If they don’t want money to be a birthright they should make it so money isn’t necessary to stay alive
Hmm, that could definitely be phrased more powerfully.
- If they don’t want money to be a birthright, then poverty and destitution shouldn’t be free?
- Life’s necessities shouldn’t be paywalled if they don’t want birthright funds?
- To oppose money as a birthright is to support survival not being held hostage by financial scarcity?
Or whatever. Idk, I spent too much time on this. It was fun though!
Nah, theirs was better.
That’s fair
Theirs was better, but I salute (and upvote) your effort, it’s good to try and improve our messaging.
This other commenter did pretty good though:
I’m sure the average Republican would say being alive isn’t a birthright either.
Unless you’re an embryo.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
– US Declaration of IndependenceI disagree with
3(e: actually 4) words in that sentence, but I’m struggling to find a single phrase that modern conservatives agree with.Republicans in 2024:
❌ Form a more perfect Union
❌ Establish Justice
❌ Insure domestic Tranquility
🙄Provide for the common defense
❌ Promote the general Welfare
🖕Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The 16* Characteristics of Fascism:
-
Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes.
-
Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.
-
Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.
-
White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.
-
Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.
-
Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority group leaders.
-
Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.
-
Rampant sexism.
-
Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.
-
Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.
-
Religion and government are intertwined.
-
Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.
-
Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.
-
Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.
-
Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.
-
Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.
I’d put green ticks on nearly all of those, and the only ones I wouldn’t are only because they don’t have the unilateral power to do them yet. I’m confident they will do them the moment they can.
Surely gerrymandering and making voting as difficult as possible for working individuals gets at least partial credit to 15, no?
Yes, and J6 and the rhetoric that followed gets them all the way there. Trump has literally told his voters on multiple occasions there’s no point in voting because it’s all fraudulent.
Cool hope they all take his advise.
-
If you aren’t desperate, they can’t exploit you
“A hungry dog is an obedient dog” is an actual quote from one of these ghouls.
Who said that?
Stephanie Hendon, 34, lived in a shelter while her husband was living on the street, making it difficult for them to raise their four kids. After a year of payments from the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot, she had a three-bedroom apartment, a new car, clothes for her children, a new job, and new financial strategies for the future.
This is what GOap fights against: The literal improvement of peoples existence.
Never vote Republican. They hate you!
Its selfish bullshit. Their response would be one of a handful:
“Why should I work if the government will just give me everything for free!?”
“Why should I have to pay for lazy people who made bad decisions!?”
“Why does the government not understand debt!? They’re going to bankrupt us!”
They strongly believe in survival of the fittest. Either you become wealthy or everything you did was your fault and a mistake and you should die if you can’t afford life. The only salvation you should get (I almost used the word deserve, which they 100% would argue you don’t deserve.) would be salvation dolled out by a charity that people volunteered to give of their own desire.
Of course the charities never have nearly enough money to accomplish this which they fully understand but don’t care one iota about. It’s almost entirely selfishness on their part, mixed in with a heaping dose of ignorance.
Survival is a birthright you absolute fucking vultures. We made money a requirement for that.
And it’s not like you can screw off into the forest to live a self-sufficient life either, because I’m pretty sure that’s illegal in most places in the world. If the forest isn’t already devoid of resources due to human activity that is.
It’s also just a ridiculous proposition. So much media tells us this is possible, but no, it’s not, not even if you find a virgin jungle. Professional survivalists who train and study for it still wouldn’t be able to actually live a full life - at some point you’re vulture food without society. We’re cooperative, tribal animals. That’s our strength, and we’ve built economic systems designed to take that strength from us.
I think the core problem is we’ve been giving all the power to sociopaths who use pretty words to fool the masses into allowing them to leech the fruits of their labour whilst contributing nothing themselves.
We need to start valuing empathy over bravado, intellectualism over shallow emotional stimulus, and humanity over populist fervour.
That would be a massive cultural shift that would require changes in our approach to many facets of society (education, media, religion, politics, etc), and we seem to be going in the wrong direction, unfortunately.
UBI is the perfect capitalist solution to the majority of problems. It should allow for less market distortion and could have some really interesting outcomes.
