Jump to content
NEurope

Haver

Members
  • Content count

    1,880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Haver

  1. UK:Resistance no more

    Aigoo. I must admit I haven't visited in ages but UKR will be missed. The Triforce doesn't get updated much either
  2. A Day In The Life Of HWYD

    I remember making a thread exactly like this about three years ago while drunk and it getting lots of WTFFFFs and close :p
  3. University graduates - HELP!

    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.
  4. How sickie-prone are you?

    Unless you're doing some sort of meaningful work, who gives a shit.
  5. FEMALES OF THE WORLD

    How can I hate women? My mum's one. So...
  6. Battlefield Bad Company 2

    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.
  7. 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.
  8. The war on terror

    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
  9. The war on terror

    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.
  10. The war on terror

    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
  11. European Elections

    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:
  12. European Elections

    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.
  13. European Elections

    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.
  14. European Elections

    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.
  15. European Elections

    I'm convinced you don't understand why we want to distribute a UBI, but: Are you asking if a UBI can solve bad characters, bad cultures? No. It doesn't claim to. It makes the claim that alleviating poverty and providing everyone, whether married or unmarried, rich or poor, intelligent or unintelligent, with a safety net will make everyone more free to pursue their conception of the good life. How does it affect non-formal education? By allowing everyone to have a good education, and a good environment to learn in, through the process of alleviating poverty and removing the pressure to get into work early, we should have as a result better (educated) parents, better (educated) citizens, better (educated) communities. In terms of social change, the idea is this. Up until now, your success in the world has largely depended on where you were born and what your culture is. This means only certain people get to be truly free. We want everyone to be truly free: to pursue their interests, to pursue an education, to be able to quit a job that has unfair conditions, to be able to feed themselves and their children, to be the best version of themselves. I'm not comfortable with the thought that human beings should have their lives decided by the lottery of birth. This stuff: "The character of said persons parents The society and culture they are born into. The traits of the child" is luck. The child has no control over these things! And it has a huge, HUGE impact on his ability to earn capital and be truly free to pursue his conception of the good life.
  16. European Elections

    You can't handle the idea, your brain won't let you process it. I don't think you understand the core concept (who you are at birth is completely a matter of luck, therefore the assets you acquire are at least in part a result of luck - some people, many many people, do not share that luck). Or you're not reading it through. We'll leave it there. (If you want some links to help you better understand, I can provide them.)
  17. European Elections

    You're not arguing against UBI ideas. I don't know what you're arguing against. But here are a number of points. a) Life is a game of chance. You do not have control over whether you are born into a wealthy family or not. UBI supporters think everyone should have a fair shot at life, even if you are unlucky enough to be born poor or unintelligent. This is not to say there are no poor and intelligent people - there are plenty. But it stands that being poor and being unintelligent are huge restrictions to acquiring capital and education (often when together), and relieving global poverty would solve many of these issues. If you think that everyone has complete control over their lives, then you are delusional. If you are poor you are often not 'really free'. You are restrained by the need for capital. b) In your example, yes, I would accept that the murderer's decision to kill me is based on factors relating to their heritage/education etc. Ofc there are the factors of bad decision making and so on, but the origins of a person are a huge factor in their lives. It can hurt to think that, because it takes away the emphasis on the individual, but it is nonetheless true. It is doubtful that an unintelligent beggar would have killed me for cash if he was a rich aristocrat, no? This is the thought behind rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. i.e. let's not just lock up/kill murderers, let's look at WHY people commit murders. c) Money does not directly affect your capacity for intelligence. It is also true that poor people can be intelligent. It is the luck of the draw. HOWEVER, living in poverty has a huge impact on childhoods and education. In some countries, there is no free education. Thankfully we have it in the UK. But even with free education, living in poverty has an impact. Some kids don't go to school because they have to work for their parents. Some kids need to work to feed themselves, because their parents are nowhere to be found or chasing the rock. Some kids don't live in cultures that are comfortable with learning. Some kids don't have the resources they need. Some kids will be more worried about the shooting going on outside their window than their math homework. Some will be moving from house to house, motel to motel regularly. Living in poverty is not a conducive environment for learning. Getting rid of poverty allows kids to take advantage of their free education. c) are you seriously suggesting that you get the same level of education in inner city schools as compared to suburban/countryside schools? Come on. Is it a coincidence that kids in inner city schools tend to be more badly behaved, to do less well? You're kidding yourself. In the case of the UK, everyone has access to education from 0-21 if they have the brains. This is great. However, UBI is concerned with a couple things. One, there are many kids in the U.K. who live in relative poverty and do not live in environments conducive to learning. There are also kids that feel the need to leave at 16 and start working. Truancy is a huge problem, especially in the inner cities. Relieving poverty would have a huge impact on making home lives conducive to learning and reducing truancy. We are also concerned with those less intelligent. It is the luck of the draw that they are this way, and we want to make sure they can still be truly free. d) On behavioural issues. You seriously believe there is no link between the behaviour of inner city kids and poverty? It just so happens that all the naughty kids are poor? Come off it. It stands that kids can have problems even in the presence of capital. That doesn't mean all the problems are absent of it. It stands that you get a lot less trouble in a private school than an inner city school. This is obvious. And the reasons are obvious. Just basics. You are far more likely to be well behaved if you have a full belly, if you have parents who have had some education and also have a full belly, if you have guardians period, if you do not fear for your life whenever you step outside, if you can see a brighter future for yourself, if you get a good start at school in your early years in a conducive environment etc etc e) On grade scores, it is true that the ones who do well have been blessed with a capacity to do well. The solution isn't to give everyone good scores. We still want to discover who is talented. The solution is to provide a safety net for those less fortunate. Let's be clear. Success is a combination of luck and hard work. The less intelligent/poor can be successful. The intelligent can be unsuccessful. But it stands that being unlucky in the 'natural lottery' of life is a HUGE BARRIER. We want to make sure brute luck doesn't decide someones life. Everyone should have a fair start. f) You are free to spend your money like that. However, in an enlightened society the kind of selfishness you talk about is reduced. People consider themselves and the money they have received their entire lives and its benefits. They consider their children. The fact that some human beings are selfish does not tar everyone and it does not tar UBI. "A possible problem however, much of this countries prosperity comes from the rich who tend to consider that they do deserve the riches they have obtained over their life" Again, you're missing the point. They have their riches because they enjoy gifts. In a just, fair society, wealth is redistributed so that everyone gets a fair start, and can enjoy real freedom, even if they do not have those gifts. Again, we're not concerned with selfish people, or how some people would react to this society. We're concerned with what is right from the point of view of justice. g) It would be democratic. It would be act of Parliament. There's nothing brutish about it. Please again consider the example I gave a few posts up. You do not know who you are, how much money you have, which country you live in, which services you have access to. Would you choose a system where you are rewarded for being lucky, or a system where everyone is guarenteed a minimum whether they are lucky or not?
  18. Watch live channels in pc

