Don't you think it's about time we removed all the unnessecary independent voices from media so we can stop confusing people? The Russians and Chinese are doing it; we need to catch up - we've got to have unity in our messages. /Sarcasm
The Saudis are locked in golden handcuffs. We provide them lavish lifestyles, they provide us irreplaceable energy resources. When the oil is gone those people go back to living in the dark ages.
RT and Sputnik are weapons of information warfare. It would be rational for USA's society and government to end their toleration of Russian media in domestic space. The only legitimate reason for Russia to have US news media arms is to show public discord and private confusion. I don't know why this even needs to be discussed. There exist some foriegn nation's who's objectives and values align with the US, but Russia is not one of them.
Letting people make mistakes is important. Letting people be altruistic is important.
More specifically: I'm 0% worried about sending money overseas, since I expect that the few people who do so that will be making the world a better place on net.
The problem with UBI is that it doesn't promote social behavior. In fact it promotes anti-social behavior, since a UBI recipient need not provide any value to his community as a condition of this benefit.
> a UBI recipient need not provide any value to his community as a condition of this benefit
A person working for a paycheck doesn't provide value to a community, only to their employer. Chronic unemployment, however, does harm a community. The explicit physical need for food, shelter and access to medical care outweighs the implicit value in the dignity of labor.
> Charity is not a legitimate role for government.
Don't consider it charity, then, consider it insurance, or just another public service like the police or fire department.
Police, insurance, and fire department are paid services to protect property. UBI is a scheme intended to increase consumption, that is, destroy property.
10 people make widgets. Annual production is 10 widgets. Mean annual standard of living is 1 widget.
9 people make widgets, 1 person is on UBI. Annual production is 9 widgets. Mean annual standard of living is 0.9 widgets.
In the second example one widget was destroyed, and everyone was affected.
We are all counting on one another to to create value. At my business, in my community, and our country as a whole, I'm counting on you to take a job and work, because if you don't we will both have a lower standard of living.
That example seems so contrived that it's difficult for me to see it representing reality in a meaningful way. It may be too simple to be useful.
In reality, that tenth widget still gets produced. They hire someone else to replace the "UBI recipient" or else run the production line slightly faster so nine people make ten widgets, or else automate and fire all ten employees, and make twenty widgets a year. Nothing in a real economy is that zero-sum. Value which only exists in potentia and which may as well be created by other means cannot reasonably be said to be "destroyed." Something which never existed can't be destroyed.
UBI just decouples a person's ability to work with their ability to live at a subsistence level, it doesn't prevent them from working.
Making desperate people less desperate can be pro-social. UBI could drive down the crime rate.
Also you're assuming all paid jobs are pro-social. Is coal mining? Advertising? SEO for MLM firms? Lobbying for kleptocratic foreign governments? Some of these may have some positive effects but may be net negative in their effect on society.
Finally, I disagree that charity isn't a legitimate role for government. Since neither of us is the arbiter of government legitimacy I think we can agree to disagree here.
That's funny. The proponents of UBI would say that it in fact is the key to maximizing productive social behaviour.
Of course, it's a matter of worldviews. You might think innate human behaviour is laziness and only forceful contracts can get productivity out of them. I can certainly see evidence of that, but I don't think it's innate for everyone. I think many people would be eager for a sense of belonging and purpose that could only come from contributing to society.
Think about all the people that help out in times of crisis without 'reward'. That's also innate. Whether it's the majority, I think that's a matter of culture.
If you define the primary relationship people have to each other in society with forceful contracts, then yes, you might engender also a subculture of rebellion and banditry that results in laziness and exploitation. What if we defined it differently?
Having lived around people all my life, I will tell you that if you give someone something free, it is rare that they give more of themselves to their community.
I will not remind you that utopian experiments are not new.
> Charity is not a legitimate role for government.
Charity is the raison d'être of government. A government is there to run your society. That means doing things for people, even if it's just printing passports and employing a police department.
If those things aren't charity, then let the red states relinquish the extra money they get from the blue states (+ texas), and see what happens to their police and other government services.
I am playing a little fast and loose with the definition of charity, yes, but so is the OP. "Charity" isn't "free money for you to play with" (that's "philanthropy"), it's "giving help to those who need help". Governments in the developed world have significant welfare costs, so it is just plain wrong that charity isn't the role of government.
In Germany 14 of 80 million people are doing some form of unpaid community service [1], often while also working fulltime. I think that proves that there is a lot of will to better the world around you, even without getting paid.
I agree with parent, it is foolish to take your pregnant wife on a trip through a warzone. The children suffered for a decision they were not old enough to make.
