Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'yang'.
That's what I used to think. Sure, on the one hand, it is creating a permanent safety net, which will include both those who need it and those who don't need it. But the reasons to get it - if it's based on citizenship - aren't really different than how generally the US government and basically any other government treats the society we live in as a social contract. I don't think I need to get into why this isn't good. But we still need to consider that there is a different norm being introduced here, which is freedom to decide on your own needs, and for you to decide on your own how to spend your own money. I find it much more damaging when the government assert any right to decide things for you on an individual level. That is, although we get a stable and simple program that might be harder to get rid of eventually than existing welfare programs, there is an explicit assertion that the government will stand out of your way. Pretty big change in the right direction if you ask me. You're right that this is basically "better poison", which I think is actually the most good that can come out of the political system in terms of gradual changes through Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court. Poison is bad for you no matter how you look at it. But it's the best you'll get. This is why I think more radical changes must come from outside the formal political system. Direct action and protest, things like that, are the only thing that would make a difference in the long run. Concession (more like Machiavellian pragmatism is how I would describe it) for better poisons is sensible enough, as long as you also support direct actions against the wholly poisonous parts. That's the line of thinking I would use to decide on any candidate. Split from this thread: