Basic Income, a new human right

[Darce 10]

It strikes me that you are all talking about the symptom rather than the cause.

Economics is just another form of ecosystem, with it's own form of predation. Once you're old enough to begin gathering an income you start predating on others - and being fodder. From a simple wage earner and on up to your average mega multi-millionaire, it's all about competing against others for a niche in the system.

Take human competition as a simile. Here in Oz, children compete in "Little Athletics" and at first look only towards gaining "Personal Bests" and are rewarded for improvement above actually winning the competition. This is soon replaced by simply "Who won" and the athlete begins the climb towards "World Champion". As adults, we are indoctrinated to believe that the fastest kid is the best, as parents we admire the little kid who improves the most - we take pride in their development.

Until we come up with something similar, some way of replacing "Richest Person in the world", then we will remain stuck in the cycle.

What's worse, is that more and more we see companies chasing growth in profit rather than just profit. The snowball is growing exponentially.

[[frl]myke 14]

Gentlemen, may i remind you:

Basic income, a new human right

That's the topic of this thread. I think in the latest posts this was lost a little.

Thank you for your time.

[suprememodder 11]

It strikes me that you are all talking about the symptom rather than the cause.

Economics is just another form of ecosystem, with it's own form of predation. Once you're old enough to begin gathering an income you start predating on others - and being fodder. From a simple wage earner and on up to your average mega multi-millionaire, it's all about competing against others for a niche in the system.

Take human competition as a simile. Here in Oz, children compete in "Little Athletics" and at first look only towards gaining "Personal Bests" and are rewarded for improvement above actually winning the competition. This is soon replaced by simply "Who won" and the athlete begins the climb towards "World Champion". As adults, we are indoctrinated to believe that the fastest kid is the best, as parents we admire the little kid who improves the most - we take pride in their development.

Until we come up with something similar, some way of replacing "Richest Person in the world", then we will remain stuck in the cycle.

What's worse, is that more and more we see companies chasing growth in profit rather than just profit. The snowball is growing exponentially.

the solution is to transcend the circular mill, which is impossible, so it's best to be good little worker bees and continue the cycle. soon we'll be in the grave and it'll all be over.

[coffeeshock 20]

The problem is people don't even know what actual rights really are... first they have to know what a WRONG is...

[scrim 1]

Human rights are defined by humans, i.e. human rights are exactly whatever the majority agrees that they are. Can we put that to rest now?

[coffeeshock 20]

Human rights are defined by humans, i.e. human rights are exactly whatever the majority agrees that they are. Can we put that to rest now?

Wrong. Rights are based on objective morality ie Natural Law (cause and effect). It exists just like gravity does, so it doesn't matter whether you know about or understand gravity, it will affect you anyway! Immoral actions will cause harm and suffering, regardless of written down laws or other non-sense... it's Natural Law and also based on empathy which is part of our genetic makeup ie brain structure and chemicals etc.

You can't turn a wrong like theft into a right with a piece of paper or just make up other "human rights" which actually are wrongs, it's impossible...

Edited September 16, 2013 by coffeeshock

[b00tsy 28]

What really needs to happen in the word is a maximum income. A max to how greedy/rich you can be (at the expense of the world). This immoral and unethical system we live in is no longer sustainable (never was) and it only leads to the biggest criminals (in suit) having the most power in the world. And they will do anything to keep this system of greed alive (see how the current system crisis is being managed).

[coffeeshock 20]

What really needs to happen in the word is a maximum income

Exactly. Taxation is the problem, NOT the solution.

But even rich people have rights, and if they earn their money honestly by providing a superior product or service, they deserve to be "super rich"... there shouldn't be any limit as long as those people don't harm anyone else.

[scrim 1]

Wrong. Rights are based on objective morality ie Natural Law (cause and effect). It exists just like gravity does, so it doesn't matter whether you know about or understand gravity, it will affect you anyway! Immoral actions will cause harm and suffering, regardless of written down laws or other non-sense... it's Natural Law and also based on empathy which is part of our genetic makeup ie brain structure and chemicals etc.

