## Past-Focused Policy

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

### Past-Focused Policy

A past-focused outlook is dominant on both the left and the right. The left looks at the sins of the past, and shapes policy based on those sins. The right looks at the positives of the past, and shapes policy based on those positives. But both are effectively saying that way the world evolves should be tied to how we got here. Neither has a strong future-focused vision of what the world should look like, with policies based on how to get us there.

Each has something they can gesture towards as a plausible future focus, but those things aren't really motivating their policy preferences. Consider, for example, the left's desire to address the past sins of racism. They can gesture at a future-focused goal of a more equal world, but their policy preferences don't reflect that focus, instead emphasizing benefits to groups that have been wronged in the past. A universal basic income would do more to create an equal world than would race-based reparations, but the left would, it seems, prefer the latter, which serve to right a past wrong without a particular focus on whether they are the best and most efficient way to create a certain world.

The right, for it's part, looks at a past of what you might call small-town social values, those that existed before the snooty left stuck their feminism etc. in everything. But rather than shape policies that encourage that kind of world (preferences for local businesses, support for stay-at-home moms and the elderly), their policy targets the threats of the past: punishing blue states and liberal social programs, and trying to lock down the borders to prevent the diverse society that already exists.

This trend is bad for the world. An over-focus on making sure that people get their just deserts, on closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, leads to a confused set of policies that don't address any of the looming problems society faces. Policy should be based on what we expect to happen and how we can improve it. History plays a role in that, but not as the main focus of policy. History should only inform expectations; our policies should be future-focused. Both the left and the right need to do more to shape and articulate a vision for the future, and clearly explain how their policies will get us there.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5554
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Carleas wrote: Both the left and the right need to do more to shape and articulate a vision for the future, and clearly explain how their policies will get us there.

Make a Constitutional amendment that obligates laws and regulations to measurably meet their stated rationale, then everything will change and you will get your wish.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Carleas wrote:A past-focused outlook is dominant on both the left and the right. The left looks at the sins of the past, and shapes policy based on those sins. The right looks at the positives of the past, and shapes policy based on those positives. But both are effectively saying that way the world evolves should be tied to how we got here. Neither has a strong future-focused vision of what the world should look like, with policies based on how to get us there.

Each has something they can gesture towards as a plausible future focus, but those things aren't really motivating their policy preferences. Consider, for example, the left's desire to address the past sins of racism. They can gesture at a future-focused goal of a more equal world, but their policy preferences don't reflect that focus, instead emphasizing benefits to groups that have been wronged in the past. A universal basic income would do more to create an equal world than would race-based reparations, but the left would, it seems, prefer the latter, which serve to right a past wrong without a particular focus on whether they are the best and most efficient way to create a certain world.

The right, for it's part, looks at a past of what you might call small-town social values, those that existed before the snooty left stuck their feminism etc. in everything. But rather than shape policies that encourage that kind of world (preferences for local businesses, support for stay-at-home moms and the elderly), their policy targets the threats of the past: punishing blue states and liberal social programs, and trying to lock down the borders to prevent the diverse society that already exists.

This trend is bad for the world. An over-focus on making sure that people get their just deserts, on closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, leads to a confused set of policies that don't address any of the looming problems society faces. Policy should be based on what we expect to happen and how we can improve it. History plays a role in that, but not as the main focus of policy. History should only inform expectations; our policies should be future-focused. Both the left and the right need to do more to shape and articulate a vision for the future, and clearly explain how their policies will get us there.

Both the left and the right are controlled opposition for the uneducated idiotic masses, the real people in power are non-ideological where they're all about acquiring power by any means possible.

A universal basic income would do more to create an equal world than would race-based reparations,

First off, who's going to pay for such an expense? Do you really believe in race based reparations?

Finally, if people's sole existence is completely dependent on the state where it becomes their entire identity, how is that any different of the bondage of slavery?

and trying to lock down the borders to prevent the diverse society that already exists.

They're against open borders and some think that the original dominant ethnic population has a right to exist or thrive. This comes down all to revenge political agendas of the left that are anti-white or anti European.

Both the left and the right need to do more to shape and articulate a vision for the future, and clearly explain how their policies will get us there.

Most problems human beings and civilization faces is because of this obsession of an ideal future. The problem arises in that nobody agrees what a future entails or should be.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Carleas wrote:A past-focused outlook is dominant on both the left and the right. The left looks at the sins of the past, and shapes policy based on those sins. The right looks at the positives of the past, and shapes policy based on those positives. But both are effectively saying that way the world evolves should be tied to how we got here. Neither has a strong future-focused vision of what the world should look like, with policies based on how to get us there.

