• cmbabul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    ·
    9 months ago

    If they don’t want money to be a birthright they should make it so money isn’t necessary to stay alive

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hmm, that could definitely be phrased more powerfully.

      • If they don’t want money to be a birthright, then poverty and destitution shouldn’t be free?
      • Life’s necessities shouldn’t be paywalled if they don’t want birthright funds?
      • To oppose money as a birthright is to support survival not being held hostage by financial scarcity?

      Or whatever. Idk, I spent too much time on this. It was fun though!

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
        US Declaration of Independence

        I disagree with 3 (e: actually 4) words in that sentence, but I’m struggling to find a single phrase that modern conservatives agree with.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Republicans in 2024:

          ❌ Form a more perfect Union

          ❌ Establish Justice

          ❌ Insure domestic Tranquility

          🙄Provide for the common defense

          ❌ Promote the general Welfare

          🖕Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The 16* Characteristics of Fascism:

            1. Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes.

            2. Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.

            3. Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.

            4. White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.

            5. Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.

            6. Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority group leaders.

            7. Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.

            8. Rampant sexism.

            9. Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.

            10. Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.

            11. Religion and government are intertwined.

            12. Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.

            13. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.

            14. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.

            15. Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.

            16. Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.

            I’d put green ticks on nearly all of those, and the only ones I wouldn’t are only because they don’t have the unilateral power to do them yet. I’m confident they will do them the moment they can.

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Surely gerrymandering and making voting as difficult as possible for working individuals gets at least partial credit to 15, no?

              • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yes, and J6 and the rhetoric that followed gets them all the way there. Trump has literally told his voters on multiple occasions there’s no point in voting because it’s all fraudulent.

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    9 months ago

    Stephanie Hendon, 34, lived in a shelter while her husband was living on the street, making it difficult for them to raise their four kids. After a year of payments from the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot, she had a three-bedroom apartment, a new car, clothes for her children, a new job, and new financial strategies for the future.

    This is what GOap fights against: The literal improvement of peoples existence.

    Never vote Republican. They hate you!

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Its selfish bullshit. Their response would be one of a handful:

      “Why should I work if the government will just give me everything for free!?”

      “Why should I have to pay for lazy people who made bad decisions!?”

      “Why does the government not understand debt!? They’re going to bankrupt us!”

      They strongly believe in survival of the fittest. Either you become wealthy or everything you did was your fault and a mistake and you should die if you can’t afford life. The only salvation you should get (I almost used the word deserve, which they 100% would argue you don’t deserve.) would be salvation dolled out by a charity that people volunteered to give of their own desire.

      Of course the charities never have nearly enough money to accomplish this which they fully understand but don’t care one iota about. It’s almost entirely selfishness on their part, mixed in with a heaping dose of ignorance.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    9 months ago

    Survival is a birthright you absolute fucking vultures. We made money a requirement for that.

    • SkyeStarfall
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      And it’s not like you can screw off into the forest to live a self-sufficient life either, because I’m pretty sure that’s illegal in most places in the world. If the forest isn’t already devoid of resources due to human activity that is.

      • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s also just a ridiculous proposition. So much media tells us this is possible, but no, it’s not, not even if you find a virgin jungle. Professional survivalists who train and study for it still wouldn’t be able to actually live a full life - at some point you’re vulture food without society. We’re cooperative, tribal animals. That’s our strength, and we’ve built economic systems designed to take that strength from us.

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think the core problem is we’ve been giving all the power to sociopaths who use pretty words to fool the masses into allowing them to leech the fruits of their labour whilst contributing nothing themselves.

          We need to start valuing empathy over bravado, intellectualism over shallow emotional stimulus, and humanity over populist fervour.

          That would be a massive cultural shift that would require changes in our approach to many facets of society (education, media, religion, politics, etc), and we seem to be going in the wrong direction, unfortunately.

  • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    “Money isn’t a birthright” says political faction in favor of tax-free inheritance for its filthy rich members. More at 11:00.

    EDIT: weird mobile correction typo

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Could you do what they did? No, I didn’t think so!

        It’s not easy being born to the right family, if it was easy everyone would do it and it wouldn’t pay so well! Duhhhhhh

        :P

  • whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    How else are you supposed to stabilize a highly-developed postindustrial economy with increasingly rare opportunities to get ahead for most of the population? Didn’t you people read your Friedrich Hayek?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      How else are you supposed to stabilize a highly-developed postindustrial economy with increasingly rare opportunities to get ahead for most of the population?

      glances at the command economy model

      You’re not going to like the answer.

  • maynarkh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    ‘Is money a birthright now?’

    Only for some. Or are we outlawing inheritances as well?

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m a Lifelong Republican and I LOVE how the Republican Party is a CHAMPION for the Working Class! Money is NOT a Birthright unless you’re already super rich and then it’s OK to suck at the Government’s Teat!

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Basic Income as an obligation on the public sector would mean a smaller pool of residents with heavy obligation to private church groups and religious charities that recruit out of low income communities.

      Nobody’s going to come to the Sermon On The Mount if you can get your loaves and fishes anywhere.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        and did Jesus decree, be strategic with when ye help those in need, so that they turn to private churches. No I don’t think that’s in there.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          On the contrary, I think he said something about wherever two or three of his faithful gather in his name, so there is his church.