Oh please! What about abortion, capital punishment, war and the right to bear arms in regards to the right to live then? If it's as simple as that they are self evident to the degree that it's not mankind that decides, then how come those subjects are so controversial? Human rights are nothing short of a set of internationally recognized laws dictating our basic rights, according to which regional laws have to abide.

And don't try to pull that ignorant "dem socialist commies are trying to steal mah property" line on me, because for one I'm a conservative, and two, I wasn't even addressing any view in particular, but rather pointing out exactly what a human right is.

Regarding that interview: Either the interviewer is thick to no end, or trying painfully obviously to make a political point as opposed to actually have some sort of philosophical debate. Or both. Either way it's a shameful way to act by him against a WW2 veteran who lost his arm fighting the Germans, and disrespectful towards anyone partaking in this debate.

And regarding your previous post, (right vs. WRONG). Either you're playing stupid, or I don't know what. In regards to the form of "right" used in the concept of a "human right", the opposite is not "wrong". Maybe you should think about that before going on about people not knowing what human rights are.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Natural law is purely a philosopical ideology and is distinct from the physical laws of nature, comparing the two is rather bizarre.......

Comparing the actions of a democratically elected government with the actions of an individual is also a falacy. The two are quite distinct......

[b00tsy 28]

Exactly. Taxation is the problem, NOT the solution.

But even rich people have rights, and if they earn their money honestly by providing a superior product or service, they deserve to be "super rich"... there shouldn't be any limit as long as those people don't harm anyone else.

But the thing is that it is always in some form at the expense of something else. Doesn't matter if it is an Apple that make their junk in Asia where the workers have to work under horrible conditions and even have to sleep in the factory. Or all the clothing brands that sell clothes made by children. Oil companies that rape the earth and give the people of the country peanuts in return. Look at Nigeria, it has massive oil spills, large parts of that country has poluted water, not suited for farming and the people haven't seen a cent in return. Or look how the rainforests are being cut down out of greed. Miners in South Afrika that work in gold mines for a few dollars a day (risking their lives) and then when they protest against it they get killed by dozens at a time by the goverment/police... the list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that the core fundament of the system we live in is rotten to the bone, greed should never be the engine of a system. It leads to the mess that we call civilization. The world is led by criminals in suit, thats the current state of our civilization. I wish I could bring more positive words in the discussion, but thats how it is.

[coffeeshock 20]

But the thing is that it is always in some form at the expense of something else. Doesn't matter if it is an Apple that make their junk in Asia where the workers have to work under horrible conditions and even have to sleep in the factory. Or all the clothing brands that sell clothes made by children. Oil companies that rape the earth and give the people of the country peanuts in return. Look at Nigeria, it has massive oil spills, large parts of that country has poluted water, not suited for farming and the people haven't seen a cent in return. Or look how the rainforests are being cut down out of greed. Miners in South Afrika that work in gold mines for a few dollars a day (risking their lives) and then when they protest against it they get killed by dozens at a time by the goverment/police... the list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that the core fundament of the system we live in is rotten to the bone, greed should never be the engine of a system. It leads to the mess that we call civilization. The world is led by criminals in suit, thats the current state of our civilization. I wish I could bring more positive words in the discussion, but thats how it is.

If people want to work as slaves with shitty income for a company, than that's their own free will choice, they signed a contract and that's why "worker rights" don't exist either, if you don't like it, leave it! I have yet to see someone at apple or MS etc who forces someone else to work for them at gunpoint...

But you're right, this world is run by genetic psychopaths in suits (hence the book title "snakes in suits" by R. Hare PhD) who make all this grand scale misery and suffering possible, and their main tool for that is government and "laws" ie rules and regulations...

The main problem is the decay of morality by design, and as a result we now live in a pathological society full of immoral sociopathic control freaks... more external government control and the centralization of power will not solve our problems...

Keeping 100% of your income/labour is a RIGHT, and all rights are property rights because your own body is your property. "Basic income" is NOT a right because it's based on theft.

