/townhall/ - Townhall

>>9786
I'm for some kind of universal basic income.
>plenty clearly wrong with the past system of just paying people not to work
but the unemployment benefits were just for some, temporary, and as you say, created a moral hazard.

What shall be done seems to me to depend on the options people generally have in the area.  My area seems to have jobs, other areas may not.

Well, what shall be done has already been answered, unfortunately.  It's nothing.  We're doing nothing and we're going to see what happens.  The hope from many people are that without these benefits people will seek jobs rather than coasting on unemployment benefits, but I have to this point seen no data that this is what happens when you remove people's benefits.

What should be done?  Probably a UBI.  A measure that keeps people from falling into poverty, unable to contribute to the economy in any way at all, that also sticks around if people seek jobs.  A benefit they don't lose for joining the workforce.

>>9788
>>9789
Ideally, we'd have a disproportionate kind of reward for working a reliable job that could sort of also provide universal basic income type services.

For example, everybody who starts a job and sticks with it past, say, four weeks could get a solid year of monthly bonus checks from the government. Something like a full $6,000 per person. Or more. Not only would it stimulate spending and investment, but it would boost employment and thus business growth. Maybe.

The jobless-benefits program was a mistake. I will even say that it was unethical in that it was, in effect, an extremely high income tax.  As others have said, the proper solution would have been (and still is) universal basic income (UBI).

I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment placing a cap on marginal income tax rate and counting lost benefits as part of the tax burden.

>>9788
>>9789
>>9793
Is a UBI really even ever feasible in a hardcore right-wing, uber-capitalist, super-materialistic, and ultra-consumerist country such the U.S.? This nation's populace doesn't even totally agree with the idea of publicly funded anti-weather-disaster infrastructure, with victims of hurricanes, fires, floods, et cetera being told to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." Not to mention that even bare-bones public health efforts like mass vaccinations are described as a "socialist plot".

It kind of sounds like trying to impose public gay pride parades in Saudi Arabia.

Or, to be honest, trying to set up a nude beach in the Arctic.

That's not to say that a UBI is or isn't a reasonable idea, but intellectually and morally people don't seem to be anywhere near evolved enough to consider it yet... I'm picturing taking a time machine back to 0 AD and trying to explain to a Roman legionnaire with a screaming, crying maiden on his back why he should consider women's rights a valid subject of discussion.

Yes, I'm being way too cynical, but I'm kind of frustrated with UBI related discussions since they tend to dance around the fact that 1/2 of Americans would accept a UBI over their dead bodies... an elephant in the room that should be often noted.

>>9797
Alaska has a mini-UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

I agree that marketing UBI to the population (especially Republicans) is a challenge.  Some ideas:
- Bundle UBI with some kind of mandatory small amount of military/national service.
- Fund UBI via a tax on automation of jobs.  (Although the logistics of this will likely be a clusterfuck.)

>>9800
Neither of those would solve the essential problem, though:

If I'm your standard Republican, somebody who looks at the general populace and sees a bunch of lazy, decadent sinners wallowing in filth that're all off listening to disgusting music while having sickening, corrupt sex under the influence of nasty drugs instead of cleaning themselves up and working hard at good-paying jobs like the Lord intended, what could possibly make me want to have my hard-earned money snatched out of my wallet and handed off to that rabble of vermin?

It's bad enough that my Trump got swindled from his office without wiping off all of this foul-smelling slime from the amazing edifice of marble truth that was virtuous American Christian civilization... bad enough that the deep state and crooked media took him out and set up this puppet regime... but now I've got to fund these foaming-at-the-mouth rat-like swarms as they beg me to pay for their avocado toast, weed vapes, and nipple piercings?

NO THANKS!

I mean... Joe Conservative looks at somebody like me and dreams of me being smited into ash in a bolt of heavenly lightning, what on Earth makes me think I can bum a few bucks off of him?

>>9801
I dunnno, I think it might be palatable to Republicans if UBI is marketed as pecuniary compensation for mandatory militia service.  Especially if it comes with mandatory gun ownership.  (I guess an alternative, low-status national service would be provided for Prohibited Persons.)  Although then you might have the opposite problem: Republicans supporting the bill while Democrats oppose it.

>>9802
Nah. Would Republicans really want mass numbers of marginalized communities hostile to them to be not just well-armed but well-trained? Sounds like suicide to me. If anything, as a Republican now I'd want to ensure the big advantage that we have the civilian guns as well as the tight cultural connection to the military stays an advantage. As a Republican, the last thing in the world I'd want would be a bunch of inferior riffraff I can't wait for Jesus to bring to Hell that I've got bothering me suddenly becoming angrier and packing.

>>9802
Not to mention that mandatory national service that's not involving killing n' guns as a core concept, which would probably practically be used for things such as helping communities hit by natural disasters as well as rebuilding infrastructure, sounds like socialism to my good Christian ears.

>>9798

If we relied on only doing things we could get Republicans to agree with, then...we get what we're currently doing.  If the question is "What should we do better?" the answer is not anything that Republicans are going to agree with.