Each has something they can gesture towards as a plausible future focus, but those things aren't really motivating their policy preferences. Consider, for example, the left's desire to address the past sins of racism. They can gesture at a future-focused goal of a more equal world, but their policy preferences don't reflect that focus, instead emphasizing benefits to groups that have been wronged in the past. A universal basic income would do more to create an equal world than would race-based reparations, but the left would, it seems, prefer the latter, which serve to right a past wrong without a particular focus on whether they are the best and most efficient way to create a certain world.

The right, for it's part, looks at a past of what you might call small-town social values, those that existed before the snooty left stuck their feminism etc. in everything. But rather than shape policies that encourage that kind of world (preferences for local businesses, support for stay-at-home moms and the elderly), their policy targets the threats of the past: punishing blue states and liberal social programs, and trying to lock down the borders to prevent the diverse society that already exists.

This trend is bad for the world. An over-focus on making sure that people get their just deserts, on closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, leads to a confused set of policies that don't address any of the looming problems society faces. Policy should be based on what we expect to happen and how we can improve it. History plays a role in that, but not as the main focus of policy. History should only inform expectations; our policies should be future-focused. Both the left and the right need to do more to shape and articulate a vision for the future, and clearly explain how their policies will get us there.

K: for the most part, I agree with this post... a couple of things.... the right focus on small town
values really is small town values that never existed....Ronald Rayguns vision of the past
being a small town in the fifties is great however that vision never existed.....it is an
idealize version of a reality that never existed.....the left does get lost in finding fairness
or justice for those who didn't get it back when...... justice is simply about treating
everyone equally and those who were treated differently were treated badly.....
and much of the agenda of the left today is driven by this notion of justice...
treating people equally regardless of wealth or position...... IQ45 recent
announcement that the President is above the law is just such a notion
of injustice... everyone must be treated equally or there is no such thing as
justice.....this is a bedrock, foundational belief of the left.... you cannot
know the left without understanding this.....

I agree with you on this idea of policy being understood in terms of future
and not past expectations..... this has been one of my many disagreements
with Obama.... he didn't create a vision of the future... of what might be
if we take this action and hold to these values.....I don't see anyone right
now creating such a vision and that is a major problem in America today....we
must have, we need a vision of where we need to be tomorrow....
the right tells us where we were and the left tells us where we are...
but we need to know where we will be.......

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend

Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

James S Saint wrote:Make a Constitutional amendment that obligates laws and regulations to measurably meet their stated rationale, then everything will change and you will get your wish.

While I don't have any particular problem with such an amendment, I don't think it would solve the problem. You can come up with assumptions within the realm of possibility to make almost any policy proposal work (e.g. implausible but technically possible growth projections for the GOP tax bill). If you try to define a ruler against which to measure, you turn that ruler into a partisan tool, which parties can pack with their lackeys.

How about an amendment that requires a statement of rationale for every law, as well as quantifiable outcomes that we should expect from the law. That way we can at least test laws to see how well they achieve their goals, and perhaps hold parties accountable for repeated failures (although this too could be gamed by the other party pushing laws that try to thwart the other party's predictions).

Zero_Sum wrote:First off, who's going to pay for such an expense? Do you really believe in race based reparations?

Finally, if people's sole existence is completely dependent on the state where it becomes their entire identity, how is that any different of the bondage of slavery?

I don't favor race-based reparations, though I do think that's part of the rationale for a UBI, i.e. that some part of the current wealth distribution is due to injustice of many kinds (and moreover that that will always be true).

Are you really asking what the difference is between a universal basic income and slavery?
Zero_Sum wrote:This comes down all to revenge political agendas of the left that are anti-white or anti European.

See, like this. 25% of US citizens aren't white. When we talk about "the US", it includes a whole lot of people that aren't white. When the right talks about a version of the US that is all white, they're talking about a time that never really existed, and never will exist, and they're failing to describe a realistic vision of the future.

Zero_Sum wrote:Most problems human beings and civilization faces is because of this obsession of an ideal future.

While I don't agree that this is true of "most" problems, I do agree that over-commitment to an ideal is dangerous. This is a solid response to my argument here, and one that I will need to think about more.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:the right focus on small town values really is small town values that never existed....Ronald Rayguns vision of the past being a small town in the fifties is great however that vision never existed

This is true, though I think a similar argument can be made about the left. A significant part of the white population wasn't here during slavery and the benefits they get from it are at most incidental; instead they came to the US destitute, escaping persecution in their native lands. Similarly many the non-white citizens descend from the oppressor class of other countries/cultures, e.g. those wealthy and powerful enough to evade wars, or to send their children to US universities. A past where all white people lived large on the backs of all non-white people never existed.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5554
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Make a Constitutional amendment that obligates laws and regulations to measurably meet their stated rationale, then everything will change and you will get your wish.

