Calling a game "perverse" is a classic tactic too use when you're losing and can't own up to it. There may be "enough" resources – but they aren't yours to go anywhere. And freedom to do whatever you please with the things you own is the most fundamental human right of all.
> Calling a game "perverse" is a classic tactic too use when you're losing and can't own up to it.
Oh please. You damned straight it's perverse.
How is this not perverse when a director of an agency on aging has to tell elderly clients "Sorry, there's no more money for food this week." ?
How is this not perverse when homeless try to get shelter for the night, and are turned away because there's no beds?
How is this not perverse when we train upcoming high school students to agree to crushing scholastic debt with no recourse or bankruptcy protection?
How is this not perverse that we don't have a true medical system across the USA? Instead we tie it to employment, thus continuing the "Work or Die" ideal, quite literally.
> There may be "enough" resources – but they aren't yours to go anywhere. And freedom to do whatever you please with the things you own is the most fundamental human right of all.
Sure, I'll accept that for simple possessions. Clothes, personal effects, lodging, transportation.
But whereas you're talking of personal stuff, I'm talking about the top income whose top 3 people own collectively more than the bottom 50% of the world. I guess when you can afford to amass money, game the system, buy laws/legislators and rig everything, you do end up with more money. But "it was hard earned". Yeah, uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.
Capitalism fails for many. It succeeds for a very few, with most stuck in the cycle of "Work to live, live to work". It's not much different than a slave or indentured servant class where for the necessities of life; Instead of a single owner, I must find an owner who will take me in.
And if you fall through the cracks, it's almost impossible to move back up. I'm sure you can find a Horatio Alger story or 2. They're popular in this country.
Lose your job? You're not guaranteed a job.
Business closes? Too bad.
Area stricken with poverty because industry left? Well, too bad.
This is the R-libertarian aspect that uses the refrain of "You cant make me".
And I agree and disagree with you. Yes, we can make you, governmentally speaking. However there is a different way out: automation and robotics.
We could live in a society that we strive to make more and more automated solutions so that all can benefit. Solar means effectively free power. Food generation allows food to be made so cheaply that the cost is inconsequential. Transportation, same thing. (Yeah, you might not "have" a car, but you can summon one whenever you need.)
If you want to rehash old failure modes of capitalism, so be it. It's a 300 year old system that's bursting at the seams with failure modes everywhere. Communism isn't exactly much better - in that system you trade one master for another.
A mix of socialism, capitalism, and a healthy amount of automation would work. And the machines that produce essentials should be owned by all of us, with the benefits from these going to all of us.
That would maintain no forced working by people, maintaining freedom, AND cover the essentials of all citizens. No?
I think the vision you described is already a reality. Thanks to technological advances (incl. automation), a day or two of unskilled labor (in developed countries) earns you enough money to eat for a month. Compare that with the lives of farmers from before the industrial revolution, where they toiled for months and still often didn't produce enough to feed themselves.
> Once again, if you fail, it doesn't mean that the system fails.
And I refuse the very premise you're working with. We're only as strong as the weakest members. And I see those members begging on the streets, or wandering around because of untreated psychiatric issues. Or they're living in tents off in the back part of the city park.
There's always going to be someone with more, for whatever reasons. But there should be nobody homeless. There should be nobody going hungry. There should be nobody without medical treatment.
I'm not going to budge on those issues. Higher rights exist building on TOP of the essentials. Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Even YCombinator is doing a program/test on UBI. To pretend it's not an issue is completely absurd.
> The system's goal is not to make your life good. Why would it be?
Because, unless you're independently wealthy and can live on residuals for the rest of your life, you're only a few accidents away from destitution. We live in a world of plenty, but allow monied interests to amass it and control access. Why?
And that money can be used to buy influence and laws to further entrench themselves. That argument is "Its my money and I got it and you cant have it", regardless if it's illegal or paid-off "legal" means. This is the might-makes-right argument and principle. And it's time we re-evaluate if this makes sense. I have a feeling that most people will find it absurd, as I do.
What "we" are you talking about? These members are not my family members or friends; what you're doing is abusing other people's empathy to push your agenda through emotional means instead of rational.
> But there should be nobody homeless. There should be nobody going hungry. There should be nobody without medical treatment.
I value human rights more than I value state or federal "rights". And in this case, there's more than enough resources to go around.
And a second derivative answer - not everyone who came here had a choice.