Should universal basic income be a human right?

Posted by: kack

Universal basic income: free money without any condition or requirement

Vote
34 Total Votes
1

NO

25 votes
8 comments
2

YES

Ever since the start of human civilization, people work to survive. Not from the kindness of their heart. Money buys shelter,food, water etc etc. but what if everyone receive an income of about 1500$ each month eliminating their basic needs to survi... ve from money. Study have shown about 2% of people would not work if they would receive free money each month. People loves to work when they have nothing to do. Crimes would also decrease since criminal rob because of their need of money for food and shelter. Most of our society problem comes from our need of money. It cost about trillions of dollars which is about 1/4 of our US military budget. Our technology have advance to the point that most basic jobs can be replace by automatic (robots). Probably the reason why our society has lots of unemployment. Our society should evolve to the point where we don't have to worry about our basic survival needs. It would save millions or billions of people poverty   more
9 votes
3 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-14T18:52:42.6332341Z
We havent even established universal human rights yet. Youre going to have alot of trouble establishing that if you keep adding to what you think they deserve before people have even taken to the idea that they deserve life by default. Some people still think its ok to kill humans before theyre born based on one parents feelings on the matter. How do you expect to be able to talk them into other humans having inherent value if they cant even value their own flesh and blood.
Mister_Man says2015-09-14T19:37:48.9053752Z
FBE - "Some people still think its ok to kill humans before theyre born based on one parents feelings on the matter." - If you don't understand the basic reasons why people feel abortion is okay, you don't really have the "right" (lolol) to call them out like that.
58539672 says2015-09-14T19:44:17.3790654Z
@Mister_Man FBE has the "right" to say whatever he wants. Got to love the first amendment.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-14T19:45:03.1809589Z
I did list all the reasons above (see the part about one parents feelings on the matter). Was your response supposed to be ironic in some way? I dont get it. Im a different animal in their eyes because ive been born ... So I suppose I do have the right.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-14T19:47:45.9711329Z
My point still stands though. If you cant get behind the fact that all human life has inherent worth (enough so to say it has a right to life) ... Then how on earth are you going to justify that a universal wage is appropriate?
Mister_Man says2015-09-14T20:27:59.6310746Z
I can't get behind the idea that ALL human life has the right to life. I don't see the world in a black and white way. Other factors come in to play regarding abortion, other than the parents feelings on the matter, which make it justifiable. I suggest you read up on the pro-choice perspective/argument a bit more before claiming we "don't value our on flesh and blood." I also don't believe a universal wage is appropriate, so we agree with each other there.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T13:14:11.5238404Z
Well then your logic makes sense, in this instance. My question was aimed at people who may have thought a universal wage was a good thing ... But are also pro choice. I suspect alot of the supporters of universal wage are that way. They make no sense.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T13:14:33.0835932Z
Well then your logic makes sense, in this instance. My question was aimed at people who may have thought a universal wage was a good thing ... But are also pro choice. I suspect alot of the supporters of universal wage are that way. They make no sense.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T13:25:43.6511868Z
"I suggest you read up on the pro-choice perspective/argument a bit more before claiming we "don't value our on flesh and blood." It doesnt matter what value you claim it has ... Either way youre saying it has a lesser right to life than the person who made the mistake and conceived it in the first place, youre still valuing it less. You might as well be saying "Yeah I value Black people, at 25 cents a head". It doesnt have the same rights to life as you so what does it matter. If anything, the person who's out making mistakes like that has LESS a right to life than the one that hasnt yet been able to be out and do anything wrong yet. They are not able to be held accountable for their actions by the sentence you put on them, theyre juvenile, a minor. Their parent needs to be held accountable for whatever damage you perceive their being born is causing anyone. They initiated all of this. If you really do value them, then please explain to me how pro choice people have been showing it in their daily lives. By having abortions?
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T13:39:35.6322531Z
It's usually liberals that think "everyone should be 100% equal" who support this kind of nonsense. They completely bypass any logic and rational thinking and blindly assert that "all human life is equal and should be treated as such, no matter what."
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T13:42:02.6698892Z
Yep ... Those are the ones. Whats that make you then? Libertarian?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T13:42:24.1984412Z
Yep ... Those are the ones. Whats that make you then? Libertarian?
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T13:42:34.2845983Z
Terminating something before it has a chance to ACTUALLY suffer doesn't mean I value it less. If I didn't value it at all I wouldn't care and I'd let it grow up in an unwanting environment, or with some horrible disorder. You act as if the unborn embryo is aware that it's about to be terminated. When the abortion process doesn't effect the embryo in any way that it knows, terminating it so the chance of it experiencing a horrible life is zero instead of high.