While I don't have any particular problem with such an amendment, I don't think it would solve the problem. You can come up with assumptions within the realm of possibility to make almost any policy proposal work (e.g. implausible but technically possible growth projections for the GOP tax bill). If you try to define a ruler against which to measure, you turn that ruler into a partisan tool, which parties can pack with their lackeys.

How about an amendment that requires a statement of rationale for every law, as well as quantifiable outcomes that we should expect from the law. That way we can at least test laws to see how well they achieve their goals, and perhaps hold parties accountable for repeated failures (although this too could be gamed by the other party pushing laws that try to thwart the other party's predictions).

Zero_Sum wrote:First off, who's going to pay for such an expense? Do you really believe in race based reparations?

Finally, if people's sole existence is completely dependent on the state where it becomes their entire identity, how is that any different of the bondage of slavery?

I don't favor race-based reparations, though I do think that's part of the rationale for a UBI, i.e. that some part of the current wealth distribution is due to injustice of many kinds (and moreover that that will always be true).

Are you really asking what the difference is between a universal basic income and slavery?
Zero_Sum wrote:This comes down all to revenge political agendas of the left that are anti-white or anti European.

See, like this. 25% of US citizens aren't white. When we talk about "the US", it includes a whole lot of people that aren't white. When the right talks about a version of the US that is all white, they're talking about a time that never really existed, and never will exist, and they're failing to describe a realistic vision of the future.

Zero_Sum wrote:Most problems human beings and civilization faces is because of this obsession of an ideal future.

While I don't agree that this is true of "most" problems, I do agree that over-commitment to an ideal is dangerous. This is a solid response to my argument here, and one that I will need to think about more.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:the right focus on small town values really is small town values that never existed....Ronald Rayguns vision of the past being a small town in the fifties is great however that vision never existed

This is true, though I think a similar argument can be made about the left. A significant part of the white population wasn't here during slavery and the benefits they get from it are at most incidental; instead they came to the US destitute, escaping persecution in their native lands. Similarly many the non-white citizens descend from the oppressor class of other countries/cultures, e.g. those wealthy and powerful enough to evade wars, or to send their children to US universities. A past where all white people lived large on the backs of all non-white people never existed.

I don't favor race-based reparations, though I do think that's part of the rationale for a UBI, i.e. that some part of the current wealth distribution is due to injustice of many kinds (and moreover that that will always be true).

What's the difference between universal basic income and receiving a small poultry sum of money living off of an Indian reservation? Is everybody going to be on an universal basic income? If no, who won't be?

Is everybody on a universal basic income going to be herded up into neighborhood favelas?

Where's the money going to come from to fund this societal operation?

It seems universal income will be the final act of dealing with all the undesirables, obsolete people, outcasts, and lost causes. Certainly you can see where that dangerous rationale leads to.

You know what I think, I think this failed modern society will become so brutally oppressive eventually that many in great numbers will flee to inhospitable wastelands just to escape in living and government organizations will fear that their tax serfs or slaves will be running away [can't have that] doing everything they can to stop them. That's my vision of the future in how all of this ends.

[Assuming we even get to that point.]

Are you really asking what the difference is between a universal basic income and slavery?

Were native Americans free on the first Indian reservations, yes or no? They also were completely dependent on a Federal government for all their needs in living.

See, like this. 25% of US citizens aren't white. When we talk about "the US", it includes a whole lot of people that aren't white. When the right talks about a version of the US that is all white, they're talking about a time that never really existed, and never will exist, and they're failing to describe a realistic vision of the future.

Before the 1965 immigration act 80% of the United States population was European/white and it is predicted that this number will drop down to 50% around 2045. The same thing is happening in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. If you think there will be no violent repercussions or considerable consequences to this kind of population replacement and diminishing you are naive. If you deny the magnitude of anti-white and anti European sentiment in neo liberal government institutions you're not paying attention.

While I don't agree that this is true of "most" problems, I do agree that over-commitment to an ideal is dangerous. This is a solid response to my argument here, and one that I will need to think about more.
I am still sticking by my statement of most, it will have to be a situation of where we agree to disagree.

When you come to the rest of your conclusion let me know.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Carleas wrote:How about an amendment that requires a statement of rationale for every law, as well as quantifiable outcomes that we should expect from the law. That way we can at least test laws to see how well they achieve their goals

That is what I said.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it's unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it's small, so it's not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.

