Haver

Aigoo. I must admit I haven't visited in ages but UKR will be missed. The Triforce doesn't get updated much either

I remember making a thread exactly like this about three years ago while drunk and it getting lots of WTFFFFs and close :p

I was unemployed for two months after graduating from Warwick, got a job in retail and been there for almost a year. I am pretty lazy ;_; PS. I am interviewing for a job in Sheffield this week, will be moving there if I get it.

Unless you're doing some sort of meaningful work, who gives a shit.

How can I hate women? My mum's one. So...

I think this will be a big PC hit this year along with SC2. Just need to work on the hit detection a little more, reduce HP by about 20 per cent, and cut down that disgusting amount of screen shake when you take a paggering from a medic.

One of the guys who helped group think the results posted on The Guardian website - apparently most of them knew it was all BS, which it is. Predicting the weight of a pig based on averages, where one can see and guess the weight of a thing, is completely different to randomly writing down numbers and then averaging them. I can't see the weighted balls thing being true though. It breaks the contract between the millions of lottery players and Camelot, and the PR simply wouldn't be worth it if the thing was seen to be dishonest.

Well he is showing his age then. The Attorney General, that's the Attorney General, wrote a lengthy document explaining how the old resolutions were not sufficient for a legal occupation based on the evidence they had. Of course, he was then 'talked to' and a few days later produced a half-page revision to his document explaining how they suddenly were sufficient. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/13/iraq-iraq

also, here is a funny picture We have this thing called rule of law. It means we don't act on inclinations. The inspectors (UNSCOM etc) themselves told the US/UK governments that Saddam wasn't stockpiling new weapons.

The reason the Iraq War was/is illegal is because the invasion was based on old resolutions from the first Gulf War, judged to be sufficient grounds by Downing Street (see 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687). They weren't - the infringements never occurred, there were no WMDS. The evidence to the contrary has never been published because it doesn't exist. The two inquiries into the Iraq War (Butler, Hutton) produced the reams of data (emails mainly) that clearly demonstrate how Blair, Darling, Scarlett, Goldsmith and so on polished the worst kind of sketchy information into grounds for war. LOL WHAT DOUCHEBAGS

Bit tired after a night out but I'll try and answer the best I can. The thought is two fold a) that the fairest way to dish out natural (ly occuring) resources is to dish them out equally. there's an argument to say the fairest way to dish them out is actually so that everyone has *sufficient* assets to live. UBI is really concerned with both. For example, there's a UBI scheme in Alaska where everyone gets a share of the oil profits. i.e. the guy who took the land originally doesn't have the right to sell it, it belongs to everyone. So we're talking about natural stuff here (i.e. a tree would grow naturally). b) not everyone has the potential to 'earn' because of the natural lottery of birth. we're concerned with fair starts so that everyone has a fair chance to work and acquire more capital. Income tax proposals in UBIs are a hot topic - in a time of job scarcity they are justified by a system of 'job rents', but if someone deliberately chooses not to work, then their claim to a share of income taxes evaporates for some (including me). The thought on free riders condensed: When we are born we do not choose to be born into a particular society which values particular things. Therefore there is nothing wrong with a newborn taking his/her share of the naturally occuring land/resources and just enjoying it. Not entirely, because it's good to challenge the thought that everyone would just sit around and do nothing, i.e. the labour supply would dry up. Remember this is only enough for subsistance. The true value is that it gives everyone a fresh start. From my reading there have been some studies that have shown a drying up in the labour supply and some studies that have shown only a minor drying up. Many UBI theories just don't care. That type of growth is only one goal amongst many. Intelligent people drive scientific and technological progress. UBI doesn't have any problem with that. The thought is that those who aren't as lucky should enjoy real freedom as well. When I said it's time to rethink what we mean by 'contribution', what I mean to say is there are different assessments of what it is to lead a valuable life. Someone who spends his entire life painting offers a different value to someone who makes a lot of money and drives economic growth. UBI says there's nothing wrong with a little less work, and a little more time doing what we enjoy or think is meaningful. As far as the drug sellers go, the thought is that less people will be driven toward drugs (and drug selling) because the avenues of education and work will be less restricted. Both drug taking and drug selling in lower class communities are the result of abject poverty. By relieving poverty (which will be a slow process) we create environments more conducive to education and therefore work. Of course, just giving a child that has been a drug dealer entire his life £5,000 today isn't going to have the impact we want. Try not to think about it like that. Think more of the impact of £5,000 on the raising of a child. True, there would have to be good pay incentives, better healthcare guarentees, better hours. And rightly so. I have not mentioned anything about super taxation. Most of the money comes from natural resources (i.e. the money the oil, gas companies make) and 100 per cent inheritance tax. Income tax is still a dodgy question. At the moment we are living in a time of job scarcity, and willing workers cannot find work. Therefore an idea of 'job rents' (where you rent your job via income tax) have a larger justification. The rich, many of which enjoy the fruits of 'good luck', should in some form help the folks who had 'bad luck' in the lottery. This is why I personally have no problem with taxation on high-paid jobs. But this is not neccessarily part of UBI theory. Try to think of the theory as how things should be, not how they could be or are. Working out how we can pay for it is largely a secondary issue. We're interested in the profound changes it can make to people's lives. From Van Parijs:

