If poverty were a preventable infectious disease, for which you could vaccinate by injecting people with enough public education, healthcare, and living resources to lead normal lives no matter their unlucky decisions, would you leave it to the states to decide whether they'd rather just rely on everyone's personal responsibility?

No, nothing in this poast is an accurate characterization

I mean people who have bad things happen to them get creative and raise money for necessities in all kinds of way. People raise tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by putting up a gofundme page and posting that on fb/twitter/instagram. Humanity has tons of good people who will help one another when they see someone in need. We don't need to smooth out the rough patches through government intervention. UBI, better healthcare, and better education would be plenty of contribution on the government's part.

Ok, how do we smooth out the rough patches without government intervention?

here you go again.

lol if the system wasn't legit rigged against people who need help the most, you might have a point. Like you could maybe provide for all of them with funds raised by kind-hearted souls.

but the problem is too many people are like you. too many people think that their tax dollars shouldn't go to helping the less-fortunate in society. too many people think that if you were "given a chance" (whatever that means) and blow it, well tough luck. which is hilarious because even you acknowledge that there exists a subset of the population who WERE given a chance and now face hardships due to bad luck. Like, tough break guys! Life is a poker game, sorry your Aces got sucked out on!

why would they die if you replace SS with UBI and better healthcare?

This is really dumb

What about if we used the vast land and resources we have and built up economies of scale to help save $ and make retirees lives better?

There is a **** ton of open space in desirable areas in this country. Why not build retirement meccas there for 1-2 million people. Through cheaper land costs and economies of scale you could turn these areas for retirees into what Las Vegas is for gambling. Under something like this, the cost of living for these folks and the costs to care for them could decline dramatically.

This would in turn free up tons of housing in other more productive areas for working age people. It wouldn't be for everyone, but it definitely would beat spending the last 15 years of your life eating dog food for a lot of people.

I am arguing that we don't need to. Its not our collective responsibility to do that. It is the individual's responsibility to deal with their own bad breaks in life. The government should only be responsible for providing a minimal amount of basic income, affordable access to healthcare, education, infrastructure, and other public goods. When bad things happen (or good things) the individual should feel the consequences and figure out how to proceed from there.

white guy gonna white guy

They won't. A better phrasing of your initial question would have included that. The problem is that there is a bunch of GOP voters dumb enough to elect Trump who would argue that taking away SS will not result in people dying, without the caveat of your new parts 2 and 3.

Like, I guess you are correct that the MERE fact of taking away SS won't result in deaths. Congratulations CDLbot. Demerits to you for failing to say "taking away SS won't result in deaths so long as you replace it with something else that covers all of the same needs"

I mean let's say I'm a part of a group of like minded people who wants to smooth out a rough page in society. How do I go about doing that? Give me a solution that works as well as a government program that operates at some efficiency and transparency?

some people, a lot of people, weren't born in/with the mix of behaviors and environments that allow them to like know what a gofundme account is, or have relatives they can reach out to, or take night school to get a better job because they have kids and a job a wife. stuff like the big 5 personality traits are heritable and also developed within the environment people grow up in. what happens if they lose that birth lottery?

So we don't need to smooth things out, but we do need to use things like UBI and access to health care, to smooth things out.

And your plans still allow people to feel consequences, but other people are arguing that the government should force CDLs to have the same luxuries and daily routine as recovering crack addicts.

Ok.

ummmmmmmm...I did. Like 7+ hours ago in the first few posts of this entire conversation.

but yea, I never mentioned replacing social security...

i missed the part where you said they have ubi tbh

i know there is at least one city in china like this. interesting idea. haven't thought it through much th0

you contribute to whoever you want to help directly. I'd bet you've given the homeless food or money before. You've probably donated to charities. You've probably donated clothes or food to shelters/goodwill and foodbanks. You've probably sent money to people who could use it. You've probably done something to help a stranger. Most of us with the means already do these things. That's how you go about doing it.

Direct giving or localized giving is generally more efficient than government programs. Transparency depends on multiple factors, but if you're giving in a hands on manner that will be transparent to you.

One day you're going to wake up and realize that your fiscal conservatism, or personal responsibility/freedom fetish, is just blind ideology.

Over the years we've seen you begin to accept things that help offset some of the negative effects of your ideology, as you get convinced by girlfriends that they do exist. But you're stuck not realizing that there was nothing that said your base ideology wasn't just plucked out of thin air, with some influence from indoctrination, rather than being based on Really True Truths.

So you always twist yourself into knots and offer "solutions" that are less efficient. Like UBI instead of giving a broke homeless dude medicaid and a cot inside a shelter.

ummmmmmmmm..... here's what you said 7+ hours later:

now "they'll rely on family, friend, their communities, and charity" is apparently the same as you advocating for UBI? LOL get a grip on reality bro.

Just to be clear, because you obviously need it, UBI is great. But saying that they dont need SS because of things like family, friends, communities, and charities is moronic.

Happy to clear that up for you!

Smoothing things out is fine as long as everyone gets the same thing. I don't like the idea of providing one set of people with more benefits due to certain circumstances they may face. Either give the benefit to all people equally or give it to no one. I don't like the idea of people getting more just because they had bad luck or made a bad decision.

Like if you wanted to do healthcare in a way such that you gave every American $X to spend on healthcare over their life and if they go over that max then they have to pay out of pocket and if they can't then they don't get treatment that would be fair. If I then got cancer and couldn't afford to pay then that really sucks for me and is definitely bad luck, but I knew the situation,, the idea is fair, and now am ****ed. I don't think this is a good way to do healthcare (I'd prefer that the limit be as much as you need for essential care), but it is fair.

Just provide everything equally to all and I'm ok with it. I really don't care if that is a removal of all entitlements and handouts and everyone fending for themselves with just infrastructure being provided by the government or a tax rate of 80% and all kinds of sick public goods. Either way works. Giving some people more than others, on the other hand, is not ok in my book.

we should have a book thread on "the complacent class" because it touches on this topic of safety/security vs growth/dynamism afaict from the couple podcast interviews i've listened to. tyler cowen being about the only conservative (leaning, prob more heterodox) thats intellectually honest that i can think of off the top of my head.

cdl you do inspire great debate tho

so I know I had a typo where I put "of" instead of "if," but my post really isn't that confusing. I include UBI in the explanation below so yes it is the same as me "advocating for UBI"

I bolded the relevant sentence.

Blind ideology with no rhyme or reason behind it

re: The Complacent Class

Tyler Cowen's new book, I haven't read it yet but was actually meaning to get into it sometime this week. Was even gonna ask if anyone in the poli book forum thread has read it yet.

The Great Stagnation was a great read

We definitely don't push the envelope in many fields as much as we used to and seem to be OK with the status quo.

I saw your "relevant" sentence lol. The problem is where you included it, in the same post where you suggested that taking SS away wouldn't be a big deal because people would rely on family, friends, community and charities.

Like, yes, we get it you like UBI. But your sentence literally supports the notion that you think family, friends, community and charities would (rather than COULD) make up for taking SS away. That is wrong, and you are uninformed.

Try to keep up.