Liberty/Freedom

Post Reply New Topic

So many people like to talk about "liberty". These very same ideals and fine words about "liberty" are used to enslave people - wage slavery. If you don't work, you don't get food, shelter nor neccessary medicine. In other words, you are FORCED to work, one way or the other, if you do not have enough money you can live off, without working.

Not to mention that many of those who speak about "liberty" are also pro-conscription - forced labor in the military (or alternative civil service, regardless of how you view conscription, it is still FORCED LABOR - if you refuse to do military nor civil service, you get jailed).

You have no choice. Where's your fine ideals about liberty in the case of wage slavery and military/civil conscription?

Basic Income, where you get a small amount of money unconditionally of whether or not you work, is TRUE liberty.
But people don't want that, despite talking about liberty. They are hypocrites!

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 30 Nov 2019, 10:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Well with all the AI, the Universal Basic Income will probably become necessary anyways.

Yeah, and if we're supposed to be free, how come I still have to eat, breathe and go to the bathroom? Why haven't we done away with that? Therefore dictatorship now!

Being productive and having duties towards other members of society is one of the absolute fundaments of actually having a society. If you have no interest in that, I'm sure there are deserted islands or some really remote locations in the world that you can escape to.

I think that if an able bodied/minded person doesn't want to work, then don't work. But don't hold someone else hostage to the decision. Choices have consequences, for everyone. It's no less immoral to force someone else to take care of me, if I choose not to work.

You think having a regular full time job under an employer is the only way people can be productive or have duties towards society?

But what if AI and robots really do take over most of the regular working class jobs? What would you say then, that society should do nothing to provide these workers income when their jobs are gone?

By no means, I'm on partial disability and work 75% myself. But OP seems to equate any reciprocal expectation from society to slavery. I actually agree that something like UBI is probably going to happen as we continue to progress, but we are not post-scarcity quite yet, and the idea that we're not free unless we're being given money unconditionally regardless of capacity (obviously I support disability pensions and the like) seem myopic and entitled.

What if there was just no money and we developed a different system where it is simply not relevant. That would be real freedom.

I'd be curious what such a system would look like. I've heard this suggestion before, and it tends to devolve into "what If we had something that is just like money, but worse in some way".

I don't deal in 'what ifs.' I chose a profession that could not be duplicated by a robot. A robot could be programmed to carry out medical skills, but it will struggle when the anatomy is not textbook.
My family always expected the s**t to hit the fan, we planned/prepped for it.
I don't understand leaving things to chance, I prep for contingencies.

My approach is that I expect no one will take care of me. That's how I've lived my life.

Farming, bartering, it still happens. Would probably be really fun...

Many countries work well without conscription. They still have a well-functioning society.

In regards to handing out money without expectations, it still won't ruin society. You still get more money from working and contributing to society, than if you don't. The only difference is that work will become completely voluntary with Universal Basic Income. Nobody are forced into anything.

So suppose a large portion of the populace are content with the money given out by your UBI. What do you propose be done about the sudden massive drop in people willing to do the jobs that no one really wants to do but do because they need money?

I thought that the basic income was reduced by a certain amount for every X amount of money the person earned? If that's the case, it's not performance based incentive. It doesn't reward the person who works as much as it rewards the person who stays home. And it turns around and takes more (taxes) from the person who earns more and nothing from the person who earns nothing.

I'm by no means a mathematician, but this arrangement sucks for me, but it works out great for you. I'm only using the terms 'me' and 'you' because you're for BI and I'm against it.

So we accept, to some extent, that our liberty of not working is curtailed in the name of having a society.
Why is there such a resistance against having pur freedom of consumption choices curtailed in the name of having a biosphere that sustains our existence?

I mean... I like traveling, occasionally, to far off countries. But it appears more and more like air travel at least needs to be illegal.

Don't look at me, I'm all for enviromentalism. Scandinavia is at the forefront when it comes to recycling and reducing carbon footprints. The whole circus with Thunberg is a hollow and cynical PR-stunt, but the underlying idea I can certainly agree with.




Not sure that's strictly true (also, are electric planes a thing? Seems like they should be.), but a reduction would probably be beneficial. I'd love it if travelling by train long-distance was made more viable. The problem is countries that have industrialized but haven't come very far with it on the grand scale of things. Ganges and Yangtze (India and China respectively) are the two rivers from which something like 70-90 percent of all oceanic pollution is flowing, So initiative on a global scale to reduce air and water pollution that doesn't include China and India are going to be basically fruitless.

Last edited by Wolfram87 on 01 Dec 2019, 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.