If you're interested, I've laid out my arguments for UBI in more detail here, and discussed some of the mechanics of funding and distributing it here. I'm also happy to continue this discussion here or in either of those threads.

Zero_Sum wrote:Were native Americans free on the first Indian reservations, yes or no? They also were completely dependent on a Federal government for all their needs in living.

I don't think they were particularly free, no, but I don't think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I'd put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.

In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.

Zero_Sum wrote:If you think there will be no violent repercussions or considerable consequences to this kind of population replacement and diminishing you are naive.

I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you're justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn't necessary. Almost as though you're arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that's circular and you didn't put it that way, so I'm sure I'm just not following, I just don't see how else this is relevant. The left's aim (which I'm actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right's aim (which I'm also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don't symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.

Zero_Sum wrote:When you come to the rest of your conclusion let me know.

All my conclusions are just premises for the next thing :)

Having thought a bit more about it, I still agree that ideals in general can be harmful, and I still disagree that most of our problems are because of adherence to ideals. But I will say more to the former: I don't think ideals are avoidable. Even if our goals are modest and iterative, they still must rely on a modest and iterative ideal of what the world should look like. They still also allow for things to get worse before they get better (even if it's only modestly worse to get modestly better).

So I don't think the choice is between pursuing ideals or not pursuing ideals. Rather, it's about what those ideals are and where they reside, e.g. past or future, and how far in either direction. I think a future-focused ideal is preferable (and I think suggestions like James' amendment would keep our ideals set in a future that we can realistically expect, and therefore potentially achieve).
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5554
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Carleas wrote:A past-focused outlook is dominant on both the left and the right. The left looks at the sins of the past, and shapes policy based on those sins. The right looks at the positives of the past, and shapes policy based on those positives. But both are effectively saying that way the world evolves should be tied to how we got here. Neither has a strong future-focused vision of what the world should look like, with policies based on how to get us there.

Each has something they can gesture towards as a plausible future focus, but those things aren't really motivating their policy preferences. Consider, for example, the left's desire to address the past sins of racism. They can gesture at a future-focused goal of a more equal world, but their policy preferences don't reflect that focus, instead emphasizing benefits to groups that have been wronged in the past. A universal basic income would do more to create an equal world than would race-based reparations, but the left would, it seems, prefer the latter, which serve to right a past wrong without a particular focus on whether they are the best and most efficient way to create a certain world.

The right, for it's part, looks at a past of what you might call small-town social values, those that existed before the snooty left stuck their feminism etc. in everything. But rather than shape policies that encourage that kind of world (preferences for local businesses, support for stay-at-home moms and the elderly), their policy targets the threats of the past: punishing blue states and liberal social programs, and trying to lock down the borders to prevent the diverse society that already exists.

This trend is bad for the world. An over-focus on making sure that people get their just deserts, on closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, leads to a confused set of policies that don't address any of the looming problems society faces. Policy should be based on what we expect to happen and how we can improve it. History plays a role in that, but not as the main focus of policy. History should only inform expectations; our policies should be future-focused. Both the left and the right need to do more to shape and articulate a vision for the future, and clearly explain how their policies will get us there.

By a large measure , the problem with an amendment, or any other remedy is, that the political basis of referring to such needed rationale-ideal hides a disconnect not only along party lines, but with the anti-historical trend advancing and undermining its philosophical underpinnings.

Public policy can be stretched only so far to accommodate the thinning out of black letter version of the good old days.

Testing outcomes vis. such rationale statements sound like they may work, however the swamp being what it is on either side,there may may not be guarantees against pfiltering them with non factual data. It may serve as a possible plan for the future, maybe.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Carleas wrote:

As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it's unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it's small, so it's not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.

If you're interested, I've laid out my arguments for UBI in more detail here, and discussed some of the mechanics of funding and distributing it here. I'm also happy to continue this discussion here or in either of those threads.

Zero_Sum wrote:Were native Americans free on the first Indian reservations, yes or no? They also were completely dependent on a Federal government for all their needs in living.

I don't think they were particularly free, no, but I don't think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I'd put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.

In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.

Zero_Sum wrote:If you think there will be no violent repercussions or considerable consequences to this kind of population replacement and diminishing you are naive.

I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you're justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn't necessary. Almost as though you're arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that's circular and you didn't put it that way, so I'm sure I'm just not following, I just don't see how else this is relevant. The left's aim (which I'm actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right's aim (which I'm also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don't symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.

Zero_Sum wrote:When you come to the rest of your conclusion let me know.