    Hmm. I can't seem to play the movie files. And it's installed a few suspicious programs. I'm not sure this is legit. I'll just do my internet shopping with my credit card and then uninstall it.
  19. Watch live channels in pc

    So I just download the .exe and I can watch all the stuff I want? Sounds like a great deal.
  20. Watch live channels in pc

    Thank you Brown1985!
  21. European Elections

    Or it could be that the Greens are genuinely progressive and that is what is appealing. I'm curious to know more about the stance on stem cell research.
  22. European Elections

    In terms of a), you're not getting to the root of the issue again. Whether you're intelligent/unintelligent or prone to bad behaviour is a question of luck. You do not get to decide whether you 1) have the capacity to be intelligent 2) enjoy the correct culture/family life to be intelligent. So the logical thought is that if you have those gifts, you have not earned them, and if you don't have those gifts, you don't deserve to be punished. If you are unintelligent and prone to bad behaviour it is not always your fault, in fact it is likely not your fault. It is usually the result of the family you were born into, the nature of your brain, the culture/nation you were raised in. Basic income guarentees a sustained flow of capital NO MATTER how lucky you are, whether you are born intelligent or not, whether you were born to educated parents or not, or born into a nourishing culture or not. It also stands that the barriers to education can often be solved by more capital. Many children don't go to school because they have to work. Many do not have the correct environment to learn in. Raising the quality of life for all, removing poverty through basic income for all, creates an environment that children CAN learn it. It means the children of today will create a better atmosphere for their children. It is true that rich kids can be just as obnoxious as poor ones, but that suggests these behavioural problems are independent of capital issues. Obnoxious poor kids are often that way because of their home lives, and these home lives can be improved by removing poverty. In terms of b), again we are talking about being deserving. You were able to earn that money because you were lucky and enjoyed certain gifts. Others don't have those gifts, and weren't able to earn that money. Others were born into circumstances that were not so conducive. Everyone, including you, should have a fair start. The transfer of intergenerational wealth, to undeserving sons and daughters, violates the fair starts principle. It doesn't encourage reckless spending at all. That's just psychological hoodickery. Everyone gets a fair chunk of the pot, and you are free to earn more than that and enjoy a higher standard of living. If you spend all your UBI, then that is your decision. If you decide to spend all your money before you die, this is also fine, it is your decision. The problem is that the intergenerational wealth maintains a gap between the rich and the poor, the lucky and the unlucky, and this is not fair. Everyone should have a fair start, and 'real freedom' to enjoy their lives. EDIT: The idea of giving your cash away without your permission is a false one. The thought is that everyone in this society would agree that fair starts for EVERYONE, no matter how LUCKY you are, is just. If you think that life should be determined by brute luck, then you would not be welcome.
  23. European Elections

    You are completely missing the thought behind the idea, but taking your post as something to move the conversation forward, consider a) why are some kids 'foolish'? is it their fault? what is the role of luck in being successful/unsuccessful/productive/unproductive? what is the role of capital in the production of 'foolish' kids? how would more money affect their and their parents lives? b) government isn't dictacting how capital should be distributed. we're talking about what is just i.e. how can we make citizens's lives better.
  24. Rate the last film you saw

    You always were a heathen Wes :P 10/10...like tears in rain.
×