[maskedmelon]

sorry I take so long to respond to this ^^ I been so super busy lately >.<

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't see charity as a subsidy of failure because there are so many damaging things about poverty that contribute to making it heritable, infectious, and persistent.

it is important to understand that the reason you do not see charity as a subsidy of failure is because you believe:

1. poverty is the source of the negative conditions associated with it
2. charity effectively remedies poverty, the source of negative conditions associated with poverty.

If you do not believe either of those things, your position does not make sense. i contend that poverty is not the source, which you seem to agree with at least in part below.

This is established sociological fact.

the idea that poverty is damaging, hereditable and infectious is, yes.

Also, basic income is not charity, it is for everyone, and I view it as a dividend for your part ownership of this nation's wealth as an American citizen.

that's fine. not really sure what I think about that view other than it is still free money that more effectively subsidizes the lifestyles of the least successful individuals than any other group. I think on it some more. at the moment though I can say that eliminating birth right citizenship as you suggested makes it more sensible. There are all sorts of things we can do to make it more sensible though.

I disagree with the notion that money is the end-all be-all driver of self improvement, which is closely related. However, there is a lot more to it than that, culture is a big part of it, racism, etc, and it's the main reason why you can't just hand people money to get them out of poverty.

But something like basic income goes a long way toward not only fixing the problem, but also saving the rest of society from some of the damage and blight of poverty.

Either I fundamentally misunderstand the nature of basic income, which is entirely possible ^^;, or you are expressing cognitive dissonance. how is basic income not giving people money?

I know for a fact I would be in a terrible position if it weren't for my upbringing, and the high expectations of my parents. I'm not an ambitious person. How successful somebody is is a combination of their inherent personal strength and upbringing.

i agree with this. i am wildly unambitious too ^^ how large a component of upbringing would you say wealth is? I mean out of all the things parents give you, how important is money. you make a very god analogy below about life as a marathon and money as a head start. I believe discipline, knowledge, goal setting and reason are infinitely more important than money. it is after all why trump and bush are passed up by buffet and jobs.

Think of life like a marathon footrace. Everyone starts at different spots according to the opportunities given to them. Some people run really fast and some people run really slow. Some people are born a mile from the finish line (Donald Trump, George Bush) and still get passed by people born near the starting line (Steve Jobs, George Lucas, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett), because they are just so fucking fast. Given that I will never be as successful as my parents, I literally walked backwards, but I'm still further than hundreds of millions of people will ever get in their lifetime by virtue of inheritance alone.

I'll give you the example I gave in the other thread you never responded to:



I especially like the military example. The military pulls a LOT of people out of poverty, including my dad and my cousin.

My siblings are all fuckups except for my sisters, but being a woman is easy.

im sorry I didn't respond to that originally. I'm not sure why I didn't ^^ probably was thinking about it. The military really is a fantastic example of how to best extricate people from poverty though. It does exactly what I argue needs to be done. it is a very poor substantiation of the efficacy of basic income though because it is radically different and here's why I say that: those who join the military become property of the government and are retrained as if children to be functional citizens. It teaches people discipline and goal setting and respect and work ethic among other things. people don't walk out of the military and succeed because they've been given free room and board and schooling in exchange for promising to kill people. It's the lifestyle changes that the military compels, which allow people to succeed by effectively utilizing the other resources available to them there and beyond.

your comment on the rest of your siblings (similar to my own, though my parents are nowhere near wealthy despite having risen from significantly humbler beginnings). It speaks to the problem though and and that is, even if you are able to lift a man from poverty, train him to overcome his deficiencies, he still carries them and will generally be unable to effectively issue the necessary training to his children to overcome the innate deficiencies most of us face. Certainly his strengthened financial position will afford more opportunities for positive change, but the change is still left to chance. That is what I dislike about it. you are investing resources in conditions which may improve, but will certainly proliferate. it is a gamble and I see it as an unwise investment. I do not believe there are sufficient resources to elevate the billions who exist impoverished and the billions more who will spring from their loins.