Switzerland Might Pay All Citizens a 2,500 Franc Basic Income Every Month Read more: Switzerland Might Pay All Citizens a 2,500 Franc Basic Income Ev

[RavenSky]

I don't even really understand the moral argument why a bunch of lucky Swiss citizens (by luck of birth) should all be guaranteed a comfortable standard of living instead of one that may be a little bit more of a struggle where they have to earn the comfortable standard of living themselves while there are about two billion people out there who scrape by on less than $2.00 per day.

Why should they feel responsible for the failure of others. Nigeria by all accounts should be one of the richest places on earth but the opposite is true. Another issue is that in countries like India, there are impressive amounts of money floating around but this remains in the pockets of a few. Workers are paid next to nothing, so money is not circulated into the economy creating more jobs.

I don't even really understand the moral argument why a bunch of lucky Swiss citizens (by luck of birth)

I wonder if Axulus thinks we should do away with all inheritances, too?

For instance, I don't really understand the moral argument of why a bunch of lucky Walton's (by luck of birth) should inherit enough money for thousands of people to live very comfortable lives yet continue to pay workers so little those workers are forced to use government provided subsidies.

Just to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that we do away with inheritances. I'm just curious if there will be consistency on this "accident of birth" argument.

 

[untermensche]

I think it was Gore Vidal who said he never met a stupid eight year old, but by the time they are 20 many are very stupid.

Clearly, Gore Vidal hadn't met many eight year olds. I have an eight year old son and a lot of friends are really fucking stupid.

Vidal's main point was that the educational system, at least in his mind, was poison. The religious institutions have something to do with it as well.

Poison we freely feed our children because we want them to succeed in a poisoned world.

The natural inquisitiveness and open mindedness of eight year olds is lost by the time many reach 20. It's possibly just a natural part of growth, but it doesn't happen to everyone.

And from this you get closed minded ignorant reactionaries all across the spectrum.

Democrats who for some unknown reason are crazy about Hillary Clinton, or Republicans worshiping myths about Ronald Reagan.

 

[Axulus]

Why should they feel responsible for the failure of others. Nigeria by all accounts should be one of the richest places on earth but the opposite is true. Another issue is that in countries like India, there are impressive amounts of money floating around but this remains in the pockets of a few. Workers are paid next to nothing, so money is not circulated into the economy creating more jobs.

I don't even really understand the moral argument why a bunch of lucky Swiss citizens (by luck of birth)

I wonder if Axulus thinks we should do away with all inheritances, too?

For instance, I don't really understand the moral argument of why a bunch of lucky Walton's (by luck of birth) should inherit enough money for thousands of people to live very comfortable lives yet continue to pay workers so little those workers are forced to use government provided subsidies.

Just to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that we do away with inheritances. I'm just curious if there will be consistency on this "accident of birth" argument.

The consistency is that private property rights (meaning we can transfer our own property to whom we what for whatever reason we want when we want) overrides some else's personal distaste for the practice.

 

[dystopian]

I don't even really understand the moral argument why a bunch of lucky Swiss citizens (by luck of birth)

I wonder if Axulus thinks we should do away with all inheritances, too?

For instance, I don't really understand the moral argument of why a bunch of lucky Walton's (by luck of birth) should inherit enough money for thousands of people to live very comfortable lives yet continue to pay workers so little those workers are forced to use government provided subsidies.

Just to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that we do away with inheritances. I'm just curious if there will be consistency on this "accident of birth" argument.

The consistency is that private property rights (meaning we can transfer our own property to whom we what for whatever reason we want when we want) overrides some else's personal distaste for the practice.

By extension then; a nation-state must necessarily have the right to redistribute its wealth along whatever ways it sees fit, overriding your personal distaste for the manner in which they might choose to do so?

 

[Axulus]

I don't even really understand the moral argument why a bunch of lucky Swiss citizens (by luck of birth)

I wonder if Axulus thinks we should do away with all inheritances, too?

For instance, I don't really understand the moral argument of why a bunch of lucky Walton's (by luck of birth) should inherit enough money for thousands of people to live very comfortable lives yet continue to pay workers so little those workers are forced to use government provided subsidies.

