Why shouldn't food, housing, and healthcare be provided to all for free? These are basic building blocks of life. We can compete in the free market for cars and mansions but the basics of life have to be given to all. It's the only humane thing to do.
pic unrelated
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Because if you're giving me everything I need to live to free, why would I ever go to work instead of staying home to lift weights and play nintendo and watch anime?
to achieve something more than basic housing and healthcare
do you have no motivation for better things?
I work to afford basic housing and healthcare, sooo....
Who's gonna pay for it?
Also long term dysgenic effects and all.
The quick rundown looks like this
I can live for free and not have to put up with waking up early, interacting with liberals, and doing things I don't care for for a paycheck.
So I'm going to stay home and do things I like instead.
And so is most of the nation, because human nature is lazy and always looks for the easy way out.
So who's paying for all our "free" stuff?
The taxpayer.
Who isn't working.
Because he's in his free home smoking weed and jacking off because the government is paying him to.
Eventually the money runs out and the govt. fails or worse, you run out of your lube ration have have to wait until next month free shipment to really crank one out.
The majority of people do not. Again, the problem with socialism is that the only societies it works on don't need it.
Is Petter Russels /ourguy/?
do you? what amazing things are you doing?
how did you guys get brainwashed into thinking that the human-make-technology-so-i-can-work-less race should stop when we finally can get rid of most labor?
Who is stopping you from paying for food, housing and healthcare for others? Whip out the checkbook, and start making it happen. The world does not owe you a living. Sad, but true.
>do you have no motivation for better things?
No, and neither do about half of the general population.
If I had an apartment with utilities, food, and healthcare for free, I would just drop out of society. Why work a 9 to 5 in an office? For a new car? For shiny jewelry? Fuck it.
I would live off the freebies, and then just load trucks a few days a month under the table to buy new games and shit.
So if those things were given to you for free, you would desire nothing else?
I work 50 hrs a week at a job that pays $82K at age 28. I know it's not amazing but i'm doing the best i can.
all he does is non-white pandering while acting like his leaf born and raised ass has anything to relate with pure pajeets
>Who is stopping you from paying for food, housing and healthcare for others? Whip out the checkbook, and start making it happen.
Why should I pay for society, when society isn't paying for my needs? The whole point of the system is that it has to work both ways; without that, it collapses.
how would you get a hot girlfriend?
Works for the niggers.
Fine. You do it. Get to work. Chop chop. There's old lady diapers that need a changing.
>for free
I wouldnt have that problem. The jews didnt steal MY foreskin.
The question implies that the ideal provision of goods and services is by government.
>basics of life have to be given to all
These basics of life, as you call them, will stagnate and lag behind in innovation when monopolized by government.
Why should society pay for you, when you are not required to pay for anyone else's needs? What entitles you have others forced to work for you, so that you don't have to work? Your right to take someone else's labor or property is cancelled out by their right to your labor and property. Neither has a claim on the other.
No. You can't build a sustainable society on theft. You must have fee for service to minimize cost/benefit misalignment - - which is also the reason flat tax is a shit. Since the more money you have the more you benefit from military and legal protections.
>free
Someone has to make it grow the ingredients
Someone has to store and deliver it to where you can access it
Someone has to pay and maintain these storesp
Lucky bastard.
>Why should society pay for you, when you are not required to pay for anyone else's needs?
I'm saying I would pay for others' needs, in exchange for having my own basic needs being taken care of. That's what I mean by it being a two-way thing.
>to achieve something more than basic housing and healthcare
>do you have no motivation for better things?
That's the who;e idea behind socialism. Look how well it worked out.
Because your entire life hinges now around the government.
Oh sure, yours probably won't. I'm assuming you probably have a decent job, but for millions it will. They'll then do whatever they want to stay alive which means obeying.
nothing is free.
Get a job you lazy commie nigger
>They'll then do whatever they want to stay alive which means obeying.
That's what we have to do already. Unless you're literally filthy rich, having money won't protect you if you go against the government.
>do you have no motivation for better things?
Like it or not, the majority of people are incentive-based creatures.
Why else would so many people play the lottery? It's a chance at escaping the daily grind and dropping out of the workforce. No one wants to do it, but they do out of necessity.
