[Apreche]

We want to guarantee for every human on the planet the right to food, water, shelter, health care, and education. Giving everyone enough money to buy all those things themselves is one way to do it. Raising funds (taxes) and then providing those services for free is another way. It doesn’t really matter which way. What matters is that we agree on that goal and find some way to achieve it.

Right now we have a system where people must do a job, even a meaningless one, to get those things. People who are unable to do work or find work, through no fault of their own, are doomed to suffer in poverty. It’s cruel and inhumane, especially when there isn’t enough work to go around.

With our advanced technology we can sustain everyone’s lives with only a portion of the population actually doing labor. What portion, I don’t know. But we don’t expect children or the elderly to work. They are often unable, and we don’t need them to. Well, if there is a surplus in the labor supply, and there are capable adults who could work, but we don’t need them to, why put them through the indignity? Don’t force them to do a meaningless job and waste their lives. Don’t doom them to suffer and die. As long as the resources are available, let them live a decent life.

[_heimdall]

Handing out money will never make resources appear where they don't exist though. And if we want to say everyone should have access to certain resources, having money as an intermediary actually does us a diservice.

If everyone should have access to water, federalize water utilities and don't charge anyone. You will them have to deal with access rights though. How much water is enough for everyone to have access to? How do we avoid water rights issues even worse than what California has?

Defining certain resources as a fundamental right while still forcing them to operate as a free market is a risky game of chicken. If prices are still able to fluctuate in response to market supply & demand then we really aren't saying we truly believe everyone should have water, shelter, etc. A UBI is only an agreement that some amount of money is a fundamental right, nothing more.

[thunky]

> A UBI is only an agreement that some amount of money is a fundamental right, nothing more.

Conveniently, money can be used to acquire resources.

[_heimdall]

Also conveniently, when prices are partly decided by market factors the fundamental right to a resource may be impacted. If we really think everyone should be guaranteed access to water, electricity, housing, food, etc those resources would just be available and wouldn't require the market abstraction of money.

[blfr]

We want to guarantee for every human on the planet the right to food, water, shelter, health care, and education. ... What matters is that we agree on that goal and find some way to achieve it.

Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage.

Second, the value, even to the end recipient, of vast majority of education and healthcare is dubious at best. Similarly to the study on which OP is commenting, there was a famous Oregon Medicaid health experiment and the benefits of healthcare services expansion were minimal. Same for education with various headstart initiatives.

[simoncion]

> ...I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage.

That's fair and totally 1000% reasonable. However:

What if (whether through sudden injury or the accumulated injuries of aging) you become utterly unable to work, you've burned through your savings, all your family is dead, and you're an unlikable cunt [0] so those around you are supremely disinclined to provide assistance? Should you be cast out into the wilderness to starve?

What if you were born permanently unable to work and utterly unsympathetic? Should your fate be to die of exposure?

[0] I cannot stress hard enough that if you think I'm making comment about your character, please do remember that I absolutely am not. I don't know shit about you, so I cannot comment on your character. However, injury, illness, and prolonged bad periods can absolutely turn someone into an unlikable cunt... driving away a predicated-on-tolerability material-and-emotional support network just when one needs it most.

[blfr]

That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI.

[simoncion]

> That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI.

UBI is welfare.

[_heimdall]

Is it not reasonable to consider a UBI as a universal welfare program?

[sokoloff]

Yes, that’s the seemingly obviously correct way to think about it. Which is also why many people who think the sliver of population who is unable to work should be able to get welfare to avoid starving, but that the vast majority of the population who is capable of productive work should be expected to provide for their own consumption rather than have it be provided to them.

[jraph]

> I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage

You aren't, individually, but shouldn't we, collectively?

[harimau777]

Part of the problem is that if people don't have access to those things then they don't have much incentive to support the government or things like property rights.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

I wouldn’t argue that you’re responsible for anyone. I would argue more that if you value the suffering of conscious things, it is a very short logical leap to care about such in all humans, even those who you don’t directly interact with. You don’t need to feel anything about them or be responsible for them to take the alleviation of broader human suffering into account when discussing policy. Do we disagree on this?

[bheadmaster]

> Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage.

A government that governs a nation is arguably responsible for every human in it.

[_heimdall]

This is the core of so many problems in western governments today. Governments should be there to coordinate complex problems that society doesn't have a better way to handle. Governments should not be there to be a responsible parent to everyone, whether they want it or not.

[Jochim]

What do you think happens to the wealthy when the government does not ensure the majority of people are well fed and secure?

Does the mob respect property rights?

[_heimdall]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure how that ties in. What's your point here with regards to a UBI and whether a government should work for or be parent to its constituents?

[bheadmaster]

Citizens have to obey their country's laws (restriction of freedom) in exchange for government taking care of essential human needs like housing, clean water, electricity, food, and so on (obligation of the government).

If a citizen cannot get access to those needs (and remember - 5% unemployment is optimal), then why would anyone expect them to keep following their country' laws, and not steal and murder?

[blfr]

Not even remotely so in practice. Adults are largely responsible for themselves and their kids/elders. Sure, with some government assistance but true state wards are fairly rare and the system would have no chance of working if they weren't.

[bheadmaster]

> true state wards are fairly rare and the system would have no chance of working if they weren't

How so? Wouldn't that, at the very least, solve homelessness?

[Jochim]

> Honestly, I don't. First, perhaps it's small minded but I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage.

Do you expect them to respect your right to have those things? IMO, your line of thought leads to violent revolution.