That just not true. Even in civilized countries, it's a dog eat dog world. No ones going to give you anything. Darwinistic state can apply to mainstream society. It doesn't have to be just about killing the animal to get fed. Companies act on this all the time, in the business world.

SFD was correct, when people get on social programs, they eventually have no desire to get off, and worse they get to a point that they feel deserved to receive such benefits. I prime example, was in 2010 in the middle of the economic disaster and jobs were at an all time low, thousands of blue collar jobs were created in the Midwest that paid 12-15 dollars an hour, but no one would come take them because they were receiving their govt subsidies that were less, but not enough to actually go to work for. This is why all social programs need to have a time limit.

And here's the crux of it. Do you believe that deep down people generally are good, or that deep down people generally are bad? That'll usually correlate with whether you're on the left or right.

Quite so, Invictus. It's amazing how many Christians base their belief on the concept that most of their fellow humans are scum.

Not really. Are you even vaguely aware of the concept of original sin?

I am, yes - and it amazes me. What a load of utter crap.

You never were one for theology...

True dat.

Survival of the fittest is the most misinterpreted single phrase in history.

How?

Because it's interpreted to mean survival of most predatory/strongest/most powerful as well as interpreted to imply cannibalistic competition. It simply means the species that have traits most 'fit' for their environment will survive, and these traits can and usually do include cooperation and altruism. Humans would not have survived if we hadn't been a cooperative, altruistic species.

"That just not true. Even in civilized countries, it's a dog eat dog world. No ones going to give you anything. Darwinistic state can apply to mainstream society. It doesn't have to be just about killing the animal to get fed. Companies act on this all the time, in the business world. "

Give me a break. No state deals with its people through some Darwinian notion and not even people deal with other people in that way these days. It's much more complex. Even between corporations it's not true because their practices and dealings are highly regulated, it's not a true state of nature as described by Hobbes or the like. Don't be so thick.

"when people get on social programs, they eventually have no desire to get off"

source? which country? what programs?

"and worse they get to a point that they feel deserved to receive such benefits"

typically if a government offers a program a large amount of people get, people who also qualify for the program will feel like they deserve the benefits of the program as well. That's totally correct and there's nothing wrong with it.

"thousands of blue collar jobs were created in the Midwest that paid 12-15 dollars an hour, but no one would come take them because they were receiving their govt subsidies that were less, but not enough to actually go to work for."

or maybe they weren't trained for them? or their commute wasn't proper? The 21 year old cashier at a home depot shop isn't going to go join the steel mill just because there's a job available.

"This is why all social programs need to have a time limit. "

what's the proper time limit for assistance to a single mother with three children? a guy recovering from heroin addiction? college students whose STEM degrees aren't getting them jobs?

reminder that if we were living in a society that really capitulated to a Hobbesian or Darwinian state of nature no one on this board would last a week.

"A good wealthy person will compensate the worker fairly-no doubt." Good luck trying to find enough of those to give proper compensation to the workers.
"A personal responsibility not a government responsibility." So the corporations are responsible for the people who starve because of how wretched the labor market is to them, and when they can keep a job, they can't earn a living wage off of it? I agree. It's not the government's responsibility to do something about its people when they starve under such conditions? That's horrible. Who is going to take care of them, then? The workers can't because they don't have the means, corporations won't, and (according to you) the government shouldn't. That leaves who exactly?
"Roosevelt started a huge slipper-slope we will never recover from." Should we even want to recover from that? When would we have gotten a social safety net without Roosevelt? Those policies prevent us from hitting another Great Depression.
Keep in mind, those who say welfare inspires an absence of work, that 1) the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 added a working requirement to the receiving of welfare benefits, and 2) America's unemployment rate is dropping.

Since people are inherently good why do we need social programs to take care of the less fortunate? Maybe if people could keep the money they earn, they would be more inclined to help one another out.

If people are inherently bad, why do you think they'd do such a thing?

Because people aren't inherently good (or even bad). Most (there are a few that aren't this bad) of the well off don't care much about the well-being of others. It took a few for me to understand what you meant by keeping the money they earn because corporations have massive profit margins and a lot of unused wealth. That's plenty of money they could be using to tackle this issue themselves, so why don't they? Because they don't want to. They might if the government offered financial incentives, but it's easier for the government to just do it themselves. They'd also go for the minimum amount needed to get the incentives.

Is there really a correlation between economic affiliation (right/left) and level of optimism/pessimism about human nature? I personally envision right-wing philosophy on economics as being fundamentally more optimistic about human nature than left-wing philosophy on economics, but it seems like the heuristic being employed here is that right-wingers are more pessimistic than left-wingers. I don't think there's a meaningful correlation either way, so I'm curious (a) why people think there is one and (b) what it is and (c) why.

Remember this prophesy, young devotees of Ayn Rand:

"Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too. I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work."

The economy of the rapidly approaching future doesn't need you to do anything. You really, really do not want your economic well being to be tied to work, because none of your efforts are going to be worth anything.

Support a basic income and at least get paid for being a person, able to survive long enough to maybe think of something smart. Free enterprise + basic income = a decent world where innovation can happen. Forcing people to "work" when the world would be better off if they just stayed out of the way is ridiculous.

Peter had upper management written *all* over him.

Most libertarians I know are receptive to universal basic income as a replacement of existing welfare programs; I think any hesitancy you'll find from it is practical implementation. We don't want it added on top of the existing system due to cost concerns, and we're worried that the political smoke around the idea lately is aimed at just adding it on instead of replacing the existing system. But conceptually it's probably the best practical solution to the inevitable mechanization/automation of most economic functions.

The question of good and bad is pretty much unimportant in this whole conversation. Talk practicalities. What's the goal? Minimize human suffering. How to do this?

There are just too many pitfalls in socialism. Money goes through too many hands. A few bad apples here and there make it necessary to check up on everyone. That costs money too. In the end, too many resources are lost to friction. And this is just one problem.

My question about basic guaranteed income is how would it be funded?

Basic income would be funded through taxes obviously. Bureaucracy would need to improve. But I think a basic income combined with a free-enterprise, non-planned economy is an attainable ideal. Scandinavian countries do something this pretty well.

Going back a bit,

@ssorenn

"Even in civilized countries, it's a dog eat dog world."
"Companies act on this all the time, in the business world."

You have got to be fucking kidding me. You know what a "company" is, right, in the "business world"? It's an entity specifically designed to shield it's managers from consequences. I'm a big capitalist, but in the actual business world people bet other people's money and their own downside risk is minimal. The whole idea of the "business world" of "companies" is to wrap everything in padding so people can take more risks without fear. Jesus.

Of all the possible critiques of socialism, waste/lost resources is not one I'm willing to even countenance. Free markets overproduce, which is why we have boom and bust cycles and crises of overproduction followed by factory closures and layoffs. Just think of the global distribution of food in the world capitalist economy as one great shining example of how markets distribute resources "efficiently". Say what you will about socialism, but the economic problem it poses is mainly one of underproduction, not "wasting resources". That's your problem.

"I don't think there's a meaningful correlation either way, so I'm curious (a) why people think there is one and (b) what it is and (c) why."

I imagine it has something to do with two things a) concentrations of power and b) cheating.

Conservatives tend to believe all humans cheat and will abuse power if given too much (at least public power, private power for whatever reason can be concentrated as much as humanly possible). Hence why they support a limited government and oppose the welfare state (concerns about cheating). The left generally has less problem with public power because they believe it is wielded in the public interest and that the concern about cheating is overstated, as most people follow the rules.

My question about basic guaranteed income is how would it be funded?

what... oops sht