Some would take that as a good reason not to provide welfare.
Douglas Milnes
21

Some completely agree with your suggestion that welfare is an incentive to be lazy, as a good reason not to provide welfare. It certainly does not sound a very positive thing, the way you put it: “…given that some humans are plain too lazy (even more so than simply stupid, I think) to work hard enough to improve above a hand-to-mouth, poor existence.”

Observe that when quoting a person, it is customary to use the actual words used by that person, and though we observe no quotation marks, the phrase, “the way you put it:” implies a quotation.

I also disagree that lacking aspects of intelligence is stupid, while quite intelligent people do stupid things all the time… bearing in mind that it is particular aspects of intelligence that allow one to take advantage of others

I have not suggested any change to existing social welfare programs anywhere, making this a gross misrepresentation, so, provide all the welfare you want, that is the function of the demanded actual social contracts

Far from robbing society of anything, aside from slaves perhaps, it would provide an abundance of opportunity along with the abundance of available and sustainably priced credit

Of course “There will always be people at the bottom of an income scale…” duh, so what, I have only suggested providing each with a vote in capitalism, enfranchisement in the economic system, which requires a quantum of secure capital, and there will always be those who don’t particularly give a shit about money, beyond subsistence

“As for your other issues,…” What other issues? I just want to get everyone paid, something, equally, from the same source, suggest a rule change to affect that, and engage in a logical thought experiment

So about the “wouldn’t work” thing: If/when the suggested rule change is made, people may claim their Shares and get paid. That is how it works. any effects beyond that are conjecture, and there we can examine relative likelihood

It doesn’t matter the level of development, each country will benefit equally on a per capita basis, with the cost to a nation limited to the level of debt it will accept. I suggest that the features of this rule will rather rapidly level the development of nations, which is the aim

This paragraph you end with is wild, to put it mildly. What “seems” to you is not what I’ve suggested. The notion that money provides nothing to an economy is belied by the simple fact that it exists, though the characteristic of nothingness that is the fiat backing our currencies is what makes that fiat ideally suited for the function. Nothing can not be lost or stolen, so a Share of the world fiat supply will cost (practically) nothing to distribute, and can not be used for any other purpose, like any right

Lastly, about the farming: The abundance of sustainably priced credit created by global economic enfranchisement would enable a resurgence of small scale farming, and provide an aid to the sustainability of subsistence farming

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated stephenstillwell’s story.