If everyone has their basic needs met, there's no further need to work. The problem with this is that eventually those basic needs will run out, as they must be supplied from somewhere.
Things could be practically free if humans began to practice eugenics to make ourselves super smart, and we designed societies to be completely automated.
All those things are free.
If you're willing to build your own house, grow your own food and learn medicine.
But if you want someone else to do those things for you, you're going to have to pay.
If something is "free" for you then someone else has been enslaved to pay for it.
If you were to provide the basics for free, i think you would be surprised how motivated people would be to make money. If you did not have to work just to put a roof over your head and food in your stomach you could reduce working hours and still have enough money for the simple pleasures you enjoy. More money, less work = better health.
False. You need land, raw materials, and tools to do those things. None of those are free.
Who is enslaved to pay for the oxygen I breathe, or the water I drink from a public fountain? Who is enslaved to pay for the sunlight that allows me to see?
...
OK so how about you just pay for yourself instead of having the govnt redistribute it while paying 10 jackoff overpaid employees to sit at a computer and plan how to spend you cash while taking a significant chunk for themselves in the process.
You need to meet some people on welfare.
They spend $70 on dinners yet are still jealous that other people are richer than them and attempt to destroy them.
If these people come to our country it should be as slaves
youtube.com
This would create a artificial demand for people, making the lesser beings reproduct even more.
I'm surprised he hasn't done any poo in the loo jokes.
People were already getting free health care, food, housing, etc, etc before Obama. One can fail and/or drop out of high school and then have the Government pay for college!
There's NO EXCUSE for being a failure in the USA. It does seem that the free shit we give the more others expect.
The real question is whether these hand outs have dropped the ratio of losers? If they haven't they should be cut.
because you need to read an econ book
That doesn't make sense. Why would basic income eliminate the desire for enjoyment, companionship, helping the community, and improving the self? I think you've got it backwards and are confusing correlation with causation - basic income doesn't cause people to become drunkards/drug addicts, rather people who become addicted to drugs or alcohol are less able to hold a job, and more likely to end up on welfare.
Obviously, basic income shouldn't allow people to get away with spending that much of dinners, without making major sacrifices in other areas. It should be enough for basic amounts of food, utilities, and housing, with a little extra for contingencies like home/car repairs, and medical treatments.
This is not theoretical. We've seen what free shit does to people since The Great Society.
Because forcing everyone to support themselves is too unreliable; if one person loses their job, or their crops fail, they and the whole family suffer. Whereas with wealth redistribution, it allows surpluses in one area to cover deficits in others. If Alice loses her job, Bob's extra income ensures she is provided for until she can find a new job; and when Bob then loses his job, Alice can do the same for them. Neither one thus ends up starving or homeless, but BOTH would spend some time starving or homeless if there were no wealth redistribution.
Healthcare is a lifestyle not a pill.
I have no problem with the others being provided at a subsistence level.
I'd just rub one out once or twice a week.
human rights are spook
because resources are finite,
I'm a minimalist, OP. I'm almost 40. My son graduates in 3 years and plans to join the mil. I have no more need for shiny things. This works perfect for me. I'm just gonna quit my job and go home and live on gibs in your world and I'm sure alot of other people would too.
The Great Society != basic income. It was focused on the low income population, which had a greater proportion of dysfunctional people (i.e. not every poor person is incapable of holding a job, but a person incapable of holding a job is almost guaranteed to end up in poverty).
It was flawed in that it did not attempt to actually fix those dysfunctionalities, but that doesn't mean giving someone money causes them to become a drug addict.
Like 80 percent of the population don't. That's the thing.
uh, pretty damn sure he has done way too many poo in loo jokes before
"shit and go" "shit and go"
that's literally one of this punch lines
This. Socialism arrogantly believes it can change human nature, capitalism accepts humans as they are with all the good and bad.
But this demonstrably has not happened in countries that have robust welfare and universal healthcare.
Slavery was the worst mistake we ever made as a nation. We would still be lynching Mexicans and natives if we did not have the nigger problem to distract us.
>Healthcare is a lifestyle not a pill.
What does that mean? I know there are some lifestyles that put you at greater risk than others, but it's silly to argue that all health issues can be avoided just by having the right lifestyle.
