NUtopia

Because believe it or not, there are jobs that can not afford to have a certain position paid $30,000. I know that's hard for some people to grasp. But, it's reality. Heck, if we have the government pay everyone $30,000, could we do away with the minimum wage? $30K/yr is ~ $14,50/hr with no vacation! Currently, a person can live ok on that in most places of the country not named NYC, Boston, San Fran, or LA, for e.g. One would hope for COL increases, but that's why they have unions. Seriously, it's going to get paid one way or the other, so choose your poison.

Might have to include regular COL increases. Anyway, I already noted that Switzerland is already giving unemployed folks a living lump sum of $30-40k at the beginning of the cycle, to decrease gov't admin costs. Looks like they're considering the idea even further to provide the basic income to everybody: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html?_r=0

That's not a relevant or even accurate. It's actually propaganda. It's completely false regarding the weekend and the labor movement. It's complete backward in its logic and misunderstands how economic progress through capitalism has led to increasing standards of living (including work conditions). That was not a result of socialism, which actually impedes meaningful economic progress (see for examples the USSR, China, India and South America). It's funny that they can only cite celebrities as advocates as socialists. Also, taxpayer funding does not equal socialism; that military argument is ridiculous, but I'm all for cutting military spending and corporate welfare. And that leads to my grander point: just because we identify segments of our economy that are mismanaged by government/societal control (i.e., spending on corporate welfare) does not justify the expansion of government control over other segments of the economy. Only a fool would look at a mismanaging executive and then place more power in said executive's hands. Right? I'm getting really angry watching this otherwise attractive girl spew absolute nonsense. No further comment.... Because you agree or because you don't see a point in discussion? I'd actually value your thoughts on some of the questions I posed. I really want to understand how progressive liberals who are reasonable (as opposed to some others on this board who will go unnamed) address those opposing arguments. Because, ultimately, I think you and I (as a classical liberal) very much want the same things: 1. Less centralized power among corporate players 2. An efficient system that allows for economic mobility 3. An increase standard of living/quality of life for every member of society I just see socially progressive policies as ultimately counterproductive to those goals. I want a worker revolution and takeover, kick the bourgeoisie to the curb, old school style, that's where I'm at.

Why not just pay a living wage in the 1st place, a healthy living wage? Then yeah, you wouldn't need so much gov't cheese. Problem solved. Maybe that's the "guaranteed income", I dunno.

Because waste comes from our private areas. These are the only areas required by law to be covered in public (in most jurisdictions). They're our sex organs (mostly) and people generally feel they should be allowed to have some modicum of privacy and choice over their personal bits.Isn't that what a bathroom stall is for though? Privacy.I asked a couple of women just now and both said they would not be comfortable in a unisex bathroom. Both said it was a privacy issue.I'm sure they'd also be uncomfortable at a nude beach, but there doesn't seem to be issues where they exist. You use the same bathroom on a plane or bus, with only a thin wall between you and somebidy napping.@ a nude beach you essentially voluntarily "sign off" on showing your private parts to anyone on said beach. It's a different deal.True but you're not showing anyone anything in a bathroom... They have these things called "standing urinals"(for men), been around for a long long time. At these "standing urinals" one is pretty exposed.

Because waste comes from our private areas. These are the only areas required by law to be covered in public (in most jurisdictions). They're our sex organs (mostly) and people generally feel they should be allowed to have some modicum of privacy and choice over their personal bits.Isn't that what a bathroom stall is for though? Privacy.I asked a couple of women just now and both said they would not be comfortable in a unisex bathroom. Both said it was a privacy issue.I'm sure they'd also be uncomfortable at a nude beach, but there doesn't seem to be issues where they exist. You use the same bathroom on a plane or bus, with only a thin wall between you and somebidy napping.@ a nude beach you essentially voluntarily "sign off" on showing your private parts to anyone on said beach. It's a different deal. Also a different deal is nekkid vs pooping. I'll voluntarily stand nekkid in front of my wife, but I close the door when I drop trou. My poop face is more embarrassing than my O face. It's a age old, well known fact that "nekkid" is different than pooping--and peeing, FTM, we can agree on this. I have never witnessed nor heard a woman poop, and I don't plan to start anytime soon. Not my style.