All my conclusions are just premises for the next thing

Having thought a bit more about it, I still agree that ideals in general can be harmful, and I still disagree that most of our problems are because of adherence to ideals. But I will say more to the former: I don't think ideals are avoidable. Even if our goals are modest and iterative, they still must rely on a modest and iterative ideal of what the world should look like. They still also allow for things to get worse before they get better (even if it's only modestly worse to get modestly better).

So I don't think the choice is between pursuing ideals or not pursuing ideals. Rather, it's about what those ideals are and where they reside, e.g. past or future, and how far in either direction. I think a future-focused ideal is preferable (and I think suggestions like James' amendment would keep our ideals set in a future that we can realistically expect, and therefore potentially achieve).

As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it's unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it's small, so it's not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.

So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income? For instance would a lawyer in Washington D.C. have an income beyond universal basic income? Also, is the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody? Will some individuals still have more wealth than others? Your source for a universal basic income through taxation is problematic because there is no large political will to implement such a program from any political party moreover the individuals that are masters or gatekeepers of industry and infrastructure are cut throats who do not in any significant ideological form believe in sharing wealth in collective distribution. Then there are all their underlings that work for them that also ideologically won't support it. Just exactly how would you overcome this tremendous hurdle?

I don't think they were particularly free, no, but I don't think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I'd put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.

There are many forms of discrimination where socio economic classism is the most embedded form of them all.

In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.

I've lived near several reservations and not all native Americans share in the wealth of a tribal casino just so you know. A great deal of them still live in poverty to this day.

I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you're justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn't necessary. Almost as though you're arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that's circular and you didn't put it that way, so I'm sure I'm just not following, I just don't see how else this is relevant. The left's aim (which I'm actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right's aim (which I'm also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don't symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.

Yes, I do justify white resentment and anger viewing it as natural due to the historical underpinnings that have played out the last hundred years. Violent rebellion and retribution is always a particular possibility if things get to a breaking point of no return however with that said if a peaceful solution to the conflict could be ascertained I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that. The only problem is that there are many different kinds of white political factions concerning this resentment as you call it and not all of them are as diplomatic as I am in terms of negotiation or coexistence. You might get some to try in negotiating peace like myself while the more radical ones politically believe in peace not whatsoever. They have a no tolerance, coexistence, or peace mindset. It depends on what kind of resenting European of us you speak with.

There is also the problem of various individuals and groups that are vested in maintaining the current status quo against ethnic whites and Europeans that so far have no interest in changing their agenda where so long as they exist I can definitely tell you no peace or negotiation of any kind will ever exist if their objectives are continued increasing ethnic hostilities.

Having thought a bit more about it, I still agree that ideals in general can be harmful, and I still disagree that most of our problems are because of adherence to ideals. But I will say more to the former: I don't think ideals are avoidable. Even if our goals are modest and iterative, they still must rely on a modest and iterative ideal of what the world should look like. They still also allow for things to get worse before they get better (even if it's only modestly worse to get modestly better).

So I don't think the choice is between pursuing ideals or not pursuing ideals. Rather, it's about what those ideals are and where they reside, e.g. past or future, and how far in either direction. I think a future-focused ideal is preferable (and I think suggestions like James' amendment would keep our ideals set in a future that we can realistically expect, and therefore potentially achieve).

You're right that idealism is unavoidable but some ideals are less dangerous than others where some also have horrendous consequences. Still yet, there will never be any kind of ideal to be realized that will get rid of human conflict completely. We can only realistically aspire towards minimization of human conflict. At our present course there is only the maximum of human conflict where many of us understand the dangers in all that.
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:10 pm, edited 7 times in total.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Zero_Sum wrote:
Carleas wrote:

As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it's unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it's small, so it's not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.

If you're interested, I've laid out my arguments for UBI in more detail here, and discussed some of the mechanics of funding and distributing it here. I'm also happy to continue this discussion here or in either of those threads.

Zero_Sum wrote:Were native Americans free on the first Indian reservations, yes or no? They also were completely dependent on a Federal government for all their needs in living.

I don't think they were particularly free, no, but I don't think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I'd put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.

In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.

Zero_Sum wrote:If you think there will be no violent repercussions or considerable consequences to this kind of population replacement and diminishing you are naive.

I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you're justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn't necessary. Almost as though you're arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that's circular and you didn't put it that way, so I'm sure I'm just not following, I just don't see how else this is relevant. The left's aim (which I'm actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right's aim (which I'm also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don't symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.

Zero_Sum wrote:When you come to the rest of your conclusion let me know.