>>9806
True!

Sure. Am just being a bit negative for the sake of being negative, probably.

I'd like to see a set of multiple vouchers for differing services organized on a monthly basis, sort of like a negative income tax, to ensure universal basic earnings, personally.

The Republicans will condemn my soul to the bad place for saying that. Whatever. Hail Satan.

>>9803
>Would Republicans really want mass numbers of marginalized communities hostile to them to be not just well-armed but well-trained? Sounds like suicide to me.
A lot of Republicans don't really think consequentially like that.  E.g., a lot of Republican attitudes on sex, birth control, and abortion make sense only viewed from a deontological lens.  

And anyway, I'd guess that they'd see militia service as a way to instill patriotism and other Republican values in the citizenry.  As well as "own the libs" on gun control.

I'm not entirely sure how popular mandatory militia service would be among Republicans, but I'm pretty sure that more Republicans would favor it than Democrats.  And I'm pretty sure that recasting UBI as payment for militia service would make it a lot more palatable to Republicans.

>>9808
Isn't there a reasonable counter-argument that civilian gun possession is already a thing right now, and conservatives are doing their best to make sure that general society is as hostile to minorities with guns as possible?

Case in point: the absolute huddling around law enforcement when it comes to nervous cops who overreact violently when exposed to 2nd amendment exercising black men.

If conservatives believed "everybody should be able to have guns if they so choose", then it'd be one thing, but they sure as hell don't. It's "people that I like should have guns if they so choose".

>>9808
Also, doesn't milita service install collectivist, civic minded patriotic ideals that are counter to nationalistic Republican thinking?

If I'm part of a band of brothers of different races, religions, sexual orientations, and so on all united together based on a common idealistic focus, wouldn't that make me LESS likely to be sympathetic to Republican core doctrines about the supremacy of certain social groups over others?

To be blunt, if a dark-skinned Muslim medic saves my life, I'm probably going to be for the rest of my days unsympathetic to conservative claims that neighbors of a certain hue moving to my area destroys properly values and causes crime. Same for conservative claims that I've got to ensure that certain religious get put on government databases and have their free movements strictly monitored. And if a transgender person is responsible for my advancement and success in the milita, well, I'm not going to agree much with how conservatives claim them to be, as a recent popular Republican news-magazine put it, "Monsters Mutiliating Children". I'm very likely also not going to be sympathetic to claims that disabled individuals are "welfare cockroaches" and "parasites" leeching out taxpayer dollars if I've got best friends with struggles of their own whom I emphasize with.

>>9809
>Case in point: the absolute huddling around law enforcement when it comes to nervous cops who overreact violently when exposed to 2nd amendment exercising black men.
While it's true that the NRA was tardy in condemning the shooting of Philando Castile, eventually they did call it “a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided.”

>Isn't there a reasonable counter-argument that civilian gun possession is already a thing right now
California currently bans AR-15s.

>and conservatives are doing their best to make sure that general society is as hostile to minorities with guns as possible?
I don't think so?  Most conservative-leaning people I've talked to would be happy at an increase in responsible gun ownership among minorities.  (Although I guess my sample might not be representative.)

>>9810
>Also, doesn't milita service install collectivist, civic minded patriotic ideals
Hmm, I guess nationalism might be one area where Republicans aren't really opposed to collectivism.

>that are counter to nationalistic Republican thinking?
Huh?  Seems to me that national militia service would promote nationalist (as opposed to globalist) thinking.

>To be blunt, if a dark-skinned Muslim medic saves my life, I'm probably going to be for the rest of my days unsympathetic to conservative claims that neighbors of a certain hue moving to my area destroys properly values and causes crime. ... And if a transgender person is responsible for my advancement and success in the milita, well, I'm not going to agree much with how conservatives claim them to be, as a recent popular Republican news-magazine put it, "Monsters Mutiliating Children".
Yes, I agree that that those would be likely outcomes.  But I have a feeling that such thoughts won't the enter of minds of people opposed to Muslim immigration or transgender rights.

>>9811
At a certain common sense level, really, I mean... why would the exact same conservative who calls me and people like to me to my face "Monsters Mutilating Children" while speculating about how much better America would be if we were all dead want me me to be armed?

If wolves could talk, and then developed science and civilization, would you think that they'd want rabbits to have guns?

>>9811
>Seems to me that national militia service would promote nationalist (as opposed to globalist) thinking

Didn't the WWII experience provide the exact opposite?

"Globalism", as defined as opposition to prejudice against individuals for being born different and belief in a united front of equality among everybody in a certain nation-state, got a gigantic boost from the fact that Jews, black people, Catholics, Hispanics, and other minorities all fought and died together for a big, great cause.

The globalists won. The GIs came home and demanded an end to 'White's Only' lunch counters. It was a matter of principle. If you bled on Ohama beach, the least your countrymen owed you was a decent cup of coffee.