I’m very excited to see a first world country use UBI.
That an externalities can go a long, long way in this world.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function. UBI can definitely ameliorate the problems of capitalism, but capitalists will constantly fight it. UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it. We should be doing both - eliminate capitalism and provide UBI.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn’t
UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it.
Maybe. But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
UBI works very well with the market based capitalist system. That’s where I think it will shine.
No it doesn’t
It kinda does. Do you think people enjoy working for near poverty wages? They don’t. But they can’t afford to say no to poor pay because it’s still better than no pay. If people weren’t worried about becoming homeless they’d demand for higher pays. In that sense capitalism does depend on the threat of homelessness to drive down the wage to make more profits.
But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
How to say you don’t know anything about socialism without saying you don’t know anything about socialism. I’m going to give you an example of it working on a smaller scale because US kept sabotaging most national attempts to have socialism. Worker cooperatives are socialist and I recommend looking up the history of Mondragon, a successfully ran cooperative for over half a century now.
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Now economic policy, you’ll be amazed to understand is about fixing inefficiencies that do not allow for optimal conditions. Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that’s what economic testing is about. That’s why it’s better than socialism because it’s competitive and strives for change.
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value. If everyone had UBI that would equate the negotiating position of workers and they wouldn’t have to take poverty wages. That’s why UBI is the capitalist solution to that problem in capitalism. It allows to market to work the way economists want it to work.
Everything you wrote is great in theory. But in reality…
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Optimal solution for whom? It’s not an optimal solution for me to work 16 hours a day, but it would be an optimal way solution for businesses who want to maximize the work they get out of their workers. It’s not capitalism that got us 8h a day 5 days a week, it was the response to the “optimal” solution that capitalism came up with, which was to work people 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. In a broad sense our current working hours is not caused by capitalism but socialism.
The current RTO wave is another example how capitalism does not find the optimal solution. Research has shown that working from home is just as productive if not more productive than working from office (in addition to being more beneficial for the worker) and yet capital owners are demanding people return to office.
Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that’s what economic testing is about. That’s why it’s better than socialism because it’s competitive and strives for change.
Why do you think socialism is not competitive or striving towards change?
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value.
The wages are not following the inflation and wealth gap keeps growing. The so called “middle class” is eroding into “lower class” as the wealth gap keeps making people poorer. This has been happening for decades. Where’s the fix?
Where’s the fix to climate change that oil conglomerates knew about since the 70s? Oh right, the “fix” was to run a disinformation campaign until the evidence becomes irrefutable and they’re forced of oil, because it was the “optimal solution” for making a profit.
What you’re talking about is the idyllic version of Capitalism where everything is great and capital solves everything, because that’s what’s taught to you. What is not taught is that it’s not how capitalism actually works.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
So it works based on simplifying assumptions that never hold up for real.
and advanced economic theory says that basic economic theory is crap, what you consider “basic economic theory” is woefully outdated and has never been backed by any evidence.
as for the supply and demand crap, it really just boils down to the prisoner’s dilemma,
1: A lowers prices & B lowers prices = lower profits for both
2: A lowers prices & B does not lower prices = A has medium profits, B goes broke
3: A does not lower prices & B lower prices = A goes broke, B has medium profits
4: A does not lower prices & B does not lower prices = both have high profits
and remember, the people running A and B have taken some basic courses in math and logic
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
Where that falls to shit is the assumption that “everyone works”. Only 132 million people have full time jobs in the United States for example. That’s just 40% of the population.
In reality is basic economic theory is only useful if you’re explaining economics to a child. And you should only start there - you should try to make sure they have a far more comprehensive understanding of economics before they are old enough to vote.
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
Hey, what’s your contribution to the field?
I’m interested in reading a book of yours.
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
In short yes. There have been a 1000 years of development into the formal education system. That has lead to the industrial revolution and other other countless things.
Youtube videos are great but it’s not quite the same.
Hey, what’s your contribution to the field?
Fuck all. But it doesn’t mean my knowledge of the field isn’t in the top 1% of the world.
Bro, you’re out here saying Marx was a 1000 year old pre-industrial economist… Might want to reconsider your placement in the rankings.