[goat_ger 10]

I don't like the basic income idea. People who are healthy and able to work should get the wealth they deserve. People who do less should get less.

If the basic income thingy ever happens in Germany I immediately quit whatever I'm doing and

a) flee the country

b) get fat and happy until the system falls apart and hopefully die by then

[b00tsy 28]

@coffeeshock. There no such thing as choice. Everyone is born with a certain intellect, abillities, social environment, etc. Just because one person is more slick and handy at functioning in this greed system (the big pyramidgame) that does not mean they should have more rights to live an extravagent wealthy life over others. A person that takes up your garbage in front of your door is in the bigger picture more valuable then a slick suit speculating on fictive money in the high glass towers. Yet the suit makes millions and the person collecting your garbage barely can keep his head above the water and may even have a 2nd or 3rd job to get by.

I do agree with most other thing is your comment.

[scrim 1]

Keeping 100% of your income/labour is a RIGHT, and all rights are property rights because your own body is your property.

If you decide to take no part what-so-ever in society, then you're right. But if you do that, by let's say, travel on paved roads, enjoy clean drinking water from the tap, or the tap itself, or streetlights, or housing that you have not built yourself with your own materials procured from land owned by yourself, and constructed on land owned by yourself, then NO! Then you would be nothing short of an idiot to regard keeping every single cent you earn to be a human right, to not have to pay anything in taxes. Actually, it wouldn't be to keep every single cent, but rather to keep every single piece of wood, berries, vegetables, etc. since accepting, and thereby using currency, is to partake in society.

Please explain to me exactly how freedom of thought, speech, movement for starters are "property rights".

[coffeeshock 20]

If you decide to take no part what-so-ever in society, then you're right. But if you do that, by let's say, travel on paved roads, enjoy clean drinking water from the tap, or the tap itself, or streetlights, or housing that you have not built yourself with your own materials procured from land owned by yourself, and constructed on land owned by yourself, then NO! Then you would be nothing short of an idiot to regard keeping every single cent you earn to be a human right, to not have to pay anything in taxes. Actually, it wouldn't be to keep every single cent, but rather to keep every single piece of wood, berries, vegetables, etc. since accepting, and thereby using currency, is to partake in society.

Please explain to me exactly how freedom of thought, speech, movement for starters are "property rights".

I only wanna voluntarily pay for services or products I actually use... no man should be forced to pay for something he doesn't even use or want... on top of that most income taxes don't even used for the services we expect, the rich marxist banksters who invented this current system actually live off of it. We are slaves to them. All those serices can also be provided in a free society without government, by private institutions.

Again, neither you nor the government have the right to tax me. You don't have the right to steal my money. This right doesn't exist.

I own my brain, mouth, voice, legs etc, so I can use them any way I want to, as long as I don't harm anyone else!

Eating a Snickers bar is my right, why? Because I bought it with my own money and it doesn't harm anyone.

Keeping my income/labour is my right, why? Because it's my time and my body, my property, and it didn't harm anyone.

Getting a "basic income" is not a right, it's a wrong. Why? Because it violates the propety rights of others, this money was stolen from others by government.

[b00tsy 28]

Civilization = collective.

Current state of civilization = egocentrism, greed, selfish materialism, hunger for power and control. We as a civilization are fooling ourselfs. Or better put, the masses are being fooled by the powers in the world and being controled by laws and dictations to keep the systeem of criminals intact. Our freedom is a fake freedom, we are living in a modern version of the medieval ages to be exact.

[scrim 1]

the rich marxist banksters who invented this current system...

All those serices can also be provided in a free society without government, by private institutions...

Again, neither you nor the government have the right to tax me. You don't have the right to steal my money. This right doesn't exist.

Eating a Snickers bar is my right, why? Because I bought it with my own money and it doesn't harm anyone.

Keeping my income/labour is my right, why? Because it's my time and my body, my property, and it didn't harm anyone.

Getting a "basic income" is not a right, it's a wrong. Why? Because it violates the propety rights of others, this money was stolen from others by government.

