• imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
    1·
    9 months ago

    Also I don’t quite get it. Who makes the money?

    Oh is this so they can work?

    Do they have to sign a contract where they will work for you or else they lose the house and counseling?

    I just don’t see how a society can continue if they aren’t paying their fair share!

    /SarcasticCapitalism

  • Sundial@lemm.ee
    1·
    9 months ago

    Yes, but if we don’t have so many shitheads in the street how can we justify such bloated police budgets? I would rather spend the money on our fine boys and girls in blue then some people who actually need it.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Okay, but we have to be careful what part of the budget the money goes to. If we pay the cops too much, they might send their kids to college or some other liberal bullshit; and if we pay too much for training, we might accidentally get them competent instructors instead of grifters who promise them that killing people will make their pp hard. We have to make sure that we only buy military surplus that no police force could conceivably need, and paint it scawwy black, because military camo isn’t oppressive enough.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    1·
    9 months ago

    It still blows my mind that some people cannot comprehend that not everything needs an exchange of currency in some way shape or form.

    “They don’t do anything in return?” “They don’t get worse!” “But who compensates the people who help them?” “We do.” “But then who compensates us?”

    • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      I view it as a form of capitalism indoctrination. If there’s no material compensation it’s a bad idea, which is the capitalist idea of “if I don’t make a profit I won’t do it”. I’ve seen people argue free energy is bad because the excess energy cannot be monetized, which is something you say only if you want to profit from energy.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    0·
    9 months ago

    As a conservative I support this idea, because it has no means testing.

    Means testing is fucked up in two ways:

    • It makes government larger and gets the government asking questions, poking its nose into everything
    • It creates a perverse incentive structure, one which doesn’t match nature and hence doesn’t match the way our brains evolved to respond to challenge.

    The perverse incentive structure is the worse of the two, in my opinion. Just like crack cocaine hacks the brain, presents something the brain can’t handle because it didn’t evolve for, rewarding a person with resources only when they don’t succeed basically programs a person to fail.

    I’m all for the government generously giving with an open hand to people, and letting the people decide when to start receiving benefits and when to stop. People are either worth it or they aren’t, and a person doesn’t stop being worth it just because they got their shit together, or start being worth it just because they failed.

    Government should treat everyone the same. If a government wants to present a service like “free housing if you want it”, I’m totally fine with that.