<div dir="ltr">@Glen, I'm a supporter of UBI and mentioned a couple of points I came across from people that're against it. I don't claim to have all the answers and I am open to listen to the arguments of those against it, that's why I mentioned them, but I don't support those claims so I'm not going to defend them. <br><br>The whole point of my post was that Andrew Yang answered the criticism against UBI much better than what I can. What I hoped would happen was that somebody would listen to the views expressed by Andrew Yang and we then discuss that.<br><br>It's fine by me if you don't want to listen to Andrew Yang as interviewed by this other guy (who's he again?, I just forgot his name), but then you miss the point of my post completely.<br><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 17:32, u\u01ddl\u0183 \u2199\u2199\u2199 <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com">gepropella@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hm. OK. If you'd prefer to talk about UBI (instead of my postscript), how about responses to these points:<br>
<br>
On 5/4/21 6:35 AM, u\u01ddl\u0183 \u2199\u2199\u2199 wrote:<br>
> a) How many people need employment for meaning? 10? 1M? How was that data gathered? Where is that data?<br>
> <br>
> Worse yet, in a world defined such that you *die* unless you're employed, it's circular reasoning to argue that employment gives meaning to life. The only way to escape such a vicious circle is by providing other options. What if people didn't die because they can't buy food, pay rent, etc?<br>
> <br>
> b) "The economy" is a diverse rhizome, not a needful entity. The concept of "productive" vs. non-productive work implies an optimization objective. What objective do you propose distinguishes productive from non-productive work? Is art non-productive? Is strip mining productive?<br>
> <br>
> c) In a world where some people live long lives accumulating billions (soon to be trillions - Musk? Bezos?) of US dollars, it's difficult to understand how it might be too expensive. The only way I can make sense of that argument is if you fundamentally believe in the argument that cumulative wealth is *necessary* for some tasks (like colonizing Mars). If you believe that society *must* have cumulative wealth stores (e.g. the government, Musk, Bezos, etc.) in order to achieve [your favorite objectives], then that implies the vast majority will need to be poor or near poverty. So, any attempt to "lift all boats" is "too expensive".<br>
> <br>
> But the constraining argument is that those crystals around which wealth accumulates have to come from somewhere. Efficient governments don't emerge by accident. We don't (yet) know how to engineer the emergence of Musks and Bezoses. That implies that we need a diverse pool of talent, most of which will end up non- or less than optimally productive. But some subset of which will be kernels needed for making progress on [your favorite objectives]. And that diversity includes non-productive people who can't pay rent, buy groceries, etc.<br>
> <br>
> Therefore, UBI is necessary for [your favorite objectives].<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/4/21 8:24 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:<br>
> @ Glen, Thanks but no thanks. I'm just not interested in Ben Shapiro and not going to waste my time researching him or even discussing him further. So from my side about Ben Shapiro, I'm outa here and I'm not going to make anymore comments on Ben. <br>
> <br>
> My interest when I started the thread was in UBI and I used the video clip where, IMHO, Andrew Yang gave very good arguments for UBI. If you want to, in a different thread, discuss Andrew Yang, I will certainly participate. I have many good things to say about Andrew Yang.<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 17:07, u\u01ddl\u0183 \u2199\u2199\u2199 <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com" target="_blank">gepropella@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com" target="_blank">gepropella@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Yes, I understand you might feel that way. But this is part of the shtick. It's a rhetorical tactic that very smart trolls hone and use well. To get a better understanding of who you're listening to (one of the Five W's), this article lays it out well:<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro</a> <<a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro</a>><br>
> <br>
> I also understand the typical reaction to apparent ad hominem. But, as I've argued on this list before, most accusations of ad hominem are, themselves, the fallacy fallacy. It may seem like I'm attacking the man, Ben Shapiro. But I'm not. I'm attacking the *brand*, the troll persona he and his agent have worked so hard to cultivate in order to colonize your mind. Ben Shapiro is not Ben Shapiro.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
\u2199\u2199\u2199 u\u01ddl\u0183<br>
<br>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>