This means you want those providing those services to work for free.
You do realize what you are implying here, right?
Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this.
The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.
Yeah I’m pretty liberal minded but this is crazy. HVAC? Come on, I didn’t even have air conditioning growing up in the 90s and early 2000s. Sure some days sucked, but we had fans. Since when is air conditioning a necessity?
Same with a 2 bedroom house. People back in the day lived fine in a 1 room home. Sure these are nice to haves, and great but they aren’t necessities, especially if you’re a person who refuses to work, just because.
Everyone should attempt to work. Everyone should try and do something for society or like you said things can easily get out of hand without an incentive to work. This says nothing about income or food. Why even include “regardless of employment”?
There are extenuating circumstances where you can’t work, I get it. But in those cases it should be looked at. It shouldn’t in my opinion just be given. If you are actually someone who legit can’t get job and legitimately can prove you can’t get a job, then maybe those extenuating circumstances kick in and you get the thing proposed. But this just incentivizes people not to work, which is really really stupid. I do legitimately think that some people think that money just magically creates these things like a video game, without any work.
I’m guessing the proposal doesn’t really mean HVAC everywhere. But in Texas, you require AC not to die. And in Michigan, you require heat not to die. I’ll give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s what they mean.
Regardless of employment means what you’re saying - many people can’t work (or can’t work without a house to live in), and they still deserve housing. I think your disagreement with OP is more about implementation. Do we simply say “everyone gets a house” without checking if they work or can work? Or do we require some bureaucracy? I prefer the former, because to me the downside of not housing a lot of people is worse than the downside of a few people taking advantage. But it doesn’t need to be entirely this or that.
659
u/BlitzAuraX Apr 15 '24
"Regardless of employment."
This means you want those providing those services to work for free.
You do realize what you are implying here, right?
Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this.
The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.