Sure, but they're still enough to meet basic needs for everyone. If you have 80 cars and 5 people, cars are still a "finite resource", but you still have enough to give every person way more cars than they actually need.
Second post and we already see OPs argument falling apart
Perfect
>Because forcing everyone to support themselves is too unreliable; if one person loses their job, or their crops fail, they and the whole family suffer.
Why is that bad? It incentive smarter people to think in another ways of survival, while starving the subhumans
>Who's gonna pay for it?
We're not living in the 19th century.
There's really not enough work to go around.
Even if half the human race did nothing all day long, the other half could easily live very comfortably while feeding. housing, etc the non-working half.
>Also long term dysgenic effects and all.
This is the ONLY valid reason to oppose OP's idea.
For my $0.02, the better route would be mandatory retirement at 50-55, mandatory 8-12 weeks vacation, and/or 30-ish hour work week.
Work rationing could prevent 99% of people working to line the pockets of the 1%, without nurturing the lazy stoner effect.
You mean what used to be culturally, racially homogeneous countries before they starting importing millions of islamics were, by your standards, pretty much perfect?
What about those who are unfit for military service? You end up either dooming them, or giving them something in exchange for nothing.
>"Free"
Fucking cocksucking, nigger-loving, leftist faggot. You are going to be fucking culled. God damnit you are so stupid and worthless the universe itself writhes in agony from your arrogance.
NOTHING IS FREE YOU FUCKING MAGGOT
Ask yourself this question, what will happen to the McJobs under socialism? Or the factory jobs? Or the warehouse jobs? Why would anyone go through that crap if there is no reason? And don't give me crap that all these liberals can live without Starbucks and McDonalds they constantly go to those places and are basically addicted.
I don't see how that separate problem is intrinsically tied to OP's question
I wanna be with the non-working half. Calling it before anyone else does. Have a nice day, wage cucks, I'm going back to bed.
>Even if half the human race did nothing all day long, the other half could easily live very comfortably while feeding. housing, etc the non-working half.
Literally slavery.
Making half of the people work to sustain a bunch of parasites.
good post
Made me laugh too
>What does that mean?
It means that it is natural to pay the price for bad personal decisions. You can't bend nature to your delusions of "shared health costs." Anything that attempts to bend nature, breaks itself.
>Rich people pay for it through taxes
>It is free for poor people
>HURR DURR NOTHING IS FREE
Sounds like it is free to me. KYS.
Pretty much the only way for OP to ever create lazyNEETworld is Star Trek style post-scarcity. When you have infinite free energy and the ability to replicate matter by barking at a computer terminal you can stop going to work to earn a living and you can take over your asshole frenchie uncles winery.
You will be made to pay with your blood, you worthless puke.
>NOTHING IS FREE YOU FUCKING MAGGOT
Instead of the 1% getting half (or more) of what we collectively produce, I'd rather give 10%-20% of our GNP to the 20%-30% of people that would rather pursue art or some other non-commercial avenues.
Air and water are free you retard.
>Ask yourself this question, what will happen to the McJobs under socialism?
People will take them, if they want the money for luxuries. Socialism does not mean "no money", it means moving the line that divides free stuff from luxuries. For example, some things are free under a market economy - air for example. Socialism just means food, housing, and medical care are guaranteed as well. But there still are luxuries - if you want a more comfortable home, tastier food, a more powerful and nice-looking form of transportation, etc, you still have to pay for it.
>And don't give me crap that all these liberals can live without Starbucks and McDonalds they constantly go to those places and are basically addicted.
You're making the mistake of assuming that because people use something now, that it must be a necessity. The presence of something is what MAKES it a necessity. For example, eliminating automobiles from the US would totally ruin our way of life. However, the fact remains that for most of human history, we haven't had automobiles at all. So those things are still luxuries, just because one becomes addicted to a luxury, and society changes to eliminate non-luxury alternatives, does not mean it is not a luxury.
"because forcing everyone to support themselves is too unreliable"
Yeppers, in America we always reward failures. We make sure they are comfortable so that they can produce little failures and multiply the problem.
These are the same types who if given a million dollars would be broke within a year.
I have a mere 80k a year job. 50% of that goes into savings each year. I do not want help from anyone nor do I expect it.
