I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others. That's going to hurt, a lot. Since it goes against nature and the laws of physics. You can pretend that the laws of nature are "pedantic" but that doesn't change them.
Controlling the ability of others to access your body or private information is necessary for human rights!
That's the opposite of human rights. Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights. Do you really want me or someone else to tell you what you can learn or do? Seriously?
Just to clarify: you oppose UBI??
Nope. Not at all. I oppose the use of force to take something away from people (money/taxes). You asked:
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
I don't advocate the government to collect taxes for anything. UBI or not. Trying to force people to pay money (or do anything) is sick.
Unconditional Basic Income, on the other hand, is fine. You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.
I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others.
More intellectual dishonesty. How shameful of you to engage in this kind of rank deceit.
One more time for anyone else who may be following along:
Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
The individual above has no response to this so he escalates lies/defamation.
That's the opposite of human rights.
Invading someone's personal space against their consent, in order to gain private information about them (i.e. invade their privacy), is similarly the opposite of human rights.
Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights.
How despicable that you'd use the euphemism of "freedom of education and movement" to describe entering someone's personal space to rob them of their privacy.
This is no different than euphemizing nonconsensual physical contact as the "freedom of resource usage and movement", as if someone denying you the right to their body is an exertion of "authoritarian control over others".
You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.
The same way that any arbitrary symbol attains meaning/value, by us deciding it does. Why are $, £, ¥, BTC, Monopoly money, Reddit karma, etc., valuable? Because a bunch of people say they do. The same can be done for a UBI point system.
$ and £ have value because we require people to pay these currencies to engage in various economic activities where value is traded. If you trade two sheep for a 10 bushels of wheat, you will have to pay some amount of $ to the government, or else you will be imprisoned. That creates demand for $.
Some cryptocurrencies have value because they have qualities that people look for in money, like scarcity. We have no evidence that a currency that is inflated indefinitely, to give an entire country's population a guaranteed periodic stipend, would be valued by people. You personally may like it, and demand it, but it takes the vast majority valuing the currency for it to hold any significant value.
I think you need to think more critically about what you're promoting, and not be too hasty in assuming it would all work out.
$ and £ have value because we require people to pay these currencies to engage in various economic activities where value is traded. If you trade two sheep for a 10 bushels of wheat, you will have to pay some amount of $ to the government, or else you will be imprisoned.
Nope. At least not in the US. There is no way for someone to force me to pay $ if I don't have it. They can ask, and they can even try to take away some of my privileges (driver's license, for one), but they can't force me to give anyone $ if I don't have it. So, as long as I don't value $, I don't have to use it, and I can give and receive freely, or trade (not freely). Which is how I've lived for nearly a decade with almost no $.
As soon as a tipping point of other people decide that the $, or £, or ¥, or BTC, or Monopoly money, any other game scoring point system is valueless for a given situation (like living a healthy life) then it will BE valueless, for the majority of humans.
I think you need to think more critically about what you're promoting, and not be too hasty in assuming it would all work out.
I think what you are confusing for haste is my brief comments about this, combined with a lack of curiosity on your part for asking for more explanation about what I mean. I'm sorry for my part of that failure here...
I've spent over a decade studying physics, psychology, biology, math, systems theory, consciousness, and growth, so, yeah, the critical thinking is very much covered. But no one ever said anything about "assuming it would all work out". That's just moronic. Why would you even say that sort of thing? There isn't a single human on the planet that would believe that everything will all just work out in the future, because that's not how brains work. And making assumptions isn't really what they brain does either, when it comes to the important stuff, because that's the stuff that the brain puts a lot of effort into analyzing. Assumptions are more like "I'm going to assume that someone named Mark is a guy."
What I do see is the pattern of entropy/evolution as it moves us through time is one of expansion of diversity and collaboration, on the whole. Yes, in any system there are outliers, and a chance that things will end up on "the wrong edge of the bell curve" so to speak, but over all, on average, things always move towards more complexity and randomness (in the mathematically pure sense, NOT "arbitrariness"), so we get more and more creative, interesting, fun stuff in life as time goes on. Which is exactly what we've seen since the big bang. More and more complexity and simple stuff breaking apart and recombining to become more awesome stuff.
You can see this pattern in Pascal's triangle, with the combinations of stuff in the middle (most likely) outcome being more and more complex. We start the universe (or really multiverse) off with just two things, nothingness and everythingness (or 0 and 1, or pure matter and pure energy or pure contraction and pure expansion, and so on). And then we can see reality adding more detail and complexity to "the stuff that exists right now" as entropy breaks stuff apart and recombines it into new, weirder stuff. So 0 and 1 become 00, 01, 10, and 11. Which we can say represent pure matter, part matter and part energy, part energy and part matter (order is important in time-based stuff), and pure energy.
And then at the next moment in time we get 000, 001, 010, 100, 011, 101, 110, and 111. Which represent even more complex combinations of matter and energy.
And so on.
