Who here socially conservative and fiscally liberal?

You mean like UBI? I would suggest privatizing all of that shit.

Thats the patrician choice. Though i would say im socially moderate and fiscally left. Im opposed to all the insanity like lgbtqbbq retardation but i also do not like strict traditionalists. Let people do what they want as long as it doesnt harm others and society too much.

When it comes to fiscal policy, i pretty much agree with you on this , but i also think there should be strong consumer protection laws and checks on large businesses. Also i really dislike authoritarian government, the government should not be able to intervene with your life if you are not harming others or society.

>You mean like UBI?
Nah. I wouldn't go that far. I guess the argument would be that we only give people enough money to live off of but enough to make them uncomfortable if they don't work? Wouldn't trust us to find that magical number though. People would just want to live off of others, and the more people do that the more the system becomes unsustainable.
>privatizing all that shit
And if someone simply can't afford to give their child basic nourishment, for example? Don't think the child should be punished for the parent's bad decisions.

He said nothing about being smart. You're projecting your own insecurities onto him.

Couldn't a private charity do that shit?

Privatization is a meme. Government is necessary, if you reduce the power of the government then businesses are gonna fill up the power vacuum and become the new government.

If it could, I'd be happy to leave it to charity. I'm just not convinced it could handle it alone. Especially in big cities.
There's a lot of psychology involved in deciding to support a given charity that goes beyond merely believing in the cause. If the fund seems low, you'll be less likely to donate because you aren't sure if your dollar will do much good. If the fund seems like it'll be more than sufficient, you might choose not to donate because while you might want the charity to be a success, if you can have it be successful without spending a penny, it's in your self-interest to not donate.
I think there's power in society being able to collectively agree that there's a problem that needs to be addressed and being obligated to chip in.

that is the worst combo my dude

>that is the worst combo my dude
t. Reddit

One thing about the UBI though is that it may become inevitable as technology eliminates more and more jobs.

Unemployment may become the norm just from robots.

Attached: 1549332924609.jpg (1024x908, 70K)

I agree with this post wholly.

When we reach that point we should get rid of capitalism altogether instead of trying to save it with UBI.
Robots don't complain about compensation nor care about meritocracy. If the robots make it so human labor is obsolete, just go the post-scarcity route like with star trek.

that's not universal basic income at all it's just welfare

Unless robots do everything, is doubt we would ever go full star trek. Like, do we really want to replace cops, scientists, and teachers with AI?

>post-scarcity
I hope you realize how idealistic you're being, grocery stores throw away tons of unspoiled food per month because it doesn't turn a profit. Humans are EVIL to their core.

>replace cops
Would be ideal if the police didn't defend the interests of wasteful ogliarchs instead of serve the people like they're supposed to.

Basically, yeah. I hate all the gay faggotry, femism, and bullshit diversity that's been forced down our throats by social liberalism. Bring back our traditional culture please.

On the fiscal side, im not a socialist but we obviously need government to reign in the power of corporations. Tax and spend the money necessary so we dont end up in a cyberpunk dyatopia ruled by Mark Zuckerberg.

>Bring back our traditional culture please.
If you're American you're a retard if you think we ever had this.

you are affected

You could reach post-scarcity while humans still have minor roles.
Let's say we reach the point where the only viable professions left are STEM or jobs where the human element is important, like say strippers.
That still means within the limits of what materials we have access to (which could be expanded if the retrieval process were also automated), we could mass produce all sorts of things at unprecedented amounts. No one would be responsible for it except the machines. I see no reason why we shouldn't consider the machines collectively owned and attempt to distribute materials fairly.
The alternative is having a few massive corporations owning everything and having them fight against each other for resources using UBI profits as the last driver for the economy.

How can we get the bible thumpers to leave the GOP?