3 of 3
3
The basic income discussion
Posted: 13 April 2017 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4211
Joined  2009-10-21
VYAZMA - 13 April 2017 01:08 PM
Advocatus - 13 April 2017 07:08 AM

No, read it more carefully.  He’s saying that “secretly inserted into the 30 people are 4 people who would loaf, complain, etc…”  In other words, he’s not saying that some people are just lazy, he’s RIGGING the “test” on his little fantasy by ASSUMING that some people are lazy.  In actual reality, most people would work if given the chance.

Ughh…where’s the smart people around here? Rig the test any way you want it!

My insertion of the “plants” still shows a basic tenet of human behavior!
End of Story!!
Don’t put the plants in there! Run the test 100 times.
You’ll still get the same result!

In actual reality, most people would work if given the chance.

Oh yeah how do you know?
Will they still want to if they are letting other people make their living for them?
I highly doubt it. I think your “most people” goes down to “a few people”.

I don’t think you thought this through very well. You didn’t even make your point. You not only asserted, you assumed we would know what you meant to assert. What exactly do you think would “happen every time”. I’ve had many jobs and I’ve seen the 80/20 rule happen at most of them. Is that what you are talking about?

And where are these “most people” who would do nothing given the chance? I know a few of them, but we call them lazy, we don’t invite them to our parties, we generally steer clear of them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2017 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2016-10-10
Advocatus - 13 April 2017 07:08 AM

  In actual reality, most people would work if given the chance.

Sometimes. There’s hella variation worldwide in attitude towards work, and it’s mostly genetic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2017 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2016-10-10
Lausten - 13 April 2017 09:22 AM
Beltane - 12 April 2017 09:14 PM

Parental sacrifices for their children are much different. That’s explained by kin selection. If you really want to break it down, even breastmilk isn’t “free” - it requires the mother be in decent health and well-hydrated - both of which cost something.

You define free in relation to what can be taken from you by force in a world where taking things by force is normal. Like in the jungle before we came down from the trees. But even then we were developing social skills of cooperation, like giving, caring, sacrificing. If not for those, our brains would not have developed to where they are now. In other words, an animal that has learned to give freely is the one that became conscious and learned to control it’s environment in ways no other animal has (that we know of). But we evolved from something more primitive, so we still have those jungle instincts in us. People like you think that’s “natural”, that the “law of the jungle” still functions appropriately in a evolved society.

Obviously there are costs. Obviously someone has to have a warm safe place for that mother and child so it can be given to them. The question is, do we decide at the species level that all mothers should have that, or do we require something from them? If we do, what are those requirements? I like to start with the absurd. We require that they don’t eat their babies, that they don’t raise them as an army, that they don’t chain them up and give them dog food, that they send them to school, vaccinate them (with exceptions), and now we’re getting to the complicated stuff.

Giving freely? Maybe once in while, in small doses, but we don’t control our environment that much. The law of the jungle applies everywhere, every time. We’re never that far removed from it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2017 04:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4211
Joined  2009-10-21
Beltane - 13 April 2017 09:55 PM

Giving freely? Maybe once in while, in small doses, but we don’t control our environment that much. The law of the jungle applies everywhere, every time. We’re never that far removed from it.

I know you think that, but you’re wrong. People who try to live that way generally get locked up or killed in war. Unfortunately they take a lot of others with them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2017 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2016-10-10
Lausten - 14 April 2017 04:24 AM
Beltane - 13 April 2017 09:55 PM

Giving freely? Maybe once in while, in small doses, but we don’t control our environment that much. The law of the jungle applies everywhere, every time. We’re never that far removed from it.

I know you think that, but you’re wrong. People who try to live that way generally get locked up or killed in war. Unfortunately they take a lot of others with them.

World history shows another story.

[ Edited: 17 April 2017 10:06 PM by Beltane ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2017 04:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4211
Joined  2009-10-21
Beltane - 17 April 2017 10:03 PM
Lausten - 14 April 2017 04:24 AM
Beltane - 13 April 2017 09:55 PM

Giving freely? Maybe once in while, in small doses, but we don’t control our environment that much. The law of the jungle applies everywhere, every time. We’re never that far removed from it.

I know you think that, but you’re wrong. People who try to live that way generally get locked up or killed in war. Unfortunately they take a lot of others with them.

World history shows another story.

Really? People who just take what they want, they do fine?

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3