsibility.

vicdan wrote:Fucking duh, you bloody idiots.

I see they haven't found a cure for your Tourettes yet. Pity.