      • Masterblaster420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        and what’s standing in the way of dismantling it? conservatives. you give me a problem and i’ll show you how simple solutions are being blocked by conservatives. get rid of conservatives, fix the problem.

        • abuttandahalf@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Depends on how you define conservatives? If you categorize the entire US political spectrum as conservatives (and economically, they are), then sure. In the prevalent usage of the term, that’s not true, because liberals are just as much a barrier because they are capitalists. The entire US political spectrum is ideologically liberal save for a few fascists on the right, and both are capitalist ideologies.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            all of America is Liberal (socio-economic philosophy, not the “left” catchall) and thus they are all conservative

            • Masterblaster420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              “ackshually”… please stop being a nerd. the problem and solution is simple. don’t over complicate it. people know wtf i’m talking about when i say conservative.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                There is a neat and simple solution for every problem, and it’s always wrong

                • Masterblaster420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  until that solution is the only thing between utopia and dystopia, where the effects of either will be felt for centuries to come. that solution then becomes a necessity. wake up.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      You could blame Nader and the 100k Florida Progressives who couldn’t hold their noses and punch the chad for Gore for that. And then remember it in November.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          They all suck, but I have a special place in my heart for the 100k people who “cared so much about the environment” to vote for Nader. The final count margin was around 600 votes. Had just 2% of them realized that in no universe would Nader win and despite his flaws, Gore was better equipped for the job, the world would be a totally different place.

  • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Is money a birthright now?

    No but there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money.

    The system used to be to give those things away for free to people who can’t afford them - but that’s changing. Just giving money to poor people is far easier.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money

      This is the logical consequence of the anti-new-deal/anti-desegregation/anti-civil-rights jurisprudence that turns on capital supremacy and property rights trumping the notion that the state has an interest in protecting any other sort of right; it’s something the capital supremacy folks have always wanted but which the desegregation crowd finally joined in on when they thought they could get segregation back by backing capital’s ability to smuggle discrimination under the skirts of its property interests.

      When you look at the White Flight phenomenon and correlate it to the widespread disappearance of public 3rd places, When you notice that state colleges and universities lost funding and started hiking tuition shortly after desegregation meant black and brown people could attend them, it sure looks like Americans were faced with the decision to have desegregated public wealth or no public wealth, they chose the latter

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    Please, ban it. I dare you. When other states introduce UBI, watch people across the political spectrum leave for greener pastures.

    • Hugucinogens
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      Except for the poor, who don’t have the money to move, and who need it the most.

      • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah there’s several states I’d move to if I could move my job there and I already had guaranteed affordable housing.

        Unfortunately neither of those things are ever likely to be true, certainly not at the same time. I can’t afford to move.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    Why people are fighting the unlimited inheritance right heirs have: ‘Is money a birthright now?’

  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    UBI will ultimately end up in the pockets of landlords, shareholders and offshore wealth funds anyway. Sort out the inequality first, then do it.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think that’s a misconception. UBI is not free money for all. There will not be appreciably more money sloshing around.

      Taxation will be balanced around the average earner giving back the same amount of money in tax as they get in UBI.

      People below average will be better off. People above average will be worse off. People way up in the 0.01% will be considerably worse off.

      Guess which of those groups keeps inventing new reasons why UBI won’t work.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      The point of UBI isn’t to sit in the pockets of the working class. It’s to properly stimulate the economy while giving the working class spending money. It’s meant to be spent, meant to go up the chain.

      The biggest problem right now is non competitive markets that we have to pay into like housing, communications, utilities, and groceries. We need to get The trust busting hammer out. Competitive markets keep prices low. And for markets that can’t be competitive, well they shouldn’t be markets, they should be government agencies.

      • UBI also addresses the welfare chasm. In many cases, people on welfare who want to work can’t, because working means they’re ineligible for welfare but their income is less than what they make on welfare. It’s a sort of trap that keeps many people in the welfare system.

        UBI fills the gap, and allows people who want to work, but who are unable to work full time, or are unskilled and are qualified for only the lowest paying, entry-level jobs, to take that work, build skills and experience, and pull themselves up out of the welfare system.

        UBI often assumes that it replaces welfare as we know it, but you’d get the same benefit if the bar for disqualifying welfare was higher, s.t. people could still claim welfare while working, until they reached some more sustainable income level.

        It’s not the main goal is UBI, but UBI would address this one very real issue we have with the current welfare system.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Means testing means not universal.

          I frankly don’t give a shit if Bezos gets a $1000 check from the government every month, as long as the old lady with cancer, the 40 year old chronic pain sufferer, the working family with a 80k/yr income, and the 35 year old jobless dude who lives with his parents all get theirs too.

      • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Working class people are becoming less and less competitive in the market because too much money is being extracted from them through rent/profit/interest and given to their wealthy competitors who already have an advantage over them. Both ends of the equation need addressing, which is why I think UBI is good but not enough without taxing wealth. That’s just my opinion!

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I agree. I wonder if we could create a class based Union. Like a union for anyone making x amount or less.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I do agree with this, without restriction on increases that x increase will just go into basic living services, you saw that with the stimulus checks as well. but part of me wants them to do it then go after everyoje that raised for gorging but I don’t think there is actual prevention of that