All my conclusions are just premises for the next thing

Having thought a bit more about it, I still agree that ideals in general can be harmful, and I still disagree that most of our problems are because of adherence to ideals. But I will say more to the former: I don't think ideals are avoidable. Even if our goals are modest and iterative, they still must rely on a modest and iterative ideal of what the world should look like. They still also allow for things to get worse before they get better (even if it's only modestly worse to get modestly better).

So I don't think the choice is between pursuing ideals or not pursuing ideals. Rather, it's about what those ideals are and where they reside, e.g. past or future, and how far in either direction. I think a future-focused ideal is preferable (and I think suggestions like James' amendment would keep our ideals set in a future that we can realistically expect, and therefore potentially achieve).

As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it's unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it's small, so it's not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.

So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income? For instance would a lawyer in Washington D.C. have an income beyond universal basic income? Also, is the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody? Your source for a universal basic income through taxation is problematic because there is no large political will to implement such a program from any political party moreover the individuals that are masters or gatekeepers of industry and infrastructure are cut throats who do not in any significant ideological form believe in sharing wealth in distribution. Then there are all their underlings that work for them that also ideologically won't support it. Just exactly how would overcome this hurdle?

I don't think they were particularly free, no, but I don't think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I'd put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.

There are many forms of discrimination where socio economic classism is the most embedded form of them all.

In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.

I've lived near several reservations and not all native Americans share in the wealth of a tribal casino just so you know. A great deal of them still live in poverty to this day.

I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you're justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn't necessary. Almost as though you're arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that's circular and you didn't put it that way, so I'm sure I'm just not following, I just don't see how else this is relevant. The left's aim (which I'm actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right's aim (which I'm also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don't symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.

Yes, I do justify white resentment and anger viewing it as natural due to the historical underpinnings that have played out the last hundred years. Violent rebellion and retribution is always a particular possibility if things get to a breaking point however with that said if a peaceful solution to the conflict could be ascertained I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that.

I can agree with the statement on unequal distribution by tribes unto their membership of monetary gains. When I asked a cashier if she sees big winners on a regular basis, she replied that when the tribal leaders come into play, tens of thousands are bet in a single play, and none of which is recirulated because that's against lawful distribution. So the climate perpetuates its swampish aura, and that lawful public policy decision may have a questionable outcome.
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Meno_ wrote:

I can agree with the statement on unequal distribution by tribes unto their membership of monetary gains. When I asked a cashier if she sees big winners on a regular basis, she replied that when the tribal leaders come into play, tens of thousands are bet in a single play, and none of which is recirulated because that's against lawful distribution. So the climate perpetuates its swampish aura, and that lawful public policy decision may have a questionable outcome.

Agreed. When I lived near the reservations it was a constant to hear about the ongoing corruption of tribal council members. Charges of financial embezzlement and swindling of tribal money happens frequently.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

So on the basis of that specific example, a line could be drawn to a more general one that infringes on what a reasonable approach would comprise of in an equitable distribution ?
At least in today's and more likely in expected near future testing of credibility in this regard? Or are You unwilling to go that far?
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Meno_ wrote:So on the basis of that specific example, a line could be drawn to a more general one that infringes on what a reasonable approach would comprise of in an equitable distribution ?
At least in today's and more likely in expected near future testing of credibility in this regard? Or are You unwilling to go that far?

Is this directed towards me?
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Zero_Sum wrote:
Meno_ wrote:So on the basis of that specific example, a line could be drawn to a more general one that infringes on what a reasonable approach would comprise of in an equitable distribution ?
At least in today's and more likely in expected near future testing of credibility in this regard? Or are You unwilling to go that far?

Is this directed towards me?

Of course not, and it is not a negation of anyone's views, only an exploratory attempt to see how this issue is going.
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Meno_ wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:
Meno_ wrote:So on the basis of that specific example, a line could be drawn to a more general one that infringes on what a reasonable approach would comprise of in an equitable distribution ?
At least in today's and more likely in expected near future testing of credibility in this regard? Or are You unwilling to go that far?

Is this directed towards me?

Of course not, and it is not a negation of anyone's views, only an exploratory attempt to see how this issue is going.

"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

No it's not addressed to him either. This forum has been started by him , and it is the issue what is addressed, since its an open discussion. That comments pertain to his opinions, do not extend to ad hominem prescriptions, I hope.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

I think the left and right are very forward-thinking. It seems to me a lot of their policies and rhetoric are completely wrapped up in trying to avoid the dystopias they think the other faction is trying to bring about. We just got done hearing that tax cuts are literally the end of the world, and we hear plenty that Muslim immigration is the end of the world as well. It seems to me that the fear and resentment each side has for the other is largely motivated through poor attempts at predicting the future.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13278
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Uccisore wrote:I think the left and right are very forward-thinking. It seems to me a lot of their policies and rhetoric are completely wrapped up in trying to avoid the dystopias they think the other faction is trying to bring about. We just got done hearing that tax cuts are literally the end of the world, and we hear plenty that Muslim immigration is the end of the world as well. It seems to me that the fear and resentment each side has for the other is largely motivated through poor attempts at predicting the future.

