Vice:
Between 1974 and 1979, the Canadian government tested the idea of a basic income guarantee (BIG) across an entire town, giving people enough money to survive in a way that no other place in North America has before or since.
For those four years—until the project was cancelled and its findings packed away—the town’s poorest residents were given monthly checks that supplemented what modest earnings they had and rewarded them for working more. And for that time, it seemed that the effects of poverty began to melt away. Doctor and hospital visits declined, mental health appeared to improve, and more teenagers completed high school.
Damn Canadian socialists.
Four years of Utopia.
I have an honest question. This sort of thing isn’t socialism, is it? It’s not communism. What ‘ism is it? Is there an ‘ism for it?
Wow. Well if that worked as good as they say it did, then we should give everyone a million dollars a year! Then everyone will be not only just surviving, but rich! (If you can plant 1 money tree, you can plant 100, no?)
I’ll bet Ayn Rand would’ve loved it.
Well, she did benefit from some government handouts…
The purpose of capitalism is to crush the weak and enrich a few. Why can’t you guys get that through your heads?
Do you go for thirds at all-you-can-eat buffets, or do you just eat as much as you need?
Looks like the experiment was a success, so of course it was cancelled just when it was needed the most.
Huh? Not quite sure what you are getting at, but I’ll answer the random question: I voluntarily trade my money earned from working to the restaurant owner who voluntarily provides me food according to whatever contract we agreed upon (implicitly, as is the case with most of the smaller transactions in life). I wouldn’t take thirds unless I desired it and had the money to exchange for it.
You took the guaranteed-income concept to a ridiculous, greedy extreme, presumably to discredit it. I was wondering if you practice that level of greed in everyday life as well. Or are you merely satisfied with projecting your worst inclinations onto poor strangers?
Wow. Such anger and vitriol from a member of the “tolerant” side of the political spectrum. You were able to discern that I am a evil greedy person from just three sentences in a blog post? I have a family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances who have known me for dozens of years, and I have snowed them into thinking I’m a pretty nice guy. But you. You have seen through this mask an outed the true evil within me. Slow clap.
Oh, and really that was all you got from my sarcasm? I’m sorry, you are so far off-base that I must readjust my methods.
That makes no sense whatsoever. It’s like saying that 1 glass of wine with dinner is fine, so why not have a dozen.
My point has nothing to do with consumption; 1 dollar, 9 dollars, 1 million dollars, it all has to come from somewhere (or more accurately someone). Yes it’s obviously “ridiculous” to pass a law giving everyone a million dollars; but that is only because that amount forces you to think (or should at least) about where you would get it from. Everything consumed must be produced by someone. You are never “giving away free money”. You are giving away someone else’s money….at the point of a gun.
And the baker who pays the local Mafia chief does actually receive “protection”. But did he ask for it? Could he have avoided it? Is it right and moral that he and others pay for it under threat of physical force?
“At the point of a gun”? Such anger and vitriol.
You make it sound as though that money’s disappearing down a rabbit hole. Or more accurately, being deposited in offshore tax-haven accounts by people who’ve promised “smaller government.” (They lied.)
The money described in that article got spent where it was received. It paid for food, shelter, health care, and clothing.
Is it right and moral that you’re allowed to use public roads and utilities without wanting to pay for their upkeep? Or were you just hoping to graze your cattle on public lands without paying fees for that, either? How much “free money” are you entitled to?
From whom? Where did this money come from? You are only looking at one side of the equation (spending), and ignoring (conveniently) the source of the goods you are redistributing. From whom was the wealth taken from, and under what manner was it taken? That has been my point the whole time, but it seems to me you are afraid to address it.
All laws are enforced at the point of a gun. That is not hyperbole, anger, or vitriol. It is a self-evident truth. Obviously laws are necessary and so are the people and means by which they enforce them. The question at hand is whether a given law is just.
Order of magnitude changes are qualitative, not merely quantitative: giving everyone a million dollars is totally different than giving them a thousand dollars, and if you’d bothered to think about it, you’d do something other than troll.
It’s been my experience that “liberals” are extremely tolerant…of other people who think like them. For any one else—especially those that don’t favor forcing others to fund their “compassion”—they’ve got condemnation that would make any Fire and Brimstone preacher blush.