I think most people and almost everyone should have their basic needs met and workers should have rights. And execute the Epstein class
After executing the Epstein class, make sure to bury their corpses 6 feet under
We could choose to work on the ego control, tribalism and start using healthy policies, look at things that help the common good like infrastructure and schools that we pay for with taxes, then include healthcare and paid leave as common goods that reduce poverty and most importantly improves lives. Less stress from artificial scarcity. These healthy policies help improve life satisfaction, less stress and improve productivity, and spread the risk and cost the most, and use proven results in other places and states that expanded Medicare people did better.
Okay, this is going to get me down voted to oblivion but when I think “basic needs” I think prison (without the lockup and slavery).
You should have a place to sleep, three meals a day, heat in winter, a/c in summer. Access to education to better yourself, medical/dental and basic employment and a minimum level of clothing.
Everything else is on you.
Braces for incoming hate
I may have some bad news for you about conditions inside many prisons…
Everybody wants universal basic income. Nobody wants to answer where to get the money from.
No, we’ve already answered this but barely literate dense dipshits like to pretend otherwise.
Tax the shit out of very wealthy individuals and companies and use that incredible wealth to provide basic safety nets and programs for everyone. The most quality of life improvements generation over generation and massive public infrastructure projects we did here in the US was when we taxed wealth aggressively and used that money to invest in people.
The major reason for why everything is getting shittier in the US is because we’re catering to billionaire parasites and their companies and not to the other 99.9% of people. You may disagree but that is what it is.
One issue with that: the rich tend to avoid being citizens of countries with progressive taxing in tact.
Also, surprise-surprise, the solution presented is far from being universal. Not every country’s name starts with “United” and ends with “States of America”.
Tax the rich.
What’s the balance between what the government should provide towards our basic needs vs what the individual is responsible for?
All basic needs should be provided for. Anything beyond basic needs should be your own responsibility. So food, shelter, health and wellbeing, education, security, defense, and access to infrastructure should all be provided as a part of the public good.
And before you say it, people will still want more than just their basic needs met, so almost all will still find work to do. They just no longer have to accept the jobs that require people to be threatened with death to take them.
Don’t be pedantic. Doing nothing while people are dying on the street means the system needs to change. Tweak it until until (ideally) no one is dying on the street. That doesn’t mean we wipe everyone’s ass for them and it doesn’t mean we won’t have homeless people (I used to know a dude that wanted to be homeless and proudly proclaimed himself a “street person” to anyone who asked). It means everyone has their basic needs met. Food, water, a safe place to sleep, education, and a wage that covers the basic costs of living. If someone needs help we help them because we are a community and communities take care of each other.
Our PROBLEM is the current system is catered to the top tier of the ultra rich and “pretends” any scraps thrown our way are us being irresponsible leaches. But we pay a ungodly percentage of our income in taxes (not just income taxs, but every sale, every regressive tax) to a government that gives almost nothing back while calling us freeloaders and then we get bogged down in conversations about “individual responsibility.” We can have conversations about individual responsibilities after congress works full time, the pentagon can pass an audit, military generals don’t retire and go to work for defence contractors, and billionaires get their goddamn fingers out of the white house (and it wasn’t just under trump they had their fingers in the government pie).
This is not a call to violence in any way but unfortunately probably won’t happen until the right kind of people start dying on the streets. Look at how shook up CEOs got over one healthcare parasite CEO getting what he got. Look at how the chud white nationalist conservatives got shook up over one gummy racist rat “paying the cost of freedom” or however he put it when talking about children being gunned down schools.
Things will have to get a lot worse before they get better.
All needs by the government. Person responsibility for leisure.
You balance it against wealth equality, aim for the most wealthy people to have enough to own 1 yact but the least wealthy still have at least a studio apartment to live in. Everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds.
The balance is that a full time job should enable you to provide the basic needs for yourself.
Abelist. People unable to work should also be okay and allowed to get married without losing support
That’s my political view also. This is why I support anti-corruption free market capitalism, the system with most proven track record for getting us closer to that goal.
I fully admit that the anti-corruption part of the ideology is the unfortunate hard thing that needs the most work, and countries like USA have been pretty bad at doing that part.
The “free market” is inherently corrupt. Its natural conclusion is a single almighty corporation that owns everything. That’s why regulation is necessary to rein it in.
Funny thing is that in a perfect ideal society, communism and capitalism both result in maximum equality and ultimate prosperity.
Yeah, it would be kind of weird to design a system whose perfect implementation would result in bad outcomes. So the question is, which system more likely reaches that perfection?