Because waste comes from our private areas. These are the only areas required by law to be covered in public (in most jurisdictions). They're our sex organs (mostly) and people generally feel they should be allowed to have some modicum of privacy and choice over their personal bits.Isn't that what a bathroom stall is for though? Privacy.I asked a couple of women just now and both said they would not be comfortable in a unisex bathroom. Both said it was a privacy issue.I'm sure they'd also be uncomfortable at a nude beach, but there doesn't seem to be issues where they exist. You use the same bathroom on a plane or bus, with only a thin wall between you and somebidy napping. @ a nude beach you essentially voluntarily "sign off" on showing your private parts to anyone on said beach. It's a different deal.

Yeah, 1/2 million years or so, should be back up to snuff. Fukishima should be good to go a few 100 thousand years after that. And this brings us back to the ongoing problem of, "WTF do we do with all the nuke waste from nuke plants, anyway?!", a problem which has yet to be adequately solved. Last summer I heard a podcast about a ginormous "nuke waste bunker" they were designing in Finland, I think it was, and they just couldn't figure out how to make it fail safe since nuke waste takes 100s of 1000s of years to decay to a safe level and there is no substance on earth--not even titanium--that they could build the bunker out of that they could guarantee wouldn't fail well before that. It's a head scratcher. I guess some of those nuke waste bunkers out in Cali and what not have been cracking/leaking in recent years, much to the chagrin of the surrounding populations. Suffice it to say, nobody anywhere wants a nuke dump anywhere near their same area code, so It's a big problem. I'd have to listen to that podcast, but there seems to be an obvious answer: Replace the bunkers as necessary. Where's my reward money for solving this intractable problem? I'd be interest in the actual volumes involved, but it shouldn't be that difficult to locate waste sites far from populations (provided you have a means for transporting waste to such sites). Much easier said than done. Onkalo, Finland, they want to develop a no maintainance series of bunkers and tunnels: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/12/finland.nuclear.waste/

That's not a relevant or even accurate. It's actually propaganda. It's completely false regarding the weekend and the labor movement. It's complete backward in its logic and misunderstands how economic progress through capitalism has led to increasing standards of living (including work conditions). That was not a result of socialism, which actually impedes meaningful economic progress (see for examples the USSR, China, India and South America). It's funny that they can only cite celebrities as advocates as socialists. Also, taxpayer funding does not equal socialism; that military argument is ridiculous, but I'm all for cutting military spending and corporate welfare. And that leads to my grander point: just because we identify segments of our economy that are mismanaged by government/societal control (i.e., spending on corporate welfare) does not justify the expansion of government control over other segments of the economy. Only a fool would look at a mismanaging executive and then place more power in said executive's hands. Right? I'm getting really angry watching this otherwise attractive girl spew absolute nonsense. No further comment....

Well, if you are born Amish, you're guaranteed a decent house(which the community helps erect), food(since most are farmers), and a job(income). So, it has proven to work on a smaller scale.

Welp, gotta admit, some years ago I went to visit a female friend @ her college dorm, which happened to have the new cool unisex BRs, and it really creeped me out. Not a fan, guess I'm old school.

Gentle reminder: 5 Ways America is Already Socialist

Not entirely related, but something I thought was interesting. If I recall correctly, Switzerland, in the last few years, decided to give the unemployed a check of ~$30-40k at the beginning of the year and thus save gov't administrative costs of the month to month "installments". Unemployment is not huge in Switzerland, AND they have alot of $ there, of course.

If there is a Creator, there are certainly innumerable examples of how He/She does not interact with the creation, like He/She doesn't do much in the way of protecting anybody from harm. If, for e.g., a drunk driver kills you, you are dead, no ifs, ands, or buts. At best, He/She keeps a distant indifference.

Having a decent paying job to support yourself is definitely preferable to gov't cheese. FTR, SNAP, WIC, TANF, etc are by and large administered thru J.P. Morgan Chase Bank--EBT card--which means the banksters are probably receiving nearly as much welfare(thru interest) as the poor, hungry folk. I say the banksters should work for it! JP Morgan’s Food Stamp Empire http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/jp-morgan-s-food-stamp-empire.html