Originally Posted by Daywolf (Post 2493318)

Wrong. They had the written language before Moe made up that junk in his broken head. He didn't write it down (if he even existed), it was just a telephone game for ~250 years before someone bothered.

You just gotta write that stuff down first-hand and preserve it, including the making of many-many copies which helps preservation. That's a big problem with much of history as we know it, even your beloved greek philosophers. And that's just counting the manuscripts that survived all the great library fires and sackings.

You're boring, Al d Gore.

Originally Posted by Ahldagor (Post 2493333)

Strike 9. Inning over. Did your partner leave you for an Arabic translator?

Originally Posted by Ahldagor (Post 2493389)

I'm sorry for your loss.

Originally Posted by Daywolf (Post 2493487)

War is coming.

Originally Posted by Daywolf (Post 2493487)

My loss? hmm... last time I checked, they threw your kind off roof tops without a second glance. You cant appease them, not even if you could grow wings.
War is coming.

Originally Posted by Lune (Post 2493268)

You've got to get the ridiculous notion out of your head that cooperating as a society and providing a framework of opportunity encourages people to be complacent.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon (Post 2493586)

That is not my concern, Lune. No rational person would embrace that notion. I disagree with the premise though that what you describe above is an accurate description of universal basic income on its own in our present environment ^^



Of course it doesn't ^^



this is where we disagree. i do not see universal basic income as good soil and water. it's like spraying vinegar on your soil because you have bare patches and being pleased with the fullness once you have more moss than grass ^^

In my experience, I have never learned something or developed a skill by way of someone else doing that thing for me. I have seen similar results with those I've taught and those others have taught. People do not learn without doing. Outside perhaps a very few exceptional individuals, the first step to success is almost always failure and overcoming those obstacles on one's own is absolutely necessary. Others can offer advice, guidance, correction, explanation, demonstration, but learning itself is an internal process.

If I do your math homework for you, you will receive good marks, so long as I continue to do so. What is the likelihood of my continued aid ever helping you learn to do math? (I'm sure you would receive exceptional marks on your own, that not the point ^^)

That same analogy can be applied to work and play and every other activity and it is one reason why I do not believe that the simple act of giving people money necessarily enables them in to amass or even acquire more of it.

The other reason I don't embrace a universal basic income is because I see poverty as a symptom, not a disease itself. It is the result and while it may exacerbate other complications of the disease giving rise to it, it is not the cause. The source is general performance deficiency, or failure, arising from both internal and external sources. I simply do not believe that poverty causes people to fail. People become impoverished because they fail. Those who are unfortunate enough to be born into it generally remain there, but all do not. Some find a way out. If poverty were the source of failure, those people would not exist, but they do.



i agree that in the short term it is more equitable to individuals. it's the long term consequences that concern me and those I see as equally detrimental to all.



I think we'll destroy ourselves anyway, but to your point on statism, i don't disagree with you on its efficacy. I've evolved on that issue and have said before that the only practical systems for advancing humanity fall neatly within the libertarian right and the authoritarian left. The former relies on nature to do do the work we are disinclined to, the latter embraces that responsibility as our own.

The reason I reject the libertarian left is because a government that assumes financial responsibility, must be empowered to control costs alongside revenues. Allowing a citizenry to do as they please when the government holds the pocket book is not a sustainable condition.

The reason I reject the authoritarian right is because a government which possesses great power, but fails to adequately temper excellence, will simply be bought by the most successful entireties.

all authoritarian systems will suffer to some degree from adverse selection and corruption, but it is far more difficult for specific entities if the environment does not permit the economic hegemony afforded by a wholly free market.