What do you mean by blind ideology?

Also what are "Really True Truths?" I've never heard this phrase before.

On efficiency, my goal isn't to improve the homeless guy's life. My goal is to give him the means to improve his life. If he improves it or not is left up to him. I agree that UBI is not necessarily an efficient solution to improve everyone's life, but I do think that it has the highest ceiling when used efficiently. If people don't use it efficiently then that's on them and like I've said before I think people should bear the burden of their mistakes and bad luck and reap the gains of their good decisions and good luck.

Ok but that's what we do now, and it's clearly not enough. What's the next step to eliminate even more rough patches?

You are seriously saying it's not fair to give a broke homeless dude a cot, if YOU don't also get the cost of also get cot deposited in your bank account.

Listen to yourself.

You don't seem to get that ultimately, somewhere up at the top, someone is footing the bill for you to feel like you weren't cheated by the homeless. It's not possible for "everyone to get the same dollar amount of benefit." You're fixated on "it all being equal" while saying you can't get with "it all being equal." Relax. It's an impossibility.

What can be equal is that everyone can know they get a cot if all else fails in their life. And that would be orders of magnitude more efficient and less costly to the successful than the fever dreams of impossible "fairness" you keep chasing. You're making things MORE unfair with your bull****.

When you're in a fistfight against The Terminator you don't think oh HEART and SOUL will somehow save me. You build a bazooka or try to steer it into a volcano or something. It's not like CDL hasn't been socked in the face before, all the programs are still perfectly operational.

I don't think that is the government's responsibility. I think the government should provide enough basic income and public goods (including affordable access to healthcare) such that everyone could live a life where they fulfill their basic needs provided they make reasonable decisions and have neutral luck. I wouldn't be so harsh with the economic concessions that doing something like having a minor fender bender once a decade or going out to Outback Steakhouse once every 3 months is going to be the breaking point either.

Beyond that, I believe that you should ride the waves of luck and decision making in both directions.

I'm not saying government. How do a large group of people make this happen collectively?

Ok, I think I see where there is a misunderstanding. I want the benefits to be of the same MAGNITUDE (in actual dollars or goods and services), but the payments into the system should be of the same PROPORTION. So if we have a UBI of $20k and a tax rate of 40% then people making $0 get a NET dollar benefit of $20k, people making $50k get no net benefit, and people making $100k pay a net debit of $20k.

So yea, everyone gets the exact same cot (or rather the $ to buy a cot), but the people who have found themselves in a position to be more fortunate (whether though skill or luck) end up paying for this. However, if something turns for them they still get the same exact benefits.

by making individual contributions of time, money, and expertise.

Or you know, we could just get political, change public opinion and do it through government. That's ok, right?

It's not even going to be GIVEN efficiently. It's hilarious that you jump to USED efficiently.

Everyone thinks people should bear the burden of their mistakes and bad luck and reap the gains of their good decisions and good luck.

If a homeless guy improves his life beyond the government bed and Medicaid is up to him.

It's a drain on society and the economy to just leave him homeless, and it's harder for him to climb out of homelessness, too. Everyone knowing they can count on this assistance if their luck and decisions lead them to homelessness IS the fairness you seek, or as close to it as one can get. You're ****ing it up and making it more unfair, AT THE COST OF TRILLIONS, because you're starting with ideological assumptions and presumptions and premises instead of reality.

what he says regarding complacency and safety really resonates with me, in the way he frames it. an original and interesting thinker if nothing else. he also acknowledges that a "dynamic" non-complacent america sucks for most people. i'll be reading it shortly as well.

I am actually surprised by this. Like I just...can't.

It seems perfectly in line to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CDL, I do kinda see that about not everyone getting a check for $20k, but it's still not the same to one person as it is to another, depending on location, etc. And it's still wildly inefficient.

Like right now, we don't have enough beds for homeless people. I guess even if Joe Homeless is having his entire 20k garnished, there's gonna be charity beds freed up by people spending their UBI on paid beds. But it's so much more efficient to just give the bed than have someone running the bed dorm for profit, and having the junkie indebted guy have to finance his bed, or whatever

Also, I guess you could be the exception because you are just... so... exceptional... but everyone I've ever talked to in the past like this where their dream is to eliminate and replace, really it's just cover for eliminating. And I mean you said you're fine with nothing as long as everybody gets nothing.

Which is hilarious because all those people out on the streets WOULD cost you something. They cost you right now but you're talking about multiplying it.

Usage of a cot, not even talking about giving them the bed to take home, not even talking about getting their own 4 walls, sharing giant rooms with others, you're against that, if you aren't getting the cash value of it when you don't use it?

FWIW - my Dad has lived simply his whole live and shunned most material things. His rent is like $400/month. He's a poet - but as that obviously doesn't pay the bills he has worked **** jobs until just recently retiring for good at age 77. Social Security is an absolute godsend for him. I'd be supporting him w/o it. I may still have to support him at some point. But SS sure takes the edge off.

Something to keep in mind. It's not just for the olds themselves.

Imagine a world without medicare or SS where you'd have to support your parents after a financial disaster, or have to sell your house so your Mom could have life-saving surgery. It's so backward that we're even talking about this in a 1st world country.

FYP

The market obviously demanded fewer poets and you are ****ing with that

Incentivizes his mom to not piss him off

Well played. Says it all in 1000 less words.

CDL, are you pissed that someone with a more expensive disease gets more money from Medicare or Medicaid?

This **** right here is why I can't quit 2p2. I will be giggling to myself for weeks.

That was a super bizarre Clark post. I'm still trying to figure that one out

You have got to be absolutely ****ting me.

I think it's kind of one of those things where people aren't dying in the streets NOW (due to social security, Medicare, etc) so people assume that this is the default social condition. Kind of like how antivaxxers don't see people dying of polio, so they conclude that the polio vaccine is not only not necessary, but actually harmful. You can take that road as far as your imagination lets you.