How can you be happy when there's so much suffering in the world?

[Melissa]

Phoenix, I agree completely.
And it's annoying to live with uncertainty at times

Fang, if you're only focussing on what IS you're likely to be missing out on the potential and anticipation of what can be. Whether it's this idea or something completely different, doesn't matter.


Kumba-friggin-ya and let's dance. :p

[Phoenix]

Unconditional income is already sort of a thing here in Australia with easily accessible government welfare which is a system that has undeniably caused a lot of harm by perpetuating and further enabling unemployment and general degeneracy.

'Undeniably' huh.

Perhaps you would like to explain, after I'm sure is you're own extensive research on the subject. Why countries such as Norway, Sweden, which have very generous welfare, scores better on measures of societal health than the less generous countries where there is high inequality, such as the USA, the UK, Australia, Portugal etc.

These measures of societal health are as follows: Trust. Women's status. Illegal drug use. Infant deaths. Obesity. Teenage pregnancy. Prisoners as percentage of population, and the combined index of health and social problems.

Another country that scores well on these measures is Japan. Japan has a high level of equality because of higher wages. The point is that how the equality is achieved doesn't matter, it is the fact that it is there.

Perhaps your views are based simply on your own prejudices and aren't a reflection of reality... Fang.

[Poet]

Perhaps you would like to explain, after I'm sure is you're own extensive research on the subject. Why countries such as Norway, Sweden, which have very generous welfare, scores better on measures of societal health than the less generous countries where there is high inequality, such as the USA, the UK, Australia, Portugal etc.

These measures of societal health are as follows: Trust. Women's status. Illegal drug use. Infant deaths. Obesity. Teenage pregnancy. Prisoners as percentage of population, and the combined index of health and social problems.

Another country that scores well on these measures is Japan. Japan has a high level of equality because of higher wages. The point is that how the equality is achieved doesn't matter, it is the fact that it is there.

Perhaps your views are based simply on your own prejudices and aren't a reflection of reality... Fang.

Phoenix, your comment illustrates the positivistic reason one can observe everywhere: "Because this measure goes up, it follows that this characteristic feature of a country is correlated with another feature and thus there might be some causal effects." I consider this onesided positivism as one of the main reason why we face so many political, societal, environmental and other problems today. This may sound hard, but I think it is a really big problem.

In case of Norway, this country mainly performs so well because of its huge oil revenues, not because of its massive welfare state. I cannot say for all other cases, you would have to study each for itself. Norway's welfare system will break down as all other welfare systems of the Western world will ultimately collapse.

Basic income will cause involuntary unemployment. How much is impossible to predict, the future is always uncertain.

[Phoenix]

My understanding of what you just said is:

'Because I don't like the evidence based thing you just said, it is my preference to forget about the evidence and substitute my own views.'

[Poet]

My understanding of what you just said is:

'Because I don't like the evidence based thing you just said, it is my preference to forget about the evidence and substitute my own views.'

I have nothing against the evidence itself, I just think that it is no evidence. It's historical data. If you for instance want to find out whether basic income will cause unemployment or not, empirical data will tell you nothing imo. Another problem is that positivism doesn't ask "what should be", but just "what will work." This means a positivist would for instance reject ethics. For him, these are just subjective values or norms of people. Legal positivism is one result of this: Politicians believe they can expand their power as much as they want (e.g. introduce basic income).

Speaking in terms of the LOO: I believe a consistent STO-view would oppose any measure of control or violence on a societal level. This is why I consider a welfare state or basic income as "bad." People must be expropriated by a state or another agency with power. Otherwise, if people would freely give, you would not need a welfare state or a basic income. But force, control or violonce is not compatible with the STO-path. This is why I'm surprised every time when people here still favour basic income or else because it fundamentally contradicts all other things in which they believe.

[ScottK]

This is a very interesting read with regard to the concept of benevolent central planning - or supposedly benevolent central planning. You need to read the whole thing to get the complete picture..

http://www.darkgovernment.com/omega.html

[Phoenix]

Ok. Thanks for the discussion and the link.

But I only went into this discussion because I had doubted the previous idea I had about 'God's plan.' I.e. I'm not really interested in how society sorts itself out since the best thing for me to do is focus on my 'plan' therefore I will be useful in the way the higher forces want me to be.

That makes my last two posts void. (#32 and #34). Since my view is no longer toward backing up that data; and restores the thing I said at the end of #29.