CDZ Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income

[danielpalos]

We already have it. It is called minimum wage. Unless you are suggesting we all just sit on our butts and wait for deposits to our checking accounts. If that is the case, where is the gov. going to get the money to hand out?

They stole every dime that hard working Americans saved into Social Security.
The government wants to replace you with machines, cap your universal dole at minimum wage level. And they'll take all the rest. Like 40 million dollar baby, Nancy Pelosi and the others.
Stop trying to force us into a universal commune. If there was ever a mess to run from, it's the rest of the world...

That is one solution to simple poverty. Another solution is equal protection of existing law regarding the concept of employment at will.

It would be more cost effective since Persons would self-select.

We could be lowering our costs and improving the efficiency of our economy at the same time.

 

[danielpalos]

It is unlawful to require a work ethic for social services, especially in right to work States.

Employment is at-will.

Yes you can choose not to work but that does not give you the right to demand payment from the people

Why not; capitalism merely requires capital circulate not establish social morals. The law is employment at will.

EDD must establish for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is unlawful to require a work ethic for social services, especially in right to work States.

Employment is at-will.

Yes you can choose not to work but that does not give you the right to demand payment from the people

Why not; capitalism merely requires capital circulate not establish social morals. The law is employment at will.

EDD must establish for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

 

[danielpalos]

It is unlawful to require a work ethic for social services, especially in right to work States.

Employment is at-will.

Yes you can choose not to work but that does not give you the right to demand payment from the people

Why not; capitalism merely requires capital circulate not establish social morals. The law is employment at will.

EDD must establish for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is unlawful to require a work ethic for social services, especially in right to work States.

Employment is at-will.

Yes you can choose not to work but that does not give you the right to demand payment from the people

Why not; capitalism merely requires capital circulate not establish social morals. The law is employment at will.

EDD must establish for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[danielpalos]

It is unlawful to require a work ethic for social services, especially in right to work States.

Employment is at-will.

Yes you can choose not to work but that does not give you the right to demand payment from the people

Why not; capitalism merely requires capital circulate not establish social morals. The law is employment at will.

EDD must establish for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes you can choose not to work but that does not give you the right to demand payment from the people

Why not; capitalism merely requires capital circulate not establish social morals. The law is employment at will.

EDD must establish for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not; capitalism merely requires capital circulate not establish social morals. The law is employment at will.

EDD must establish for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Seriously? You returned to that idea?

I addressed that notion the first time you raised it....

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

...and you offered no direct counterargument to my remarks.

What you did is obliquely assert that you just don't care to believe that jurisprudence, and that which issues from it, is a human construct.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

Now, I don't know why you responded that way, but it's very clear you did. And that particular genre of response is also something I have discussed rather exhaustively (relative to what "exhaustive discussion" is on USMB), albeit in a different thread.

 

[danielpalos]

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Seriously? You returned to that idea?

I addressed that notion the first time you raised it....

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

...and you offered no direct counterargument to my remarks.

What you did is obliquely assert that you just don't care to believe that jurisprudence, and that which issues from it, is a human construct.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

Now, I don't know why you responded that way, but it's very clear you did. And that particular genre of response is also something I have discussed rather exhaustively (relative to what "exhaustive discussion" is on USMB), albeit in a different thread.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You truly think people should pay you not to work?

Unemployment benefits are for those who have had a job then lost it through no fault of their own and not for moronic masturbation addicts who are too lazy to get a job

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

 

[usmbguest5318]

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Yours is now the third time (that I know of) that he's been told that....

 

[danielpalos]

We both agree, it is Institutional, not Individual.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right. The right wing doesn't care, because it is not specifically about guns; and simply renege on any "second wave".

nothing but renegades.

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Current Visage of Danielpalos

​

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Argument by Repetition

 

[danielpalos]

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Current Visage of Danielpalos

​

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Argument by Repetition

even your first mate knows, there is no appeal to ignorance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jurisprudence is wholly a human construct, not a set of natural laws. Were jurisprudence a set of natural laws and protection under any system of jurisprudence a natural right, it'd be taught in physics, biology and/or chemistry classrooms rather than in law schools.

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

There is absolutely no mention of natural rights in the constitution.

But if you are referencing the 14th amendment you will notice that it only applies to US citizens and is therefore not speaking to any natural rights of all men

 

[danielpalos]

It is an open book test. You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

You haven't convinced all flat-Earthers, yet.

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

There is absolutely no mention of natural rights in the constitution.

But if you are referencing the 14th amendment you will notice that it only applies to US citizens and is therefore not speaking to any natural rights of all men

It applies via Due Process from State Constitutions.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Current Visage of Danielpalos

​

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Argument by Repetition

even your first mate knows, there is no appeal to ignorance.

Be that as it may, whether whomever it is you refer to does or doesn't know there is no appeal to ignorance, I didn't in this line of conversation assert anything having to do with an appeal to ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

I fairly certain I will never convince any "flat-Earther" of anything because if I'm aware they are of such a mind, I won't spend time talking to them to utter more than basic courtesies...Hi; nice day; pardon me; thank you; your welcome; I haven't decided yet, feel free to step ahead of me; etc.

Natural rights are called such, because Persons are naturally born with them.

Which is why equal protection under law is NOT a natural right because man invented laws so laws did not exist before man

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Current Visage of Danielpalos

​

Equal protection of the law is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Equal protection of the law is recognized as a natural right under our Republican form of Government.

Argument by Repetition

even your first mate knows, there is no appeal to ignorance.

Be that as it may, whether whomever it is you refer to does or doesn't know there is no appeal to ignorance, I didn't in this line of conversation assert anything having to do with an appeal to ignorance.

equal protection of the law. it is in all of our Constitutions.