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T13:43:55.9823220Z
Nah I used to consider myself a liberal but I'd prefer progressive. I've done several tests to figure out what I am and almost every one has come back to put me right in the middle, if not very slightly right. I wouldn't consider myself anything really but if I had to make a decision based on my ideologies I'd say progressive.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T13:56:43.7648808Z
So we can kill as long as its quick and the person doesnt know its coming or will suffer ... You hear that all you psychotic snipers out there? Keep the shots clean and theres no foul.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T13:57:05.3402340Z
So we can kill as long as its quick and the person doesnt know its coming or will suffer ... You hear that all you psychotic snipers out there? Keep the shots clean and theres no foul.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-09-15T14:57:02.8708429Z
A shortened version of my vote "No" comment: You need to first know what a human right is. Human Right defines as "A right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person." These are generally known to be Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Are any of these Human Rights violated by NOT providing everyone free money? No, so it would not fit under the umbrella of current human rights. Next would be to ask if it should be added as its own human right. Let's get outside of our modern, globalized world and think of the areas of the world that most people don't even realize exist; the places and nations that have no economy, have no currency. Since a basic income would be guaranteed by birth to every person if it were a human right, that means places that do not use currency would be in violation of Human Rights; the U.N. would be required to intervene and either force these places to change their entire ways of life which includes either creating a new economic system for themselves or giving allegiance and rule of their lands and people to another country. Or the U.N. would be forced to invade said locations using military force and impose their own beliefs on them which would inherently violate the right to the Pursuit of Happiness as the native's definition of happiness may be different than ours. So while enforcing their own Human Rights Laws, the U.N. would itself be violating another Human Right meaning they would need to go after itself. Finally, Human Rights, no matter how many there are, can NEVER contradict each other. This does NOT mean that if a contradiction exists, the rights should be altered to work with each other. Instead, it means that if two or more Human Rights conflict with each other, then 1 or more of the rights listed are in fact NOT Human Rights and should be located and removed. Remember, Human Rights MUST apply to every single person on the planet WITHOUT exception, even if a person agrees to an exception which is why we pay so close attention to places like North Korea, Syria and Iran, waiting for them to attack their own people.
TBR says2015-09-15T15:21:59.2608440Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Its the same argument as "how can pro-life support the death penitently" or "how can pro-life care about life, but not about quality of life". The argument works both ways fine, and the pro-life guy can justify the death penitently without cognitive dissonance issues.
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T15:25:25.5437574Z
@FBE - no, other factors come into play. Although I'm all for euthanasia, we're referring to the unborn here. If it hasn't experienced life, and is unable to feel or know or be aware of anything, killing it has no effect on it. And it actually saves it from leading a horrible life. There's kind of a big difference between terminating an unborn, unconscious, unaware, undeveloped embryo and shooting someone in the back of the head.
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T15:26:33.2325913Z
Literally the only thing that makes an embryo a human is it's DNA. Your argument is "it has the DNA, so no matter what, it's bad to terminate it," while totally ignoring the dozens of other factors in play.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T17:32:00.0836529Z
"If it hasn't experienced life, and is unable to feel or know or be aware of anything, killing it has no effect on it." This is totally subjective. At what point can you say someone has truly experienced life? That again would imply that people who have experienced more life than others (say elders) had more value and more a right to it than you or me. If youre going to go that route then i dont see how anyone can defend animals from being killed either. They will never experience life on par with that of a human. @TBR because of the choice factor! Criminals had made a choice in the matter to commit the crime they did. Call it a consent issue. Essentially they consent to being put to death for their crimes by living in a society. Children are given no such choice ... And are beyond being capable of giving consent before they are born, or even before the age of 18.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T17:33:27.6018969Z
You cant give any juvenile the death penalty anyways. Even if you could construe some reason they might deserve it. They are too young still to take full responsibility for what you think they may have done.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-15T17:33:49.2084509Z
You cant give any juvenile the death penalty anyways. Even if you could construe some reason they might deserve it. They are too young still to take full responsibility for what you think they may have done.
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T18:10:43.8069954Z
It isn't subjective, as being unaware of your own existence is not experiencing life. I didn't say "experiencing life MORE," I simply said experiencing life. Elders and newborns have been subjected to the elements and their conscious (whether hardly visible or completely formed) has "come online." Either way, a born human and an unborn human are different. Unborn ones have zero conscious/awareness, whereas born ones at least have a small conscious. That is what "experiencing life" is. Animals are aware (to an extent) of things around them. Unborn embryos are not. I'm referring to consciousness, awareness, etc. here.