Yes, both are very good at creating dystopias, with the left we are being pushed into communism and with the conservative right corporate financial fascism, what choices to choose between! Talk about being herded into false paradigms!
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Zero_Sum wrote:
Uccisore wrote:I think the left and right are very forward-thinking. It seems to me a lot of their policies and rhetoric are completely wrapped up in trying to avoid the dystopias they think the other faction is trying to bring about. We just got done hearing that tax cuts are literally the end of the world, and we hear plenty that Muslim immigration is the end of the world as well. It seems to me that the fear and resentment each side has for the other is largely motivated through poor attempts at predicting the future.

Yes, both are very good at creating dystopias, with the left we are being pushed into communism and with the conservative right corporate financial fascism, what choices to choose between! Talk about being herded into false paradigms!

Whatever happens to the reasonably wise moderate agenda?
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Meno_ wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:
Uccisore wrote:I think the left and right are very forward-thinking. It seems to me a lot of their policies and rhetoric are completely wrapped up in trying to avoid the dystopias they think the other faction is trying to bring about. We just got done hearing that tax cuts are literally the end of the world, and we hear plenty that Muslim immigration is the end of the world as well. It seems to me that the fear and resentment each side has for the other is largely motivated through poor attempts at predicting the future.

Yes, both are very good at creating dystopias, with the left we are being pushed into communism and with the conservative right corporate financial fascism, what choices to choose between! Talk about being herded into false paradigms!

Whatever happens to the reasonably wise moderate agenda?

There is no moderate decision with either choice. That's the crux of the problem with modern politics. I'd soon see a global slash and burn policy than to choose between either of those choices.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

I think , to a degree , Your wish is coming to be, as we speak.
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Z_S:

"So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income?" Yes, basic income just means everyone gets the money, people can earn other income as they do now.
"[I]s the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody?" Yes, it's the same amount for everyone
"Will some individuals still have more wealth than others?" Yes. Think of it as establishing a floor: everyone gets $X/year, and they can go from there. Wealth and income inequality would still exist, though presumably at a lower level than they do today (assuming the UBI is funded through progressive taxation and has the affects I believe it would have). Zero_Sum wrote:Your source for a universal basic income through taxation is problematic because there is no large political will to implement such a program from any political party moreover the individuals that are masters or gatekeepers of industry and infrastructure are cut throats who do not in any significant ideological form believe in sharing wealth in collective distribution. Then there are all their underlings that work for them that also ideologically won't support it. Just exactly how would you overcome this tremendous hurdle? By convincing people on humble internet backwaters, of course! Winning the hearts and minds! But seriously, this looks a lot like the expectation-racist-violence-justifies-racist-violence argument. The fact that people don't support it doesn't entail that it's a bad or ineffective policy intervention. It may not be where sitting politicians should expend their limited political capital at the moment, but then I don't see that kind of consideration holding you back from casually endorsing soft white nationalism. Uccisore, you make a good point about the future-focused nature of scaring people away from the other party. And I think that tells you something about why future focus is so scarce in positive political visions: for any group of people, it's relatively easy to find a description of the future that they will all agree is bad, but it's quite difficult to find one where they all agree it's good. That's true even where people ostensibly agree about a lot of things. Take the Clinton vs. Bernie divide on the left: in terms of achievable policy outcomes they aren't that different, but you can barely keep the house hanging together due to the small differences in the ideal world they'd like to see. I see something similar going on on the right, though it's suppressed because they're in a position to achieve their achievable policy outcomes. User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No. Carleas Magister Ludi Posts: 5554 Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm Location: Washington DC, USA ### Re: Past-Focused Policy Carleas wrote:Z_S: "So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income?" Yes, basic income just means everyone gets the money, people can earn other income as they do now. "[I]s the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody?" Yes, it's the same amount for everyone "Will some individuals still have more wealth than others?" Yes. Think of it as establishing a floor: everyone gets$X/year, and they can go from there. Wealth and income inequality would still exist, though presumably at a lower level than they do today (assuming the UBI is funded through progressive taxation and has the affects I believe it would have).