They both require perfectly infallible people to reach perfection, so that’s 0% for either.
Popper’s paradox of intolerance is something that is never discussed by online leftists. Why is that? How can you respect people who will put you in an oven the moment they gain power? Don’t you see how you’re literally enabling them by pretending to hold a moral high ground that doesn’t exist?
The internet trained us to think that anything remotely hostile or “hateful” is an indictment on a person’s soul. That if you don’t accept everyone unconditionally you must be a monster. But my immune system keeps me alive by literally eradicating foreign pathogens that pretend to be benign. If my immune system didn’t do that, then not only I but humanity itself would not exist. So what gives?
Never? Really?
I interpret the post relating to underprivileged folks still requiring government assistance regardless of how many welfare cheats there are.
Is the anti-welfare sentiment primarily based on the abuse of social security though? I think a sizable chunk of the population is generally opposed to political solidarity on an ideological level.
Not because they are truly convinced that life in a “every person for themseves” type society would be preferable, but because they are inundated with propaganda and have internalized the rationale of the capitalist environment they live in.
Right. So everyone in this thread is seeing whatever the fuck they want to see in the comic, which is vague on purpose because god forbid OP actually expresses their political views like an adult, and we’re all talking over each other while they sit back without elaborating on what the fuck they meant. And we think we’re so smart, too, while discussing engagement bait drawn by someone with the artistic skills of a literal toddler.
Yes but what if the person running wants your basic needs met and sanctions Israel but doesn’t emphatically condemn them. They’re literally the devil and a Republican would be better right?
It’d be nice if they just disagreed but instead they hate you for reasons made up by those who enjoy get richer off of people not having their needs met.
There aren’t a lot of people who get richer when economic output is lower. Sure, there are some in some specific scenarios, but for the most part rich assholes support pro-poverty policies not because they stand to benefit, but because they are assholes, or more likely simply because they are ignorant. They aren’t very different from the lumpen proletariat demanding policies against their own interests in that regard.
We will fight for their right to be stupid… goddammit.
What really sucks is when the people who claim to be unhappy with conservatism defend conservatives as if they are the victims of their own evil nature or idiocy.
Conservatives are not the victims of conservatism. They are the perpetrators of conservatism and should be treated as such.
For everyone on Earth minus a slight statistical anomoly, I agree!
Like, you know how cleaning wipes say they kill 99.99% of germs? Well I want the needs of 99.99% of the population met.
who do you think doesnt deserve to have their needs met?
Billionaires knowingly perpetuating a harmful economic system for their own gain. Politicians and high-level government officials knowingly perpetuating a harmful political and legal system for their own gain.
How I define harmful in this context: neglecting the needs of the many for the benefit of the few.
Knowingly: repeating an action despite clear evidence or representation from the majority under their control. Or restricting public access to something that is harming them with the intent to continue the harmful behaviour.
Obviously its a little more nuanced than that, but that’s the jist.
are you talking about these people’s access to food being restricted or about murder? if it’s the former, then i think that removing their power to harm would be more effective. if it’s the latter i think that’s kind of different from what the post is talking about.
Any method that permanently stops them from continuing the harm.
I will be 100% aligned with this post when that’s achieved.
i agree, but i don’t think that that contradicts the post. the path to a better world from this one is necessarily messy and in this situation nothing can be achieved cleanly. in this context i feel like you’d have to add a caveat to every single universal human right we’re working towards because there are people in the way. you aren’t arguing that they should denied food and shelter, youre arguing that they should be stopped from hurting people. i think you belong fully in the ‘everyone deserves to have their basic needs met’ camp
You make a compelling point.
Conservatives are so hateful, I’ve actually heard them try to use as a gotcha “what if someone you hate is transgender, would you still affirm their gender identity?”
Yes. Why wouldn’t I? Even people I hate get to identify as whatever gender they want. Why is that such a hard thing for them to wrap their heads around?
They’re so filled with hate, it doesn’t even occur to them that other people might not be. It’s just projection all the way for them.
“What if someone you hate is alive and not hurting anyone, would you want to impact their lives negatively?” Some people are rough.
Yeah, we still use Caitlyn Jenner’s preferred name and pronouns in spite of her being a raging Trump supporter. Same with Blaire White.
And they call you a leftists radical for this
If everyone has their needs met, who will they be better than? They need a hierarchy. They’re already poor and powerless, so they have to lord it over the destitute.
Everyone having their needs met does not even mean, they cannot have some sort of social order system going… Anyway, they do not seem to be smart enough, to imagine that.