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T18:11:53.1494399Z
And you can't give a juvenile the death penalty because they haven't matured enough to fully understand the world around them. However they're still conscious, aware beings, so killing them is still different from killing an unconscious, unaware embryo.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-09-15T18:20:53.5672685Z
@Mister_Man -- You do realize the babies do not gain consciousness until about 6 months old at the VERY earliest, and awareness doesn't happen until between 15 and 24 months right? So under your logic and reasoning, a mother should legally be able to "abort" a child until they are 2 years old. Just a fun fact there, something to mill over and laugh at.
Mister_Man says2015-09-15T20:03:00.0081759Z
Yes I know that, however other aspects come into play, more predominately a stronger relationship/similarity between child and "grown-up." However, the birthing process - the sudden exposure to all the elements and stimuli and use of senses - causes the brain to "wake up" in a sense, which is the beginning of the very faintest signs of consciousness. Although you're right that a consciousness isn't noticeable until about 2 years, it's still at least faintly there.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-16T15:30:40.7364769Z
Consciousness? Really? Your consciousness is no different from the chemicals already inherent in a cell reacting to more chemicals that come into contact with it through the cell membrane. Cells are hard wired for 'conciousness' the same way you are. Reacting to outside stimuli. The only difference between the two is you have several working in unison that allow you to sense things using different mediums rather than just reacting to what comes in contact with your RNA, etc. Cellular consciousness. In no way is the response to stimuli dynamic any different in them than it is with you.
Mister_Man says2015-09-16T15:43:00.0651547Z
There are certain parts of the brain that need to exist (mainly the thalamus, I believe) in order for a conscious to exist. A conscious will not exist in a single cell, nor will it exist even with the Thalamus formed if it hasn't been exposed to the elements outside of the womb. Reacting to stimuli has nothing to do with consciousness, as in early stages of life (pre-birth), fetuses react to stimuli via their nervous system, however it hasn't fully formed its connection to the brain just yet. A embryo/fetus reacts to stimuli the same way a plant or tree "moves away" from fire, or "moves toward" water or some kind of nutrient. What you stated is in fact a big, important difference... Simply reacting to something and acknowledging something and consciously pulling away while being fully aware of what you're doing and why you're doing it are huge differences.
Mister_Man says2015-09-16T15:46:02.7458387Z
It all comes down to the embryo being unable to feel pain, being unaware of it's own existence or anything happening to it, and being unconscious and unable to form any thought process, idea, feeling, etc. All that compared to "it's human." And what makes it human is the DNA it has. So I have to ask; why is it that important that it's a human? Because we have a law protecting humans from being killed? Well this is an exception. What now?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-16T15:49:11.7755989Z
What kind of magic are you insinuating happens inside there if not further cellular reactions, which are already demonstrably the same as macro sized clumps of them operating in the macro world. Everything about life is as scale-able and relative as atoms and elements are in physics. The dynamics dont change suddenly when you get a mass of them together ... That mass moves and reacts to other masses just like it would if everything else around it was scaled down too. Living organisms are no different.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-16T15:51:46.7781925Z
The only reason they arent moving away from fire is because they cant sense it like you do. As far as preservation goes ... They would if they knew it was there. They are still conscious of outside workings to the level that their senses will allow.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-16T15:54:29.9084382Z
"Simply reacting to something and acknowledging something and consciously pulling away while being fully aware of what you're doing and why you're doing it are huge differences." What do you mean? You have no idea why you do what you do beyond some order (the way things should work) that you made up. Or rather your body made up for you. Nature and all its stimuli made up for you.
subdeo says2017-09-24T18:06:14.6481389Z
UBI is ridiculous. The money you would get under this plan would be worthless. Nothing is valuable unless it is hard to get or rare. That's why precious metals are a very good standard for money, because these will always be searched for. Thus, your currency will always be worth something. The only reason something like paper money is worth anything is because collective society has agreed to make it so. The minute enough people decide that USD (or any other currency) isn't worth all that much, the economy of any nation on that currency will collapse. So, if UBI is adopted, the USD (assuming that is the currency used) will have no real value in the eyes of the people. Why? Think of it this way. If everyone has all the money they need, it is no longer rare or valuable. As people engage in business, people will not want more money (which they already have plenty of). Instead, they will use other items as currency that have true value behind them, such as gold that they mined for, sheep that they raised, carrots that they grew. Notice how the only things that ever work as currency are the things that someone had to work for? As soon as people don’t have to work for money, it’s value will implode, destroying the nation that relies on that currency.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.