"Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help."
But see, that's why his is a trick question ...
If the answer is "tough shit" then it's a concession that implementing BI (or anything like it) is simply adjusting the "tough shit dial" to a relatively different value. There's still a benefits ceiling, beyond which it's "tough shit".
At that point it becomes difficult to justify any particular point on the tough shit dial - especially when todays tough shit was, four generations ago, essentially heaven on earth.
No benefits at all is a rational position. Endless benefits, cradle to grave is also a rational position. Neither of them are self-contradictory or loony. You may disagree with either of them but neither of them are crazy.
It's all of the bullshit in-between that is totally unworkable - both practically and theoretically. His question - and your answer - illustrate that very well.
> It's all of the bullshit in-between that is totally unworkable - both practically and theoretically.
No. In most countries of the world, including the United states, limited social benefits exist.
It is sometimes messy, it is sometimes unfair. But they are reality.
"No. In most countries of the world, including the United states, limited social benefits exist. It is sometimes messy, it is sometimes unfair. But they are reality."
Yes, that is exactly my point and it is from knowledge of the US systems especially that that point is informed.
It is my contention that they don't work - not just practically, on the ground, but even theoretically.
But it doesn't mean that they don't work at all. You are dismissing them because they aren't working perfectly. And I am saying that it is wrong to dismiss something just because it isn't perfect, especially if there is no better alternative.
> At that point it becomes difficult to justify any particular point on the tough shit dial - especially when todays tough shit was, four generations ago, essentially heaven on earth.
I don't see how this follows.
You are arguing that perfect is the enemy of good?
This tough shit dial be as low as is acceptable fiscally and to the contemporary standards of society.
> It's all of the bullshit in-between that is totally unworkable - both practically and theoretically. His question - and your answer - illustrate that very well.
By this logic do current US welfare programs count as the "bullshit in-between?" Those are very much workable practically in the sense that they are currently in effect and are not planned to be dismantled. For that matter doesn't any level of government support for disadvantaged citizens count as the "bullshit in-between?"
But see, that's why his is a trick question ...
If the answer is "tough shit" then it's a concession that implementing BI (or anything like it) is simply adjusting the "tough shit dial" to a relatively different value. There's still a benefits ceiling, beyond which it's "tough shit".
At that point it becomes difficult to justify any particular point on the tough shit dial - especially when todays tough shit was, four generations ago, essentially heaven on earth.
No benefits at all is a rational position. Endless benefits, cradle to grave is also a rational position. Neither of them are self-contradictory or loony. You may disagree with either of them but neither of them are crazy.
It's all of the bullshit in-between that is totally unworkable - both practically and theoretically. His question - and your answer - illustrate that very well.