>What does that mean?
If you dont punish stupid behaviour, like the dinner problem mentioned before, people will not learn not to do it
>inb4 oh but we can just have the government monitor your spending habits and stop you from making those kinds of purchases
FUCK OFF
WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF HUMANS!
IT WILL FUCK YOU OVER FOR ITS BENEFIT!
THATS WHY THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN YOU AND IT NEEDS TO BE EVEN!
YOU DUMB FUCK!
>Literally slavery.
You don't know what either of those words mean.
>Making half of the people work to sustain a bunch of parasites.
Under OP's plan, nobody's forcing anyone out of the lazy half.
With our current system, most people are forced to give a big share of what they produce to the 1%, most of whom were born into the privilege.
The more reasonable conclusion to draw from that post is that everyone would work part-time, maintaining full employment while leaving more time for leisure activities and self-improvement.
Not all of it is "bad personal decisions" though. What if someone is injured in an airplane or train accident? Are you saying getting on an airplane is a "bad personal decision"?
Even Star Trek doesn't have infinite free energy. The main technology that allows their post-scarcity economy is nuclear fusion, which we are very close to achieving ourselves. It doesn't have to be infinite, just high enough to exceed what most people want. There's something called the law of diminishing marginal utility, which means each "unit" of something is worth less than the one before it - having one widget is nice, and having two is better, but it doesn't quite double the value to you. So it doesn't require infinite resources, just enough that you can give each person say 100 widgets. At that point, the additional value of an extra widget is negligible, so people don't really feel a need to have more.
>But there still are luxuries - if you want a more comfortable home, tastier food, a more powerful and nice-looking form of transportation, etc, you still have to pay for it.
People care less about those things than you think. Also what is stopping someone from working a job purchasing a nice car and then quitting the job and going back to being NEET?
>You're making the mistake of assuming that because people use something now, that it must be a necessity.
No I'm not I realize they are completely unnecessary I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals. They will be the first to complain when those services disappear because they are addicted to it.
Because it's literally a stepping stone to killing 100 billion trillion people and is the reason for every single economic collapse ever.
(at least that's what people like to scream about)
It wouldn't require extensive government monitoring. All it would require is limiting how much the basic income is. You're guaranteed so much per month, if you blow it all on fancy food and drugs, you won't be able to pay the rent, and will end up out on the street. It's self-regulating in that regard.
>Also what is stopping someone from working a job purchasing a nice car and then quitting the job and going back to being NEET?
Cars don't last forever you know. Very few things are "permanent" in that regard. And they'd probably have to pay taxes on it to, and would eventually be forced to either sell it, or go back to working again.
> because human nature is lazy
No, actually, human nature is CREATIVE.
(At least the white people)
Many people would do the work they like.
The work people do not like will become more payed than now. It will easily happen, that garbage collector will have bigger salary than bankster or IT professional.
Many people will do non-commercial jobs, tending people, tending environment, gardening, painting, building useless but nice buildings, which are hard to pay commercially...
There has been "Action Z" in socialist countries: Government paid material, and local people worked for free during weekends and afternoons. This way, a small village has now it's stadium, culture hall and a shop. It would not be possible to build them on commercial basis, because it will never pay out...
People would like to do many thinks, which they currently cannot do, because they lack resources, mainly time, but material too...
Tell me an instance of this happening where there aren't other interfering factors.
>le nigger meme
Not an argument.
Nice meme.
>Not all of it is "bad personal decisions..."
Then don't call it healthcare. If you are advocating that people should have care in the case of catastrophic accidents you are not advocating "free healthcare." You are simply advocating catastrophic care.
There are two completely different concepts.
Not an argument.
And why would I choose to work at a warehouse? Why would anyone choose a shit job? So they can have a nice car? Not worth it in my opinion. Unless you expect everyone to work 15 hour weeks and all production to decrease dramatically.
He does them. There aren't too many comedians these days that can hit race jokes the right way.
There's a lot of forced shit like carlos mencia/amy schumer that is complete garbage
Nice meme.
>muh welfare queens
>Not worth it in my opinion.
Really no different than our current system. The people who don't care about luxuries will only put in the bare minimum amount of effort.
Who pays the farmers and doctors?
>muh human nature