Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
David Megginson

@hunkyscotsman Both. It doesn't make sense to pick one or the other, because they meet different needs. False dilemmas don't advance the discussion.

3 comments
DELETED replied to David

@david_megginson

In reality you often need to pick one or the other.

They don't meet different needs.

David Megginson replied to DELETED

@hunkyscotsman What reality? Every rich country except the U.S. already has universal healthcare — no one's proposing cancelling that.

Every rich country including the U.S. already has a web of expensive, targeted income-support programmes and and other benefits.

The goal of UBI is to replace many of the social programmes so that more money ends up in beneficiaries' hands rather than bureaucratic overhead.

Creating a false dilemma is a beginner's trick to try to derail a discussion.

DELETED replied to David

@david_megginson

The reality we live in.

Universally applying aid will cause people who need it most to suffer the most.

Equity is not progress, equality is.

Go Up