Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ipecac]

It has been proven that increasing welfare and reducing pressure on unemployed people has little to no effect on unemployment.

So you say.

At this point you're not even disputing the creation of a redundant class as a result of the welfare, instead arguing that it won't be that big.

[ipecac]

Let's go back to this older post about immigration, because it ties in with low wages:

Thanks for your responses. Just to clarify, in that particular post I wasn't talking about merit-based immigration but about your poor, huddled masses.

That's how you cause wages for the lowest classes to go down, as the huddled masses increase labour supply. Then there are cries about how they are underpaid.

Lower wages, not coincidentally, is what Big Business wants and also what the left (and much of the right) pushes for.

[AdrienIer]

Every time I decide to stop wasting my time here someone says something that's so false that I feel compelled to answer.

The left pushes for a high minimum wage. In the US, between 1200 and 1500$pm. That's the opposite of lower wages.

[TheHumanHydra]

It seems unlikely that those who would support a free income for all on the grounds of human dignity would turn around and violate the recipients' dignity via eugenics. It seems more likely that any popular reaction against a UBI would be to cancel the UBI, not implement nigh-unprecedented invasive rules or procedures.

This line of argument seems so far fetched that I am surprised it is being offered in good faith. Frankly, it seems the kind of muddled thinking deriving from ideological fanaticism.

There are many good arguments against UBI that do not descend to invoking Nazism or the spectre of our worst natures. Likewise, that avoid such shaky counterfactualism.

[ipecac]

Every time I decide to stop wasting my time here someone says something that's so false that I feel compelled to answer.

The left pushes for a high minimum wage. In the US, between 1200 and 1500$pm. That's the opposite of lower wages.

They also push for mass immigration, which by simple supply and demand depresses wages due to higher supply of labour. Such a consequence may be unintended, certainly, but definitely foreseeable by people like Bernie.

Certainly most of the voters on the left don't see this obvious and simple consequence, that's because they're simply not thinking through the issue at all. Hence they shoot themselves in the foot.

[ipecac]

It seems unlikely that those who would support a free income for all on the grounds of human dignity would turn around and violate the recipients' dignity via eugenics. It seems more likely that any popular reaction against a UBI would be to cancel the UBI, not implement nigh-unprecedented invasive rules or procedures.

This line of argument seems so far fetched that I am surprised it is being offered in good faith. Frankly, it seems the kind of muddled thinking deriving from ideological fanaticism.

You are misreading my argument. I am not saying it will be a move started among the masses or a grassroots move. It'll be initiated by the intellectuals, as they did in the past.

[TheHumanHydra]

It seems unlikely that those who would support a free income for all on the grounds of human dignity would turn around and violate the recipients' dignity via eugenics. It seems more likely that any popular reaction against a UBI would be to cancel the UBI, not implement nigh-unprecedented invasive rules or procedures.

This line of argument seems so far fetched that I am surprised it is being offered in good faith. Frankly, it seems the kind of muddled thinking deriving from ideological fanaticism.

You are misreading my argument. I am not saying it will be a move started among the masses or a grassroots move. It'll be initiated by the intellectuals, as they did in the past.

Who must needs convince their voters. Hence, 'any popular reaction against a UBI would be to cancel the UBI, not implement [eugenics].'

[ipecac]

Who must needs convince their voters. Hence, 'any popular reaction against a UBI would be to cancel the UBI, not implement [eugenics].'

You're still misreading the argument, neither will it be construed as a 'popular reaction against the UBI'. It'll just be put as the scientific, enlightened and environmental thing to do with a certain class of people.

[wetbandit]

Speculation is always fun: I think Trump is going to announce Raymond Kethledge as his nominee to Justice Kennedy's position.

[Bacchus]

This line of argument seems so far fetched that I am surprised it is being offered in good faith. Frankly, it seems the kind of muddled thinking deriving from ideological fanaticism.

The left has, in fact, effected industrialized murder on its subjects in multiple places in the world. Everywhere it was done under the ideology of helping people (naturally, few people are actually maniacs, the more catastrophic a thing you want to do, the better your intentions need to be). Saloth Sar was a darling of Europe's intellectuals and came to his peculiar views in Paris whilst pursuing advanced studies (without success) and engaging actively with the local progressive scene.

Also, just this: https://youtu.be/B-Ljkoh_vmE