Did you know that the US does not have a capitalist system? In fact, it’s silly to think of “capitalism” and “socialism” as systems at all. They aren’t. They are broad systemic feature sets. You’ve probably heard the phrase “mixed economy”. That’s actually what nearly every nation has, a mixed economy, meaning that we have socialist, as well as capitalist, elements. In fact, without socialist elements, the capitalist elements of our economy would have self-destructed a long time ago. You clearly have no idea what capitalism or socialism even are. That’s fine, most people don’t, it’s pretty much the norm, but now that it’s been pointed out to you, you have a choice: learn, and grow, or be a stubborn fool. Hopefully you choose well.
Haha I have a degree in economics. That why I can see all the shit you tankies write as just plain wrong.
But I’m sure your youtube video on Karl Marx makes you an expert on these things.
People don’t use words as absolutes. America is largely referred to as a capitalist country. My saying that isn’t incorrect. But you can argue technicalities of words all you want, communism sucks or (mixed economies heavily leaning to communism sucks).
Dude, if you have a degree in econ I think your uni should lose its accreditation. I am dead serious.
a class of econ 101 does not a degree make, tho it is ironic that the economists with the most predictive power tend to not favor your view on economics
Where’s your degree from, Hillsdale? I can’t imagine it would be any serious school.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would be able to make a coherent argument, instead of announcing that you have a degree, like it’s a magic talisman, to always make you right.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you would probably know that there are people with more education than yourself who are socialists, and not believe that having a degree in economics necessarily makes one pro-capitalist.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you would almost certainly have had at least one or two socialist professors on your way to that degree.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would have learned more intellectual discipline than to call anybody who doesn’t agree with private capital a “tankie”.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably wouldn’t be so unwise as to assume you were the only one. This thinking shows a really sheltered life, like somebody who has never even been to a university, or encountered new ideas. It connects back to the “magic talisman” view I mentioned above.
Sure, language is complex, and it isn’t broadly wrong to refer to the US as a “capitalist country”, as capitalism is certainly the dominant economic power, here, but that’s intentionally dodging the point. You were the one speaking in absolutes, saying “But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.” That statement alone indicates a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, an understanding rooted in absolute systems, which in turn heavily implies a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. What do you think these words actually mean? Come on, show me what that Hillsdale degree was worth.
socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
Socialism is a very broad political movement that works extremely well in some nations.
Sure, there are also nations where it’s a total disaster… but the same is true for capitalism. Socialism should be judged by the best implementations, not the shitty ones.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn’t
Market economies don’t. Capitalism OTOH by definition has an exploitative class and that class needs a whip to enforce their status. The two have been equivocated a lot by capitalist propaganda, same as they’re equivocating free and unregulated markets (which couldn’t be further apart in reality).
And it doesn’t need to be homelessness as such, it can be many things. The actual question is one of power, whether workers have a realistic option to say “nope, not that shitty a job for that shitty a wage” and tell the bosses to shove it. Can’t exploit someone who can say “fine by me, I’ll get a table saw and start to do some carpentry”.
deleted by creator
It’s literally a capitalist solution it’s so funny.
“Money isn’t a birthright” says political faction in favor of tax-free inheritance for its filthy rich members. More at 11:00.
EDIT: weird mobile correction typo
That’s different. Those inter-generational landlords went out and earned it.
Could you do what they did? No, I didn’t think so!
It’s not easy being born to the right family, if it was easy everyone would do it and it wouldn’t pay so well! Duhhhhhh
:P
How else are you supposed to stabilize a highly-developed postindustrial economy with increasingly rare opportunities to get ahead for most of the population? Didn’t you people read your Friedrich Hayek?
How else are you supposed to stabilize a highly-developed postindustrial economy with increasingly rare opportunities to get ahead for most of the population?
glances at the command economy model
You’re not going to like the answer.
Hayek was for private money, not infinite debt to pay for UBI?
Infinite debt? You’ve never heard of paying for things with taxes?
Have you ever looked at a budget in your life?
Are you just chatting me up now? Because you’re certainly not addressing anything I said.
Are you just chatting me up now? Because you’re certainly not answering anything I asked.