Well that's one of the chief arguments against a UBI - it could create a free rider problem. There are a number of answers. a) Some people say 'so what?'. Imagine all wealth = land. If it pleases someone to simply live on their plot of land, then that is OK. It's their entitlement. Who are we to say how someone should live? b) A UBI is universal, there is no means-testing. You are paid because you have a right to a fair share of natural resources/land on the planet. Obviously it has all these grand benefits which I've been talking about for a couple pages. So contribution to society (who is to say what that is - imagine an author writing all his life on UBI) is not a requirement. But, c) The extent to which a free rider problem would appear is debatable. It stands that people don't like to not work. Being unemployed is not pleasant. Many people who are unemployed want to earn capital, want to work (especially more meaningful work), but can't because they lack intelligence/education through no fault of their own. So the thought that income security = disincentives to work is not true. It stands that if people have access to a good education they are likely to want to pursue meaningful work. d) Even if there were free riders, the profound benefits to freedoms for people across the world would dwarf that problem. It would be the price for a more just society. The thought process eventually leads us to rethinking our ideas of 'contribution', 'success' and 'growth'. Billions of working people are successful, make contributions and apparently we are experiencing 'growth'. But it stands that much of the world is unhappy, that many people work jobs they have no interest in, and we are experiencing a certain version of growth that builds great towers in Canary Wharf while kids in inner city London sell drugs in dirty stairwells.

In essence, yes. That is one of the reasons for desiring the scheme. I am from a working class background and have average intelligence. I am in a position now where I have the potential to earn capital. There was some work involved, and some opportunities that came back about that were largely luck based. I could have equally been born to a single mum in the inner city, and been as dumb as a doorknob. The thought is that everyone should have a safety net regardless of their luck, and be able to enjoy a 'real freedom'. These are the reasons as to why we would want that sort of scheme. One of the other key justifications behind the redistribution of capital is the thought that we all have an entitlement to a fair share of natural resources and land. The way we organise ourselves currently denies many people their entitlement to a slice of the wealth. This is another justification for basic income payments.

No that's completely wrong. Everyone would recieve a basic income every, say, month. It's an income independent of yours or your parent's earnings, whether your parents are alive or not. We take many things for granted due to our relative wealth. But a UBI for many people would be life changing. It would pay for food, bills, rent, resources, bus tickets, car breakdowns you name it. The extra capital confers more freedom to actually live. It's not game breaking for us guys in the suburbs but for people who live in poverty it would be drastic. It means no matter how unintelligent you are, or where you were born, you will never be without food and housing. And for those who are just getting by, the extra income creates an environment where people can actually pursue their interests i.e. getting educated. It means you don't have to stay at that awful job just because you have to pay the rent. It means you don't have to stay in an abusive marriage because you rely on your husband's support.