
Basic Income and Soylent - imartin2k
http://www.scottsantens.com/soylent-and-basic-income
======
peaduaw
of course welfare is limiting choices, it's the globalist's way of making
people lazy and weak. basic income would be better than welfare. and no taxes
and less regulations would be better than basic income. <infowars.com>

~~~
gloverkcn
I completely disagree with your comments.

What globalists? Sources? Name them.

Welfare is a system with a good purpose, but poor implementation. The goal is
to help lift people up who are down and out. It turns out it's incredibly
difficult to get groups of people on their feet with minimal monetary
assistance. I have heard lots of people refer to welfare recipients as lazy,
but have never heard anyone in any sort of position of authority say that
laziness is the goal.

No taxes means no military, interstate highways, FDA, FBI, post office,
nationak parks, federal courts, etc.

No taxes means NO regulations and NO federal laws, since taxes pay for the
people who enforce regulations and laws. no regulations means the country is
given to the strongest corporations with 0 oversight. Dump chemicals wherever
you want, put whatever you want in food (sawdust, bleach, etc), etc.

Passing a federal law does nothing without a federal government to enforce it.

Congress empowers agencies so they can monitor and regulate an industry for
the public good. Otherwise congress would have to pass a law for every little
thing which would bog the government down. People get upset about regulations,
but a lot of them exist because some person or organization did something to
harm the public interest and a regulation was created to prevent it from
happening again.

Can agencies get out of control? Absolutely, and it's congress's job to rein
them in. While they report to the president all theirs power comes form the
legislative branch.

As an aside? Why do you have infowars.com at the end of your comment? Infowars
isn't a source appropriate for this forum

~~~
Naed_force
The government can charge rent for utilisation of land and other natural
resources. That's not the same thing as a tax, and it can be morally
justified.

Revenue from such rent would be enough to cover the government dealing with
externalities, whether that be generating positive externalities or reducing
negative ones.

Welfare is a nonvoluntary transfer of income, to force one party to provide
for the basic needs of another. It can't happen in a free society. It leads to
an explosion in single parenthood. When a guaranteed income is conditioned
only on a person existing, then you will encourage people to bring people into
existence at the lowest possible cost to themselves. That's indeed what the
statistics show for Western countries over the last 40 years.

~~~
maxander
The birth rates in Western countries have been _plummeting_ for the last 40
years. In fact, birth rates globally are declining almost everywhere _except_
in countries that are still too poor to provide things like welfare. The data
does not support your position.

~~~
Jabanga
The rate of single parenthood (particularly low income single parenthood) has
been exploding in the West, concurrent with rising social welfare spending.

As for the general birthrate, that seems to be affected by income, not the
availability of welfare. This is indicated by examples like Hong Kong and
Singapore, which have much lower levels of welfare than most developed
countries, and much lower birthrates.