IDK, he seemed pretty clear when he said that “the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he [sic] is unable to take care of himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a common risk to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.”
Social security isn’t UBI.
Sorry, what does “certain minimum income” mean in your native language?
Sorry, what does “even when he [sic] is unable to take care of himself” in your native language?
Hey, are you also referring to Negative Income Tax by Friedman?
‘Is money a birthright now?’
Only for some. Or are we outlawing inheritances as well?
Rich Republicans and their useful idiots: vampire hissing sound DEATH TAX! additional hissing
Sorry, helping the poor is too Christ-like for Republicans.
Basic Income as an obligation on the public sector would mean a smaller pool of residents with heavy obligation to private church groups and religious charities that recruit out of low income communities.
Nobody’s going to come to the Sermon On The Mount if you can get your loaves and fishes anywhere.
and did Jesus decree, be strategic with when ye help those in need, so that they turn to private churches. No I don’t think that’s in there.
On the contrary, I think he said something about wherever two or three of his faithful gather in his name, so there is his church.
I’m a Lifelong Republican and I LOVE how the Republican Party is a CHAMPION for the Working Class! Money is NOT a Birthright unless you’re already super rich and then it’s OK to suck at the Government’s Teat!
Lol I came so close to downvoting. You really need a /s in there.
Removed by mod
What is standing in the way is capitalism
Removed by mod
Depends on how you define conservatives? If you categorize the entire US political spectrum as conservatives (and economically, they are), then sure. In the prevalent usage of the term, that’s not true, because liberals are just as much a barrier because they are capitalists. The entire US political spectrum is ideologically liberal save for a few fascists on the right, and both are capitalist ideologies.
all of America is Liberal (socio-economic philosophy, not the “left” catchall) and thus they are all conservative
“ackshually”… please stop being a nerd. the problem and solution is simple. don’t over complicate it. people know wtf i’m talking about when i say conservative.
There is a neat and simple solution for every problem, and it’s always wrong
until that solution is the only thing between utopia and dystopia, where the effects of either will be felt for centuries to come. that solution then becomes a necessity. wake up.
sure thing, poindexter.
You could blame Nader and the 100k Florida Progressives who couldn’t hold their noses and punch the chad for Gore for that. And then remember it in November.
i could, maybe, but i’d rather blame jeb bush, the supreme court, and all the conservatives that voted for bush.
They all suck, but I have a special place in my heart for the 100k people who “cared so much about the environment” to vote for Nader. The final count margin was around 600 votes. Had just 2% of them realized that in no universe would Nader win and despite his flaws, Gore was better equipped for the job, the world would be a totally different place.
Is money a birthright now?
No but there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money.
The system used to be to give those things away for free to people who can’t afford them - but that’s changing. Just giving money to poor people is far easier.
there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money
This is the logical consequence of the anti-new-deal/anti-desegregation/anti-civil-rights jurisprudence that turns on capital supremacy and property rights trumping the notion that the state has an interest in protecting any other sort of right; it’s something the capital supremacy folks have always wanted but which the desegregation crowd finally joined in on when they thought they could get segregation back by backing capital’s ability to smuggle discrimination under the skirts of its property interests.
When you look at the White Flight phenomenon and correlate it to the widespread disappearance of public 3rd places, When you notice that state colleges and universities lost funding and started hiking tuition shortly after desegregation meant black and brown people could attend them, it sure looks like Americans were faced with the decision to have desegregated public wealth or no public wealth, they chose the latter
Also you free up a ton of people from bureaucratic administration jobs so they might do usefull, productive work.
How do you live in Louisiana and not realize your government hates you
Please, ban it. I dare you. When other states introduce UBI, watch people across the political spectrum leave for greener pastures.
Except for the poor, who don’t have the money to move, and who need it the most.
Yeah there’s several states I’d move to if I could move my job there and I already had guaranteed affordable housing.
Unfortunately neither of those things are ever likely to be true, certainly not at the same time. I can’t afford to move.
At which point, I wonder if the political representation would improve.
Why people are fighting the unlimited inheritance right heirs have: ‘Is money a birthright now?’