Just to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that we do away with inheritances. I'm just curious if there will be consistency on this "accident of birth" argument.

The consistency is that private property rights (meaning we can transfer our own property to whom we what for whatever reason we want when we want) overrides some else's personal distaste for the practice.

By extension then; a nation-state must necessarily have the right to redistribute its wealth along whatever ways it sees fit, overriding your personal distaste for the manner in which they might choose to do so?

This is an argument about whether this particular way is fit, not an argument on whether it has the right.

 

[dystopian]

I don't even really understand the moral argument why a bunch of lucky Swiss citizens (by luck of birth)

I wonder if Axulus thinks we should do away with all inheritances, too?

For instance, I don't really understand the moral argument of why a bunch of lucky Walton's (by luck of birth) should inherit enough money for thousands of people to live very comfortable lives yet continue to pay workers so little those workers are forced to use government provided subsidies.

Just to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that we do away with inheritances. I'm just curious if there will be consistency on this "accident of birth" argument.

The consistency is that private property rights (meaning we can transfer our own property to whom we what for whatever reason we want when we want) overrides some else's personal distaste for the practice.

By extension then; a nation-state must necessarily have the right to redistribute its wealth along whatever ways it sees fit, overriding your personal distaste for the manner in which they might choose to do so?

This is an argument about whether this particular way is fit, not an argument on whether it has the right.

Then why bring up the question of morality to begin with?

 

[Axulus]

I don't even really understand the moral argument why a bunch of lucky Swiss citizens (by luck of birth)

I wonder if Axulus thinks we should do away with all inheritances, too?

For instance, I don't really understand the moral argument of why a bunch of lucky Walton's (by luck of birth) should inherit enough money for thousands of people to live very comfortable lives yet continue to pay workers so little those workers are forced to use government provided subsidies.

Just to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that we do away with inheritances. I'm just curious if there will be consistency on this "accident of birth" argument.

The consistency is that private property rights (meaning we can transfer our own property to whom we what for whatever reason we want when we want) overrides some else's personal distaste for the practice.

By extension then; a nation-state must necessarily have the right to redistribute its wealth along whatever ways it sees fit, overriding your personal distaste for the manner in which they might choose to do so?

This is an argument about whether this particular way is fit, not an argument on whether it has the right.

Then why bring up the question of morality to begin with?

I do not think we should do away with inheritances, even if that means that sometimes rich kids get a large trust fund they didn't earn. Similarly, I do not think we should do away with democracy, even if that means sometimes people vote to implement a 2,500 franc guaranteed universal income.

Voting to implement a 2,500 franc guaranteed monthly income does not seem like a particularly moral thing to do given the billions living on less than $2.00 per day. It is similar to the idea that giving a rich kid tens of millions of dollars is not a particularly moral thing to do.

Where is the inconsistency? Why not bring up the moral argument?

 

[dystopian]

Voting to implement a 2,500 does not seem like a particularly moral thing to do given the billions living on less than $2.00 per day. It is similar to the idea that giving a rich kid tens of millions of dollars is not a particularly moral thing to do.

Where is the inconsistency? Why not bring up the moral argument?

So wait, it's okay for you to make a moral argument *against* something you don't approve of...

...but it's not okay for someone else to make a moral argument *for* it because in your own words the argument isn't whether it has the right (which is a moral argument) but whether it makes sense?

How the hell does that work?

 

[Axulus]

Voting to implement a 2,500 does not seem like a particularly moral thing to do given the billions living on less than $2.00 per day. It is similar to the idea that giving a rich kid tens of millions of dollars is not a particularly moral thing to do.

Where is the inconsistency? Why not bring up the moral argument?

So wait, it's okay for you to make a moral argument *against* something you don't approve of...

...but it's not okay for someone else to make a moral argument *for* it because in your own words the argument isn't whether it has the right (which is a moral argument) but whether it makes sense?

How the hell does that work?

What in the flying fuck are you talking about? Where did I say someone else can not make a moral argument in favor of the 2,500 franc guaranteed income? In fact, that is _exactly_ the type of argument I was trying to engage people in.

 

[dystopian]

So wait, it's okay for you to make a moral argument *against* something you don't approve of...