Zero_Sum wrote:Your source for a universal basic income through taxation is problematic because there is no large political will to implement such a program from any political party moreover the individuals that are masters or gatekeepers of industry and infrastructure are cut throats who do not in any significant ideological form believe in sharing wealth in collective distribution. Then there are all their underlings that work for them that also ideologically won't support it. Just exactly how would you overcome this tremendous hurdle?

By convincing people on humble internet backwaters, of course! Winning the hearts and minds!

But seriously, this looks a lot like the expectation-racist-violence-justifies-racist-violence argument. The fact that people don't support it doesn't entail that it's a bad or ineffective policy intervention. It may not be where sitting politicians should expend their limited political capital at the moment, but then I don't see that kind of consideration holding you back from casually endorsing soft white nationalism.

Uccisore, you make a good point about the future-focused nature of scaring people away from the other party. And I think that tells you something about why future focus is so scarce in positive political visions: for any group of people, it's relatively easy to find a description of the future that they will all agree is bad, but it's quite difficult to find one where they all agree it's good. That's true even where people ostensibly agree about a lot of things. Take the Clinton vs. Bernie divide on the left: in terms of achievable policy outcomes they aren't that different, but you can barely keep the house hanging together due to the small differences in the ideal world they'd like to see. I see something similar going on on the right, though it's suppressed because they're in a position to achieve their achievable policy outcomes.

"So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income?" Yes, basic income just means everyone gets the money, people can earn other income as they do now.

Explain that to me since I've always heard that universal basic income would only go to those that need it mainly those with a consistent history of having little to no income whatsoever.

Why would a millionaire for instance collect a universal basic income?

Yes. Think of it as establishing a floor: everyone gets \$X/year, and they can go from there. Wealth and income inequality would still exist, though presumably at a lower level than they do today (assuming the UBI is funded through progressive taxation and has the affects I believe it would have).

So, in other words nothing really changes as some will still have more than others and with that rule over them.

By convincing people on humble internet backwaters, of course! Winning the hearts and minds!

Good luck with that, remember that they own all of the internet including the shut off button.

But seriously, this looks a lot like the expectation-racist-violence-justifies-racist-violence argument. The fact that people don't support it doesn't entail that it's a bad or ineffective policy intervention. It may not be where sitting politicians should expend their limited political capital at the moment, but then I don't see that kind of consideration holding you back from casually endorsing soft white nationalism.

Violence begets violence as is standard of all human history which I'm sure you're already aware of.

The rest of your post makes a bit of a mockery of me for surely you think of me as a naive simpleton as your tone towards me expresses such. I would of expect a more in depth reply concerning this conversation from you but I guess that was asking for too much.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic

Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

### Re: Past-Focused Policy

Zero_Sum wrote:Explain that to me since I've always heard that universal basic income would only go to those that need it mainly those with a consistent history of having little to no income whatsoever.

Why would a millionaire for instance collect a universal basic income?

I can think of two reasons, not equally persuasive:
1) Trying to target a universal income means making a big elaborate bureaucracy around it. It increases the overhead of running the program, and it increases the political pork barreling that can be done with it.
2) Making everyone get it changes how people think about it. When it's raised, it's raised for everyone. When it's lowered, it's lowered for everyone. I find this reason less important, but not nothing.

Zero_Sum wrote:So, in other words nothing really changes as some will still have more than others and with that rule over them.

It creates a floor of individual wealth. I think that's important, even if the floor is low. It meaningfully decreases the degree to which people are ruled over, because they have a minimum amount of autonomy, a minimum amount of power to exert. People can quit their job knowing they won't starve.

I also think it changes dynamics at the community level significantly. Think of opening a store in a poor community. At present, there's not enough money in some communities to justify that kind of investment. So no one in the neighborhood can open a store in their community, and the people in the community have a harder time getting work, and when they buy things they spend that money outside that community. Over time, there is a net money outflow from the poor community, and it's a vicious cycle because the more money flows out, the poorer it is, the less space for investment.

Introduce a basic income and things change. There's money flowing into the community. That money allows for people to invest in the community with an expectation that the community will have enough money to make it worth while. Now you have a virtuous cycle, where the whole community has a floor to their poverty. That gives every member of that community more opportunity, more choice, more freedom.

Zero_Sum wrote:Good luck with that, remember that they own all of the internet including the shut off button.

I own this site, and there are others like me. I do think a distributed mesh network would be better, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where we need one.

Zero_Sum wrote:The rest of your post makes a bit of a mockery of me for surely you think of me as a naive simpleton as your tone towards me expresses such.

That's a bad habit of mine, and I offer a sincere mea culpa. I mean to critique your ideas (and I appreciate your critique of mine), but I don't mean to mock you.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5554
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Next