Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 600 posts

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#111

Post by patrickg_zill »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #51
raverbashing wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welfare without limits is incompatible with Open Borders Remains to be seen who will want to actually do the (needed) jobs when staying at home is enough I am in favour of Basic Income, but it's not such clear cut

Given that open borders will help hundreds of millions escape dire poverty, whereas basic income will (at best) reduce some administrative costs and allow some people to live a life of leisure, how do you justify this preference? Do the prospective brown people who might want to escape dire poverty (i.e., gain access to clean running water, flush toilets, and adequate food) just not count? Even if they counted only a…

Your snide comments imply that those who disagree with you are racist. Not exactly your highest quality contribution to HN.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#112

Post by Kim_Bruning »

areyoucrazy wrote: post #68

Basic Income + Open Borders = National Suicide This proposal probably wouldn't pass in USA as well, especially given the fact that it's easy to get a Green Card and citizenship.

Are you sure it's easy to get a green card and citizenship? Maybe half a century ago it was, and that's where all the stories come from.

Right now, it's actually very hard; even (or especially) for regular normal middle class hardworking people.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#114

Post by ck2 »

_nalply wrote: post #7
elcapitan wrote: post #4

I wish I would live in a country where essential political decisions like that are made by the people and not by some professional political elite in a far away capital.

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum. Now we have the sentence «The construction of minarets is prohibited.» in the constitution. ( https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/... ) I think such regulations should be decreed as a law and not as a constitution norm if at all. But if everybody has a say you get bikeshedding in the constitution.

As long as church bells are also prohibited, I don't see the problem.

Allowing any religion to advertise itself in any form should be prohibited as it is intrusive to all.

What if someone invented a religion that told everyone to use airhorns every hour?

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#115

Post by zo1 »

cm3 wrote: post #67
Havoc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The construction of minarets is prohibited. Hardly surprising. Nobody wants to be awoken at ungodly hours by that howling.

I would vote for a ban on regular church bell noise as well if I had the choice. In Germany they also ring at ungodly hours in the morning for most programmers. Just as you wouldn't be able to pass a ban on a mosque's call for prayer in Turkey, you'll have a hard time enforcing a ban on church bells in Europe. That's the reality and I wish religious freedom would extend to not being bothered by any other religion's r…

I'm an atheist and I personally don't mind the sound of church bells. As part of general western culture, we associate them with certain things. Stuff like weddings, and to me, I always think of medieval Europe when I hear them. Monasteries, monks, those sorts of things.

However, in contrast, a giant megaphone blaring quite "whiny" or "whingy" (for lack of a better way of describing it) gibberish doesn't evoke anything remotely that normal. The sound itself, without any sort of religious connotation is annoying. I suppose I would find it just as annoying if the sound of church-bells were played over a megaphone, 5 times a day.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#116

Post by bjourne »

It seems like a lot of modern politics is not "we should have more" but instead "you guys should have less". I think the election result is an outcome of more and more people thinking along the latter lines.

To bad. Would have been fun watching Switzerland try something new.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#117

Post by hodwik2 »

Vaebn wrote: post #66
ihsw wrote: post #38

.

Maybe if they had money to spend, then they wouldn't be "unwashed" and in fact thus be part of an ever increasing economy. Unfortunately that would require an understanding of how an economy works, rather than a zero-sum mindset and collectivist hate of seeing "other" people have money who "don't deserve it" because their "birth coordinates were wrong", even if you were to receive exactly the same. Talk about self-de…

There is something to be said for having been born (and as a result, raised) in a post-Enlightenment society.

Migrants from pre-Englightenment societies almost always raise the general crime levels, take value that they didn't earn, and become the new underclass.

Look at Irish and Italian immigrants in the US in the 1800s. We came from countries that did not have the same level of education, without the history of liberal philosophy, and as a result we caused a lot of damage to the US -- between organized crime, debauchery, civil unrest, general violence, but also, politically/socially. We didn't understand the American political space, we voted for statist governments, and then began taking over the police forces and unions and mobilizing them against our rivals (blacks, Polish and Jews).

Eventually, we were assimilated, but that was much easier -- we were already Christians (albeit Catholic), and a lot of us could pass for a more desirable nationality. So far, Middle Eastern immigrants have shown little interest in assimilating at all.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#118

Post by Keyframe »

s3nnyy wrote: post #37

Switzerland is the only country in the world that implements direct democracy. You can really feel the difference to the rest of Europe. Swiss more often than not stand behind decisions made by their government. When talking about their politicians, the Swiss say "WE decided that ..." whereas e.g., Germans say: "THEY decided that ..." If you look for a coding job in Europe, Zurich is a great place to live and is the…

I don't know about Zurich, but Bern is damn beautiful place to be at. Expensive, as all Switzerland is though.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#119

Post by massysett »

enraged_camel wrote: post #97
akerro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As already mentioned, you're ignoring a fact that even by working there for 10 years, it's close to impossible to buy a part of land and build a house anywhere near a city. Land and house prices are too high to stay there for live. It's only profitable to live there, make savings and buy 2-3 houses in Uk/Germany for it. Like two of my co-workers did.

I've never understood why people believe/feel that buying land and/or a house is the pinnacle of... something. Sure, it gives the person a feeling of control and stability. But rooting oneself in one labor market (vs. being mobile) decreases one's employment options and therefore their salary. It's also very risky, as it's the equivalent of putting one's eggs in one basket and leaves their financial wellbeing in the…

People don't necessarily buy then suffer the consequences of being rooted. Rather, one may be rooted because of family, preference, or because their job market is one place. Then they want to buy because if you are rooted, you might as well have greater control over your dwelling. If I rented my occupancy would be at the whim of my landlord, which is OK for apartments in the US, as apartment landlords generally have no reason to kick out tenants summarily (except in unstable markets, like perhaps the Bay Area.)

But most single family home landlords are small time operators who can't be counted on to provide long term occupancy. I would find such an arrangement untenable.

For those who want to be mobile I completely agree that renting makes sense, but for many folks being rooted leads to ownership, rather than ownership leading to being rooted.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#120

Post by zo1 »

Vaebn wrote: post #78
areyoucrazy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum... Oh, you liberals. You hide behind democracy when, in fact, you are a bunch of tyrants who would like to jam your ideas of immigration, multiculturalism, socialism etc. down the people's throats whether they like it or not. Why are you labeling direct democratic decision by majority of people as bad/downside? It seems that when people do someth…

Because its all fun and games until the "majority" suddenly realize they can just say "oh, and also, how about we vote to take all the money of that 10% here". There is such a thing as tyranny by the minority, and tyranny by the majority. The second is in fact much easier to do, since the first requires a modicum of power & ability for someone to keep himself in that position. The minaret thing is irrelevant, as a mi…

Everyone is a minority and under "tyranny by the majority" in one way or another.
Post reply on HN