"The rich marxist bankers"? Are you a troll, or deranged?

For starters, no, I don't have the right to tax you. No individual has. The government however does. Why? Because they are in charge of the society that we, the people, elected them to lead, and formed, and which you live off. If you don't want to live off it, fine, we'll let your debts for education, healthcare, etc. from when you were a child and couldn't object go. But then you have to stop partaking completely in our society from that point on, meaning you can literally speaking not do anything more than what you could in the Stone age, but less even. That means you have to nothing short of find land that you can claim as your own without purchasing it from anyone (which will be a challenge), and then live off that land, constructing a residence for yourself only using the materials you can gain access to there, only eat what lives and grows there, only drink the water that flows there.

You may not construct a home with materials owned by anyone else, you may not purchase food, water, machinery or electricity, because by doing so you'll pay taxes. Nor may you pay anyone to do something for you. In fact, you are unable to pay anyone using currency, since guess what, that belongs to society.

There you have it, either you live in our society and contribute to it when the government comes along to collect taxes on our behalf, because we gave the government the right to tax everyone in order to finance our society, or you find a piece of land claimed by no man or state, and live there for as long as you don't wish to pay taxes, without any interference from society, or you interfering with society.

You obviously don't understand the concept of human rights if you believe that the opposite to it is a human "wrong". In fact, there is no opposite to the concept "human rights". Even kids understand that, but for some reason you don't. Congrats.

And coming back to the ludicrous idea of "marxist bankers" having "invented this current system", can you go ahead and explain how they did that? Because the earliest forms of Marxism didn't exist until the 19th century, and "this current system" that you're talking about is what normal people call "society", which traces its routes back to nothing less than the birth of mankind itself.

[maturin 12]

rich marxist banksters

You, my friend, are an entertaining individual.

Keeping my income/labour is my right, why?

you live in a trackless wilderness that doesn't belong to anyone or anything, with no one else within hundreds of miles, and use no tools that you did not make yourself, and come into some other society to sell pelts and furs, yes. If you live someplace like Somalia, yes. But you don't. Edited September 16, 2013 by maturin

[instagoat 133]

I would love to know how these abstract rights can be something such as "natural law". At the bottom of nature are no "laws", or fancy happy-do-good regulations the evil bankers are trying to subvert with evil schemes for the sake of extending their own abstract power. Further, money is an illusion itself, it is merely the promise that a piece of enumerated paper will buy you goods and services, and that those who sell you these services receive a representation of the value of the service they provided, which they can in turn continue to exchange. In effect, you own nothing of your "wealth", it has merely been shifted around from the source (government printing presses) through the money and goods market (which in turn gives the money a perceived value, by which in turn the goods and services are priced.) until it ended up with you for whatever reason.

There is virtually no limit to how much money you can arbitrarily put into the system, because the value of money is entirely artificial to begin with, the only thing that matters is how the market responds. Now, who issues that money you want to exchange for goods and services? Do you draw things on pieces of paper and pretend its worth something? Nobody will trust your papers unless you got something backing it up: in the case of government, you back it with bonds, which will be paid out after a certain time and either financed by issueing new bonds, or by excess tax income.

The "natural" problem is that a proactive state striving to keep its society intact and its populace healthy is inefficient because it is so open to exploitation. But, if you remove the welfare and healthcare, you will find the people open to exploitation by companies. In a laissez-faire market without checks and balances, where the only thing controlling what an insurance (in this case) will do if one of their customers needs a hospital bill paid you will find that it comes down to simple math for the company. And if they as a company want to survive, in broad terms, they need to make that calculation to keep afloat. If they calculate very conservatively and keep lots of dead cash on their banks to retain liquidity, so they can pay out to customers with high healthcare costs, who do not bring in as much money as they cost (and who need to be balanced by others who do not get sick but pay insurance anyway, and if you are young and healthy, why pay for a super expensive healthcare coverage?)... the result is loss in dividend for the people who finance the company.

