Finland to pay unemployed basic income of $587 per month

Associated Press ^ | Jan 2, 2017 1:49 PM EST | Jari Tanner

[unlearner]

“And when I request brevity of you, just remember that a tl;dr post is argumentum verbosium”

You like to invoke the ever-popular, atheist, anti-creationist universal response to arguments they don’t like. Just pull from a list of supposed logical fallacies and pretend that you articulated some sort of reasoned argument.

You haven’t.

Just because you prefer to operate in short catch phrases and platitudes, does not mean the world is going to bow to your demand (and it is a demand not a “request”), nor will reality alter itself to accommodate such psychosis.

If following a line of reasoning or taking in the relevant facts is too much heavy lifting then don’t bother. Just stay in the kiddie pool.

Your multiple, short replies lack substance and contribute nothing meaningful to the conversation. Instead you just resort to personal attacks. That’s ad hominem. Look that up on your logical fallacy cheat sheet, and apply it appropriately.

[unlearner]

“My position will remain that I stand with Goldwater’s assessment from his book when it comes to government programs.”

Well, Goldwater may very well be right. And your position may be right also.

I never said we need a universal basic income. My only point is that not all forms are socialistic. It is NOT socialism when the only qualification is citizenship.

Do we need the government running such a program? We agree that the government does nearly everything inefficiently.

But there are some economic issues that arise resultant to the move of society from an industrial era into an information era. And these may not be resolved with cookie cutter approaches that worked in the past.

We have to apply underlying principles to new challenges.

[Olog-hai]

There is no such move away from industry that I can see, or at least in terms of logic; industry is still needed, and frankly the left’s pushing industry off our shores is a move to undermine our national security by reverting the USA to the state of dependence on foreign nations (and this time extremely unfriendly to us) that existed during the time of the war of independence from the British crown. But that may be another matter, although I see a relation.

There are many things I disagree with Alexander Hamilton on, but he was right that “every nation … ought to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply; these comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense” (Report on Manufactures, 1791).

[unlearner]

I agree with you 100% on this.

In an age where globalism is promoted as a great thing as opposed to national sovereignty, we are greatly at risk and vulnerable to our enemies because of this dependence.

The thing that is hard to predict on technology is how automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence will affect the labor market.

The move from an agricultural society to an industrial one did not result in less of a need for workers. But it did impact the nature of the work to be done and the level of education required (on average) in order to earn a decent living.

We need laws and policies that promote a strong work ethic, innovation, and the exploitation of natural resources, while discouraging fraud, theft, laziness, and government dependency.