A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on personal currencies

Re:A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on ... by cortesoft on Monday December 11, 2017 @12:56PM (#15898789)

Ok, but what if they fail to hit their requirements? Either they lack the skill to hit the requirements, or maybe they don't put in the work.. what do you do then?

Do you cut them off and watch them starve? If you have any sort of criteria, SOME people will not meet the criteria and will have no resources. They will have no food or shelter. The fundamental question, then, is whether you believe there are some people who just deserve to starve and die, because they are either unable or unwilling to support themselves.

Lastly, you say you want some 'guarantee [the free money] is being used for good'. While this seems like a reasonable desire, how important is that? If data shows that you have to spend more money trying to catch people abusing the system than the money you would lose just paying people who abuse the system, is it worth spending more? This has happened before; they started drug testing welfare recepients in Florida, and they spent more money on the drug tests than they saved. Is it worth spending extra money to make sure no one 'gets a free ride'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-flo...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on ... by smokeyj on Monday December 11, 2017 @01:25PM (#15899070)

How should hospitals distribute limited resources like vital organs? Or is that a dumb question because it's solved by Universal Basic Organs? I'm just going to take this one step further and pledge my support for Universal Beach Houses as well. Because what cruel monster would oppose free beach houses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on ... by cortesoft on Monday December 11, 2017 @03:21PM (#15900079)

I don't see how your questions follow from my comment. No where am I trying to argue that resources aren't limited. I just said you will have to decide what to do with people who don't meet your requirements, and that you may spend more money checking that people are meeting requirements than you would save.

I also never said that letting people starve who can't or won't support themselves is morally indefensible. If you want to argue that it sucks but is a better alternative than what would happen if you tried to save everyone, it doesn't make you an immoral person. My only point was that you have to think about what you will do with the people who don't meet your requirements.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on ... by olleromam91 on Monday December 11, 2017 @09:05PM (#15902505)

This is exactly where my argument ends up with anyone I discuss this with. The problem of people starving and dying won't be solved, it's going to happen in some capacity.

[ Parent | on HN ]