Those people will then enforce their interest (returns on their investment, and expansion of their assets) in the company or ditch it. So either you start stripping out those people who do not put black numbers on your balance sheet, or you find other sources of income.

Natural result is that expensive people do not get health insurance. Further, since there are no checks and balances (we have no state enforced laws, in this extreme case) the company cannot be held to the contract by an individual, because nobody is there to provide an arbiter. Unless that is done by another company? This is beginning to look a bit like the society of blade runner, where -everything- is run by corporations.

Again, this is not about people being good or being bad, this is about simple maths. Governments will always have the problem that they are in effect doing something that is completely contrary to darwinian pressures, they are in essence for the benefit of the entirety of individuals that align themselves with them opening themselves to predation and parasitism, with the promise to the people who are honest and decent that when they -do- fall on hard times, they can ask for help from their fellow citizens through the agency of the elected government.

I think a basic income to reduce life stresses can only benefit society, since we are already at a stage where the abandonment of the welfare policies will very likely lead to a reduction in standard of living for a broad majority in those parts of the population that either by choice or circumstance cannot afford the present standard of living.

Such is not healthy, and if I need to pay taxes that will go to helping my fellow human beings, I will gladly do so. Wether or not the government is in one way or other corrupted by psychopaths or sociopaths is a different question and should not be used as an argument to deprive large parts of the population of an already precarious standard of living (in germany, this especially concerns the ailing education system and class and profession based discrimination inherent in the system, not as bad as elsewhere, but not acceptable either in my opinion.).

I also do not think that a small elite can alter the opinion of an entire society. I have some experience in advertising design, and the question that is asked in media is not "how can we shape public opinion" but "What does the customer want?". It is a self-reinforcing spiral where consumer and provider are reinforcing each other, and putting the blame on a single party or faction, such as "psychopaths in politics" or the "NWO" is entirely too simplistic.

[Sealife 22]

The devil makes work for idle hands

Unfortunately we are so many now. It's impossible to say lets make the world a kibbutz and so those that work are. Not happy that all without work are not so by choice

It is what it is and nothing will ever solve it , people make things we dont even need , people spend 100 to make 40 subsidised by 60 , we just kept busy .

Remember matirx quote , there are only two organisms that populate a host / area and strip it of all it's resource and eventually die or move on I'm afraid it's true and despite many attempts at culls with Aids and the like we have a shelf life and until then we have to make it a busy life or only anarchy prevails .

Or you live off the land and have no say in mainstream life unfortunately

[celery 8]

It's almost touching how many people here think that going to work to provide for yourself in a dignified manner is a matter of simple choice these days. It's also amusing to read reactions on the notion of someone getting money without working for it through basic income even though people already do that through a more convoluted and passivizing system called welfare.

[Sealife 22]

It's almost touching how many people here think that going to work to provide for yourself in a dignified manner is a matter of simple choice these days. It's also amusing to read reactions on the notion of someone getting money without working for it through basic income even though people already do that through a more convoluted and passivizing system called welfare.

But are we saying welfare to survive or welfare to provide a lifestyle beyond means ? At what point is the line crossed between right to an income to keep up with the neighbour who's tax pay for my healthcare , education , 40 cigarettes a day 40" TV , car and house , what is the point of acceptable welfare ? And who decides it ?

[coffeeshock 20]

"The rich marxist bankers"? Are you a troll, or deranged?

For starters, no, I don't have the right to tax you. No individual has. The government however does.

because we gave the government the right to tax everyone in order to finance our society

See your logical fallacy right there?

How can you possibly give someone else a right that you don't have in the first place?! It's impossible to give someone something you don't have and it's still immoral. Even kids understand that, but for some reason you don't. Congrats.

You obviously don't understand the concept of human rights if you believe that the opposite to it is a human "wrong". In fact, there is no opposite to the concept "human rights".

You obviously don't understand the concept of Natural Law if you believe that gravity is just a man made idea. In fact, the opposite of a right is a wrong, lmao, every kid knows that... why do YOU think rights are called RIGHTs?! Are you a troll or are you mentally deranged?

Immoral behaviour will ALWAYS cause suffering and harm other living beings. That's why it is objective truth based on Natural Law ie causality (cause and effect), hence our NATURAL brains having a function called "empathy". Or are our biological computers also just man made ideas?! lmao

And coming back to the ludicrous idea of "marxist bankers" having "invented this current system", can you go ahead and explain how they did that? Because the earliest forms of Marxism didn't exist until the 19th century, and "this current system" that you're talking about is what normal people call "society", which traces its routes back to nothing less than the birth of mankind itself.

That's because before Marx (who worked for the banksters) it was simply called slavery or feudalism... lmao...

Simple logic you obviously can't grasp...yet...

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or, more accurately, socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."

- Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Concord Press, 1971

Again, you defend and support a immoral system based on theft/slavery. Here is WHY you think this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VBxH-4EErM

The controlled media and education system have essentially programmed you to become secondary psychopaths, fearful R-complex driven control freaks who believe that goverment control and theft/slavery "benefits" the collective/society. That's exactly how all modern totalitarian regimes justified their immoral behaviour.

You're collectivsts ie communists. You're people who enabled and allowed the Nazi and Soviet type tyrannies. Congrats.

I would love to know how these abstract rights can be something such as "natural law". At the bottom of nature are no "laws", or fancy happy-do-good regulations the evil bankers are trying to subvert with evil schemes for the sake of extending their own abstract power.

Natural Law ie cause and effect, just like gravity. If I kick your teeth in with my combat boots, you'll SUFFER. If I rape your daughter/mother/gf/wife, you'll suffer. If your wife/gf cheats on you, you'll suffer... If I steal your car, you'll suffer and be angry about it...

That is Natural Law in effect. Just like gravity, if you stand on the top/roof of a building and you jump off of it... you'll fall DOWN. That is Natural Law.

Immoral behaviour causes suffering. Period. End of story. Objective truth/reality.

Also please stop denying the reality of Psychopathy (in government) and their obvious goal of subversion, you're only embarrassing yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxq7hiHi1cE

"Thanks to the lack of moral standards"

You, my friend, are an entertaining individual.

.

Wanna see something entertaining?

Nelson Rockefeller commissioned this Mural by Mexican Communist painter Diego Rivera during the 1930. Rockefeller himself is portrayed shoulder to shoulder with Leon Trotsky, surrounded by other famous Communists, including Karl Marx. It was originally displayed in the RCA (now GE) Building in Rockefeller Center, New York. Rockefeller had it quietly removed during the anti-Communist backlash of the House on Unamerican Activities Committee hearings in Congress. Today it's permanently installed an an entire wall on the second floor of the Fine Arts Palace (Palacio Bellas Artes), in a corner of the Alameda Central in the Centro Historico of Mexico City.

Any questions?

Edited September 17, 2013 by coffeeshock

[[frl]myke 14]

I really do hope that none of you ever find himself in the position of being 50+ and unemployed (for whatever reason). Then good luck of finding a new job. Probably you wont because there are younger competitors who work for less than you could since you have a family to feed.

And another concept that a lot of people don't understand: basic income is to maintain basic level. It should be just enough to have enough to eat, basic clothes, a cheap apartment (still better than under a bridge). It shouldn't be that much to go for vacation, Not enough to have a car. No going out for dinner with wife/girlfriend. It is just to cover the most basic expenses. If you want a house or bigger apartement, go work for it. If you want a car, go work for it.

Side effect: income for those who work will raise. No one will go for work if they become less or the same as the basic income is. People will say: you want me to work for you? Make my pay like (basic income + XXXX$/€) and i'll come. That would fight the raising amount of the working poor aswell.

And for those who argue that such basic income will be abused. Yes, it will by some. But it will help the poor and homeless. So you say you don't want that those people can live a worthy life because you're affraid that some will abuse it? Is this really the argument you want to use?

Honestly, i really do hope that no one of you find himself in such a situation where a basic income could become vital for him. Whichever god is yours, may he help you.