...but it's not okay for someone else to make a moral argument *for* it because in your own words the argument isn't whether it has the right (which is a moral argument) but whether it makes sense?

How the hell does that work?

What in the flying fuck are you talking about? Where did I say someone else can not make a moral argument in favor of the 2,500 franc guaranteed income? In fact, that is _exactly_ the type of argument I was trying to engage people in.

But is that not exactly the argument I provided when I pointed out a state has the moral right to redistribute its wealth along any lines its populace chooses?

 

[Axulus]

What in the flying fuck are you talking about? Where did I say someone else can not make a moral argument in favor of the 2,500 franc guaranteed income? In fact, that is _exactly_ the type of argument I was trying to engage people in.

But is that not exactly the argument I provided when I pointed out a state has the moral right to redistribute its wealth along any lines its populace chooses?

Where did I ever claim it didn't have such a right? I'm trying to discuss whether it is a good idea and/or a moral thing in and of itself to do the level of redistribution being proposed in the manner being proposed.

 

[ksen]

Voting to implement a 2,500 franc guaranteed monthly income does not seem like a particularly moral thing to do given the billions living on less than $2.00 per day. It is similar to the idea that giving a rich kid tens of millions of dollars is not a particularly moral thing to do.

Where is the inconsistency? Why not bring up the moral argument?

Since when has your side ever been worried about morality when it comes to income/wealth inequality? Unless it's about how immoral it is for the State steal money from the hard working rich in order to give it to the lazy poor?

 

[dystopian]

But is that not exactly the argument I provided when I pointed out a state has the moral right to redistribute its wealth along any lines its populace chooses?

Where did I ever claim it didn't have such a right? I'm trying to discuss whether it is a good idea and/or a moral thing in and of itself to do the level of redistribution being proposed in the manner being proposed.

My bad. I was under the impression you rejected the argument on the basis that we weren't talking about moral rights.

Moving on. In terms of the morality of universal basic income in Switzerland; it is actually irrelevant whether or not it's fair that people in Switzerland could get a guaranteed income simply by virtue of their birth while people in Zimbabwe or anywhere else can't. Switzerland does not have the ability to provide a guaranteed income for the entire planet. Even if it did, it's not within its jurisdiction to do so. What it does have the ability and jurisdiction to do, is provide a basic income for its own citizens. If one is concerned, morally, with the fairness of Zimbabwans not getting guaranteed income when Swiss citizens do; then one clearly considers an equal distribution of wealth to be the moral option. At which point it doesn't really matter how large you make the population within which the wealth is equally distributed. Certainly, ideally one might want equal distribution globally. However, the morality of equal distribution doesn't change if you make the population group within which to apply it smaller. Since global equality of wealth is not on the table, then surely national equality of wealth is the moral option.

 

[KeepTalking]

At current exchange rate, 2,500 Swiss Franc = ~$2,650 USD

This is $31,800/year, which is equal to 37.4% of GDP

Wow, that is one low GDP for such a well-to-do country. It would appear that my household income is roughly equivalent to the GDP of Switzerland, I should open a bank, or something.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I'm trying to discuss whether it is a good idea and/or a moral thing in and of itself to do the level of redistribution being proposed in the manner being proposed.

It's going to come down to the society to which it is being applied. I can't comment on Switzerland's needs, but I'd say the line of thinking would be right for where I live. Most Canadian families earn income primarily from working, and many families rely on dual income to meet their needs. In some cases that means cost of living, some luxuries and savings for the future, but sadly for many it means cost of living, and a slightly dodgy amount of debt.

The problem is the actual need for workers seems to being levelling off or going down, while the need for employment climbs. Rather than having a demand for Canadian workers at Canadian wages, it becomes a matter of politics to generate jobs which have questionable value. Given the resources we have at our disposal, our level of industrialization, and our small population, it may actually be better to pay to have some of the population to not work. If everyone has a base salary to cover their fundamental needs, those who want more can try to earn more by starting businesses or working for others.

I don't know if a universal basic income would actually work in practice, especially where Switzerland is concerned, but I don't think there is a moral problem with it. If you require families to work for a living, but there isn't enough meaningful labour to be done, you just end up generating work for the sake of work with questionable productive value.