I've been an engineer for 32 years. There are no "right" decisions. There are only different sets of trade-offs. Every engineering decision that
goes into a product produces a different set of pluses and minuses as a result.
The same thing is true with politics. This is what I believe our founding fathers meant by "a more perfect Union". Every law passed helps some
people but hurts others. No law ever passed is perfect. There are laws that enslave men and there are laws that set men free. No law is without a
set of trade-offs and different set of unintended consequences. Not having a law can also have its own set of trade-offs and unintended
With this in mind I think having a UBI is a good idea. UBI would create more commerce and more culture. I think ultimately, our goal as a people
should be to develop and create a more interesting culture. Culture is what makes life worth living. For example, the Olympics serve absolutely no
real purpose for humanity. But people spend huge amounts of money and time attending the Olympics because they are interesting and fun. I think
having a UBI would help create more interesting culture. People would have enough money to train for the Olympics.
I don't think our goal as a people should be to win the game of monopoly by forcing everyone else into poverty. I think the goal of our people should
be more like the game "Settlers of Catan". In the game Settlers of Catan the way the game is won is by which team has the built up the most
resources. Resources are built through trade with other teams.
Monopoly is a a zero-sum game is when one "player" gains something at the expense of another "player" losing something. You win the game at the
expense of the other players. As such, a non-zero-sum game, like Settlers of Catan, is when gains and losses can be made by all "players" without it
affecting anyone else.
Here's a video about poverty and why culture should be our primary goal. If you watch the video he makes a very good argument against rugged
individualism and monopoly control. It's only 20 minutes long but I bet most of you are too pig headed to give it a go. But hopefully, some of you
are open minded:
Hans Rosling New Insights on poverty
I don't have a problem with having a UBI if it means a better standard of living for a larger number of people. Meaning in one's life can come from
culture. It doesn't have to solely come from self-reliance or being the CEO of fortune 500 corporation. I don't see why we can't have the best of
both worlds coexisting. Why can't we have UBI and still have CEOs making more money than they will ever spend in 200 lifetimes.
Having UBI would give us a more interesting culture. I think this key benefit would outweigh any negative trade-offs. CEOs can still laud
ostentatious wealth over everyone else just like before UBI. If you want to be a CEO and a self-made man you still have to work just as hard for it.
People with power and privilege will have the same power and privilege with UBI. But not everyone has to become an international bankster to have
enough disposable income to pursue the arts. More people would have the resources to train to participate in the Olympics!
If people have UBI all it will mean is CEOs and shareholders will rake in more money. And the money people do have will be worth more because it will
buy more. The value of money does not have to be a zero-sum game. As such, this can be a "win-win" situation, where all "players" can gain something
without anyone losing something. I think having a UBI would be a win-win for all the players including the CEOs and shareholders.
edit on 24-9-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)