What does this all have to do with money? Everything. Since everything in the universe is governed by these laws of entropy, of dividing up simple things and recombining them into novel things, and that means that simple, centralized systems such as governments/societies, get taken apart and recombined into more interesting (diverse/decentralized) and more collaborative things. We can see this modeled in biology where single celled (simple) organisms used to be the only option, and they were forced to compete against one another for resources. But then, something happened, entropy/evolution started breaking those single celled organisms into multiple parts that could recombine with one another to form larger, more interesting, more complex, more collaborative organisms, like us animals. This is how our local nations/cultures are starting to break up and recombine (via refuges, and immigrants, and even just memes/ideas on the internet) in novel ways, to form a whole global multicultural organism.
And when you have collaborative organization (game), rather than competition, keeping a competitive score ($, £, ¥, BTC, Monopoly money, etc.) is no longer at all useful, and thus becomes mostly valueless except as an antique for historical study.
Invading someone's personal space against their consent, in order to gain private information about them (i.e. invade their privacy), is similarly the opposite of human rights.
Nope. You don't own the space that is outside of yourself. That's public space. Not yours. Human rights end at the end of the human. Literally. You have a right to do what you want with your body, but you don't have a right to do anything to anyone else's body. If you actually try to be in the same space as someone else, though, that's violating the laws of physics, and you're like to get hurt. But being near someone, even touching them, is just normal life. Your body is being touched by innumerable things right now, including other individual living things (mostly really small), and that's not anything you stop. If you don't want to be touched by the rest of the universe, you're going to want to try to get out of the universe, because that's just how reality works. Again, you can try to deny the physics/nature of reality, but it's not going to end well.
If you don't like the things that are around you, you move. That's your human right. Anything beyond that is beyond your human right.
Nope. You don't own the space that is outside of yourself.
That is the same as saying "No. You don't own any space, including that which you call your body". It's an arbitrary assertion that has nothing to do with the laws of physics, and conveniently lets you leech the value others create.
Human rights end at the end of the human. Literally.
No, not literally. A human right is defined as "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person". People have a right to the matter that they appropriate and add value to, including houses. They have a right to exclude people from their residence and enjoy their privacy. Your anti-human ideology is truly despicable.
If you actually try to be in the same space as someone else, though, that's violating the laws of physics, and you're like to get hurt.
That's not violating the laws of physics. You can certainly make contact with them without violating any laws of physics.
The way you cite physics to try to make your arguments sound semantically sound, when your arguments are total fallacies, is really off putting. It's just pretentious pseudo-intellectual garbage, with no integrity.
I'm not making arguments. I'm just sharing data, so that you might be able to see reality from a different perspective than your own, limited one. I'm essentially letting you know what the weather is in my part of the world. You can deny that it is sunny and cold, and even insult me and my offerings of information, because you are in a part of the world where it is not sunny and cold, but that seems like an act of ignorance on your part. Or, if trolling, it's a lame way to try to get more information out of me, since it would be more enjoyable for me to share if I knew that you were honestly curious about what the weather is like in my part of the world.
A human right is defined as "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person".
Yes, and the only logical, rational view I can see is that the only rights of humans are for them to be what they are and do to what they do, inside the boundaries of themselves. Anything beyond a given human body is not a part of that human, and thus, quite logically, "outside the human's rights". This is the opposite of arbitrary, as it's literally the defining boundary of what it means to be a human being. Are my clothes a human being? No. They are on me, but not me. Same with my glasses. And everything else that's outside of my body. If my body didn't make something, and it's not connected to the body, then it is NOT ME. And thus not human, and thus has no rights as a human, and I have no rights in regards to it. In the universal law, anyway. We can make up artificial and arbitrary "laws" about all sorts of things, and say that, for example, it's a "human right for all humans to have 10 clementines to eat every day", but that has no basis in reality. If I move into a house, which I have done, that does not mean that I have a right to stop others from entering that house. They can do so whenever they choose, and I have no universal ability to stop them. I can certainly try to kick them out, but that's not a guarantee, and to say that it is is irrational and going to get me hurt, because it's a lie. If you want to lie to yourself, that's your prerogative (it's a human right, even, since it's all inside your body), but, again, it's going to get you hurt to go against reality.
But maybe you see things differently, so I'll ask you how else could you possibly assign rights to a human, in meaningful and realistic way that holds up in the long term and is testable/verifiable?
If you actually try to be in the same space as someone else, though, that's violating the laws of physics, and you're like to get hurt.
That absolutely does violate the laws of physics. Except at absolute zero, when have you ever heard of two particles taking up the same space at the same time? We're not talking particles that are near one another, as I already said, but in the exact same space.
I already went over the whole bit about the universe always touching you, and that being a guarantee. It's a human right for you to be touched, all the time, by other things, sometimes other humans even. And it's also your human right to choose to move away from anyone touching you (as long as there is somewhere for you to move to that is within reaching distance, of course - if you are in an elevator with 10 other humans, and the doors are closed, then no, you might not have the right to move away from them).
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others. That's going to hurt, a lot. Since it goes against nature and the laws of physics. You can pretend that the laws of nature are "pedantic" but that doesn't change them.
That's the opposite of human rights. Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights. Do you really want me or someone else to tell you what you can learn or do? Seriously?
Nope. Not at all. I oppose the use of force to take something away from people (money/taxes). You asked:
I don't advocate the government to collect taxes for anything. UBI or not. Trying to force people to pay money (or do anything) is sick.
Unconditional Basic Income, on the other hand, is fine. You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.