ZahzenEclipse

Okay so what I’m hearing is you want companies to make investments in artists directly - so a form of profit sharing essentially. Why would a company invest in artists if artists get all of the profits when its successful and the company loses all of the capital if it fails? Why would any business want to partake in a system like that?

People need to expect to pay for art and entertainment. People should. It’s immoral and unethical to not pay for art and expect art to be there.

Lol. The people selling it to their local communities are just as bad as the people at the top. The people at the top are many times from the local communities you guys are defending.

I think this has more to do with it than the FBI personally.

I dislike how this narrative completely bypasses the power hungry, money hungey gangsters who were perfectly fine making money off the backs of their communities.

Who determines its unnecessary? The market? Government groups?

We’re still a far way away from the level of automation necessary to make working only 2 days a week feasible imo

Why would a business pay for these things that make their workers more efficient and then relinquish all of the profit that came from making things more efficient?

Do you think the majority of US citizens want higher taxes? There’s alot of de-programming that has to be done. Democrats, who are generally better than Republicans when it comes to this stuff (due to the low bar they’ve erected) aren’t necessarily full on board with tax increases.

Whats misleading about it?

Suffering isn’t pointless. It makes me and many others feel good if horrible people like Brevik suffer, its justice for the people who suffer everyday due to Breviks crimes. Governments through history have been responsible for a ton of suffering - this is one of those rare instances where it’s fully justified.

But I’ll admit, wanting revenge isn’t great and you’re right, we shouldn’t setup systems to enact revenge. That being said, some people are so terrible they need to be locked up and separated from society permanently. Since enacting a death penalty is both expensive and takes a very long time if you want to have the proper checks and balances to ensure innocent people aren’t being executed, that tells me life imprisonment is the only option for people that would or should be otherwise executed.

Maybe he changes his tune in 10 years and becomes a voice against the terrorism he tried to inspire. That could end up with an at least beneficial outcome for society.

"One glaring problem with allowing this program to exist for any extended period of time is that, unless it is privately funded, it would be too expensive to maintain and would require substantial tax increases across the board.

The group’s page even admits that, saying, “there’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shard national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.”

I think it part of it may have been related to how high taxes might have to be made and it would be damn near impossible to pass those level of taxes. It couldn’t be done souly city by city I don’t think otherwise wealthy would flee the city to avoid the taxes levied - at least that woulf be a concern of mine.

Maybe it was related to pandemic stuff: https://www.kqed.org/news/11946467/study-shows-limits-of-stocktons-guaranteed-income-program-during-pandemic

It’s been awhile since I’ve looked into specifically anything UBI related so I could be misrembering.

I personally beleive the death penalty shouldn’t exist for people like Brevik. The best case scenario is he suffers for the rest of his days. He can’t be rehabilitated and he shouldn’t be.

His acts were so evil he deserves to suffer. Laws should change to ensure people like him can suffer.

Society couldn’t function if most people worked like you. I’m happy for you and it’s the exact place I want to be but I think its only possible in our current framework.

I thought instances where UBI has been tried, it’s failed - is that not the case?

Are there some shitty jobs that don’t deserve higher pay because of the value they contribute? Or do you see that being a business that shouldn’t exist? So let’s take a sewer company or something. Or any maintenance position where it’s not clear there’s a dollar value on the value being produced.

For example, restaurant probably aren’t possible if waiters and back of house are all paid 30/h.

I’m mostly trying to understand what you’re really trying to get at. I don’t think its possible for all jobs to be equally paying or be equally good - there’s always going to be inequality there. Unless you’re arguing there shouldn’t be shitty jobs but there’s literally always going to be shitty jobs in any society and economic framework you spin up.

Society will still need people who perform maintenance on sewers, do construction, clean building etc

I think I largely agree with your assessment that modern society and all its benefits mean that people get less day to day exercise via “normal” routine but I feel like I have to disagree that not having a local trail makes people unable to exercise. There’s people in NYC who run miles and miles every day. It’s possible anywhere.

If you don’t have funds to buy resources then that seems to be accurate scarcity no?

Which one would you suggest to review?