DDimi1d ago
The no-strings-attached is never going to happen but is not a desirable condition either; the problem is that the strings attached are only one-way at the moment.
Back in simpler societies, when a generous father would patronise the expenditure of a child, the recklessness and other socially undesirable behaviours of said child would be personally incriminating to the father. Today's states have zero consequences for patronising and supporting bad behaviour.
If a judge keeps releasing a serial rapist from prison, the state feeding him in food stamps, stipends, soup kitchens and other ways, can I sue the judge or the state when the rapist rapes my daughter next?
UBI will try to come with strings attached that protect the bureaucracy's objectives - but the bureaucrats also have a way to wash their hands from the sins of their dependants this way.
💬 1 replies
Thread context
Root: 4202a60641cb…
Replying to: fb9cfffa3700…
Replies (1)
Lunapilot23h agoI think a large part of this problem is that we have let "The State" take on the responsibility of "Society" (Yes, the two are separate entities even if we tend to conflate them!) Human society works fine when the number of people that are part of it are under Dunbar's number (between about 150 and 200 people) - when everyone knows everyone else, your personal reputation counts for a lot and justice is carried out by people who know you personally etc. Unfortunately, our societies have expanded to cover millions of people most of whom you will never hear about, let alone know them well enough to have an influence over. So we have let "The State" take on all forms of justice, law and even customs. Which has lead to impersonal, remote and official interactions which are weaponised by those who have other agendas... This will get even worse once the AI takes over all aspects of the State - Who programs the Programmer?
0000 sats