UNIVERSAL. BASIC. MEMECOME.

>>2678551
>Using history as a mathematical formula to plug your political ambitions into to get a result
Now That's What I Call Bad Historiography Volume 52

File: 1491090902649.png (449KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 640x640px

HOW WILL I BUY FOOD AFTER A ROBOT TAKES MY JOB IN 2050 WITH OUT UBI

>>2678557
...That's what history is, Faggotron-2000. You determine if something is a good idea or not by comparing it to shit we did a long time ago and seeing how it worked out for those assholes.

I think it just comes down to feeding everyone and trying to cull the population little by little while the elites carve out a eco sustainable automated utopia for themselves. UBI won't come to keep the engines of capitalism going it will be enacted to prevent mass potentially civilization ending chaos in the form of food credits and Netflix subscriptions.

Okay, it's questionable whether this belongs on /his/ (yeah, yeah, I know, "& Humanities") but you understand, right, that many of your criticisms apply to the system we ALREADY HAVE?

We ALREADY have expensive social programs in place to prevent people from just fucking starving when they aren't able to make ends meet. In a lot of cases you have to jump through hoops to qualify for them (which I'm not necessarily criticizing, but it adds to the bureaucratic load) - anyway, people who REALLY DON'T WANT TO WORK are ALREADY ABLE to game the system and live off foodstamps and neetbux. And some people do.

People treat UBI as though it's this revolutionary thing but ALMOST EVERYBODY already receives some form of handout from the gov't, and the rich generally receive larger handouts in absolute though not relative terms (yes, they also pay more into the system; it's not a criticism, it's just an observation). For the poor they come in the form of foodstamps and welfare and Medicaid and scholarships and so on, for the middle class and well-off it comes in the form of tax breaks and corporate welfare and so on, and of course, there's social security for everybody.

At its core the rationale behind a UBI is just, "Okay, people who don't want to work aren't gonna work whatever we do, but most people seem to want more than a basic lifestyle and so they choose to work, so instead of the enormously complicated system we have right now we're just giving EVERYBODY a flat amount of money. Do what you want with it, it's your responsibility not to fritter it away on bullshit, and if you do, no skin off of our noses."

>>2678551
The argument over UBI is largely coming to a head because a huge number of jobs are disappearing - for whatever reason, automation, going overseas, and so on - and are simply not coming back. You could straight-up enslave the people who currently don't work and you still wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with them. You can't kill them, because ethics aside, that is a massive project that's far more likely to backfire and get your ass overthrown because people quite reasonably don't want to be shot for not having a job. You can't just let them waste away, that's what we've been doing and it's proven to be ultimately a much larger drain on the system due to emergency hospital costs, the eventual need to clean up the bodies if need be, and so on. You can't send them somewhere else, because literally nobody wants them - see the global immigration/refugee crisis.

So what do you do?

>>2678551
God, I'd never leave my room if that became a thing.

>>2678551
see also >>>/biz/

>>2678626
Euthanization. I'm not memeing and I'm not advocating for this but the possibility of statewide sterilization is a real possibility to help cull the excess population.

>>2679807
>statewide sterilization
>why do Americans cling to their guns?

>>2678568
history's taught us that is a bad approach.

>>2679915
lolwut

>>2679807
>genocide is better than UBI

Wew lad.

>>2678551
>The reasoning being it'll open up people's time to study greater things
who told you that? /pol/?

the fact is we don't agree to just let people starve in the streets. partially that's because of our sensibilities but if you mean to make some comparison to antiquity you should understand that pre-modern governments were far less powerful institutions that were happy to let the common man deal with (or not deal with) the common man's problems without taking particular interest.

the fact is organizing keeping them from dying costs money. not just the part where food, shelter, healthcare etc are provided for them but the government organizations that deal with that. in many ways it will be simpler to just hand everybody enough money that they can stay alive by themselves.

>>2680052
>Simpler
What's simpler is removing the problems that lead to unemployment, starvation, etc, that way they can survive on their own without the government interfering.

>UBI discussion coincides with reddit migration

Makes

Me

Think

>>2680130
that sounds resonable let's hear your suggestion

The Roman grain dole is sort of similar I suppose

I'll tell anyone who is for UBI this. Whatever you decide to set your standard too, I will adjust my properties rents to rise with it to maximize my profits. So unless you're willing to use the state to take that shit away from me and everyone else who owns property, you're fucked and your idea while crash. Or you'll have to install a tolitarian regime which will make everyone hate you no matter how much "money" you give them.