"Nationalism", as defined by the belief that a certain group born a specific way has superior qualities compared to other groups and thus must dominate a given nation-state at the expense of both other residents and neighbors, got associated (rightly) with Nazism and fascism. It's faded a great deal over the years. Justifably.

It's hard to argue that you need your own lunch counter for being born better when you didn't actually 'do' anything to merit such a special snowflake status.

I kind of want to spotlight this specific blog article as a great example: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/leftist-anti-fascist-groups-are-arming-up-and-carrying-guns-to-provide-security-and-defend-themselves/

In theory, you'd except the gun owners to be happy about hearing about minorities deciding to take up their 2nd amendment rights... maybe? Well, no. Almost every single comment to a T is about how evil minorities are for daring to arm themselves and how only certain people deserve guns.

This is a telling thing.

>>9812
I think the reasoning might go something like:
- Citizens have a duty to contribute to the defense of their country.
- A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free country.
- All citizens should be required to participate in militia service.

>>9813
I think we're using the words "nationalism" and "globalism" in different senses.  I'm using the words in the following senses:
- Globalism: the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.  (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/globalism)
- Nationalism: identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. (https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Anationalism)

As I'm using the words, "nationalism" includes protective tariffs, but racial discrimination against fellow citizens is unrelated to the nationalism/globalism divide.

>>9814
In the comments sections, I see:
>Regardless of their circumstances, as long as they’re law-abiding citizens, it’s a victory for Second Amendment advocates.
>
>I don’t care who you are or what you do, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon my rights.
And nobody there really disagrees with that claim -- they only dispute whether the group is actually law-abiding and whether it intends to infringe other people's rights.

>how evil minorities are for daring to arm themselves
>and how only certain people deserve guns.
I see lots of rhetoric against various minorities, but nothing specifically in regards to responsible gun ownership.  When guns are discussed specifically, it is only in regard to anticipated misuse of guns.

>>9815
To be honest, I'm kind of exasperated with your detachment from reality.

Why would the same conservatives who literally deny me and people like me the sense of being HUMAN with human rights in the first place, let enough being a "citizen" in the specific sense, somehow hold an exception to gun rights when every other right (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, et cetera) doesn't apply?

I'm not a person. I don't deserve to have the Constitution apply to me. I'm a sinner. A wretch. A freak. A mouse. A rabbit. A sheep. A prey mammal who only exists to feed predators.

This honestly feels like trolling to me. Why should predators let prey have guns? When we literally would want guns in the first place to defend ourselves against predators? Really?

>>9817
>Why would the same conservatives who literally deny me and people like me the sense of being HUMAN with human rights in the first place, let enough being a "citizen" in the specific sense, ...
You might as well ask why Texas is reducing restrictions on guns even though it means that people like you can get guns more easily.  The answer is the same: Even though some fraction of Republicans would deny citizenship rights to people like you if they had the political power to do so, the reality is that they don't have that political power and they know it.  Given a choice to enact mandatory militia service for all citizens (including people like you) or to do nothing, I think there is a reasonable chance that they would support the militia bill.  The possibility to exclude various outgroup minorities from citizenship is an orthogonal issue that realistically isn't even on the table.

>>9818
I mean Texas Republicans have already been trying their best to force hurting minorities through the legislature, they've just been stalled at some points (such as their rapid anti-LGBT measures) due to extreme backlash by non-Republicans. If Republicans ever got their way completely (which, to be clear, could happen at any moment given political winds changing), then Texas would be North Korea on the Gulf Coast as far as human rights goes.

And efforts right now to expand gun access for some don't apply to minorities, as I've pointed out. The winks and nods about who's allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights and who's not allowed de facto are clear no matter what de jure laws say. Conservatives do their hardest to make sure that gun culture in all of its forms is dangerous territory, whether in terms of membership associations such as the NRA to clubs at local gun ranges to communities on firearms related blogs and so on... they're generally hostile to minorities who want to break into anti-minority pro-gun "safe spaces".

I, for one, am a Texan minority who doesn't own firearms because in part I know that they're not meant for me and that I'll never be accepted as a valid human being by your standard gun owner, most of whom (as one prominent conservative news-magazine aptly put it) fear the "Monsters Mutilating Children". The reason why they've got guns in the first place is in order to act against people like me. I'm the one that the paper target represents at the standard gun range.

I'm also wondering why you're denying that preventing minorities from being considered full citizens with full rights is something realistically possible. It sure is. Especially when conservatives have been hellbent on that during the four years of a Trump Presidency and have had a lot of success. The next conservative President will likely be even more of a government-worshipping statist than Trump. America's already teetering on the edge of conservatives winning and turning everything into a fascist dictatorship, why would they stop now?

>>9786

The solution isn't to make benefits less beneficial, it's to make jobs more worth going to. You let wages stagnate for decades, slowly crumble union power, and chip away at benefits over time enough, and wages end up barely covering cost of living. That's where we're at now. Maybe companies could get more workers if they'd actually pay them more than what we've determined is the  bare minimum to survive.