We are all afraid that Jake will convince the doctor to refuse surgery claimimg the problem is fixed now (Edit: whilst letting the bandaid rot). He goes on to convince Ada and the world that she is healed and asking for surgery makes no sense.
I dont know if Jake will be effective at creating regressions nor if we can fight him off effectively.
No. The bleeding is not good. There are likely resources on how and when fight Jake. Mabe more importantly, how to choose first aid and medical care steps to take so Jake isnt going to be a problem.
Accelerationism is as minipulative as Jake is, mabe even serving the same goals.
Jake is interested in status-quo economics—or worse, even. There is no first aid he won’t claim fixes the issue.
Billionaires love to pretend that charities are a solution to social issues, but we know they aren’t. Does that mean I should be happy the Red Cross lacks funding now? (hypothetically)
Someone somewhere would because UBI is the capitalist techbro idea of a social safety net; it’s a band-aid that doesn’t address the underlying problems in a similar way to how the ACA helps but in reality is a very center-right idea that doesn’t address the underlying hypercapitalist healthcare system.
It was cooked up by Milton Friedman, one of the grandfathers of American free market libertarianism.
The whole impetus of UBI was to eliminate traditional social services because, it is argued, there’s no way that a government institution could be as efficient or effective as a free market.
And make no mistake, even modern proponents of UBI such as Andrew Yang propose funding it by hollowing out existing social services.
Like, yeah, UBI is better than having literally no social support at all, but the fact that its seen as this ultra-leftist idea, to the point that we apparently can’t even conceive of how it could possibly “not be left enough”, is an indication of how far right mainstream politics has shifted.
The UBI I support is only a replacement for unemployment benefits and all the welfare state social safety nets would still be provided for I.e. single payer healthcare, social housing
Implemented like that it would probably be a step in the correct direction. I’m not trying to say you’re a monster who wants to turn the world into a capitalist hellscape. But let’s use an analogy:
There’s a country with a public library system that’s been suffering from chronic underfunding and dysfunction. The buildings are falling apart, the catelogs are outdated, and many people don’t even have a library near them.
Jeff Bezos proposes to eliminate public libraries, says it would be more efficient and effective for the government to give citizens a stipend to buy off of Amazon. Its called universal books.
Years later someone says “leftists will infight about anything, someone would probably say universal books isn’t left enough.”
Someone points out who came up with universal books and why they wanted it, then there’s a reply saying “the version of universal books that I support would still fund the public libraries but have the Amazon stipend in addition to that.”
Maybe adding the Amazon stipend to the existing public library system would be great. After all not every library can carry every book, and sometimes its not feasible to put a library in every tiny rural community.
I’m just trying to make the point that its not completely insane to get a little defensive about such an idea in a situation like that.
I swear you could introduce UBI and someone somewhere would complain about it not being left enough.
UBI is only surface-level leftist, it’s distributing some of the wealth while leaving the important parts - property - untouched.
So yes, I and many others would complain about UBI. I’ve long held it’s an untenable bandage slapped on the gaping hemorrhage that is capitalism.
If you know anything about first aid you know that slapping a bandage on is the first step to actually helping the patient.
And that is the issue. Ada is bleeding to death, and Bob is giving them a rudimentary bandage to staunch the bleeding. You could:
Let Bob do their thing, and go get an ambulance.
Complain to Bob that this will only slow down the bleeding. What Ada needs is to be in a hospital. Keep yelling at Bob for his shitty bandage.
We are all afraid that Jake will convince the doctor to refuse surgery claimimg the problem is fixed now (Edit: whilst letting the bandaid rot). He goes on to convince Ada and the world that she is healed and asking for surgery makes no sense.
I dont know if Jake will be effective at creating regressions nor if we can fight him off effectively.
Okay, but yell at Jake then.
What you’re saying is that the bleeding is good. The more people bleed, the more they’ll need “a real solution.” This is just accelerationism.
No. The bleeding is not good. There are likely resources on how and when fight Jake. Mabe more importantly, how to choose first aid and medical care steps to take so Jake isnt going to be a problem.
Accelerationism is as minipulative as Jake is, mabe even serving the same goals.
Jake is interested in status-quo economics—or worse, even. There is no first aid he won’t claim fixes the issue.
Billionaires love to pretend that charities are a solution to social issues, but we know they aren’t. Does that mean I should be happy the Red Cross lacks funding now? (hypothetically)
Someone somewhere would because UBI is the capitalist techbro idea of a social safety net; it’s a band-aid that doesn’t address the underlying problems in a similar way to how the ACA helps but in reality is a very center-right idea that doesn’t address the underlying hypercapitalist healthcare system.
Well there yah go, we didn’t even need to introduce it and it’s already not left enough.
It was cooked up by Milton Friedman, one of the grandfathers of American free market libertarianism.
The whole impetus of UBI was to eliminate traditional social services because, it is argued, there’s no way that a government institution could be as efficient or effective as a free market.
And make no mistake, even modern proponents of UBI such as Andrew Yang propose funding it by hollowing out existing social services.
Like, yeah, UBI is better than having literally no social support at all, but the fact that its seen as this ultra-leftist idea, to the point that we apparently can’t even conceive of how it could possibly “not be left enough”, is an indication of how far right mainstream politics has shifted.
The UBI I support is only a replacement for unemployment benefits and all the welfare state social safety nets would still be provided for I.e. single payer healthcare, social housing
Is that still a capitalist nightmare?
Implemented like that it would probably be a step in the correct direction. I’m not trying to say you’re a monster who wants to turn the world into a capitalist hellscape. But let’s use an analogy:
There’s a country with a public library system that’s been suffering from chronic underfunding and dysfunction. The buildings are falling apart, the catelogs are outdated, and many people don’t even have a library near them.
Jeff Bezos proposes to eliminate public libraries, says it would be more efficient and effective for the government to give citizens a stipend to buy off of Amazon. Its called universal books.
Years later someone says “leftists will infight about anything, someone would probably say universal books isn’t left enough.”
Someone points out who came up with universal books and why they wanted it, then there’s a reply saying “the version of universal books that I support would still fund the public libraries but have the Amazon stipend in addition to that.”
Maybe adding the Amazon stipend to the existing public library system would be great. After all not every library can carry every book, and sometimes its not feasible to put a library in every tiny rural community.
I’m just trying to make the point that its not completely insane to get a little defensive about such an idea in a situation like that.
I agree with you. There is legitimate criticism of UBI especially of the Yang flavor.
I’ve just always seen it as increased unemployment payments with fewer conditions rather than a replacement of the welfare state.