Hacker News Reader

Some of the common answers that make me differ:

> Social welfare should not be free. There are low skilled jobs that can be done by most. ...

Most people are not able to do anything productive for the society, expect for in a limited number of positions. It would be more expensive to provide a job for everybody (training, commute, supervision). Many jobs are cheaper to automate than have a human to do it without paying salary. Many others are simply not worth doing at all.

> Election campain "propaganda" should be legally binding

"When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?"

> All platforms that reach the level of google search in peoples life should be declared public utility and punished for biases and manipulation of any kind.

Why would anybody build a platform like that, then? Punishing for any biases sounds like a hard task as well, as the main use of a platform like google search is the "bias" to include more useful results. Moreover, this kind of thing would become a political too rather quickly. I agree on the idea level, but I don't see any way to do this well.

> Many jobs are cheaper to automate

This is 100% true but the point was that you're spending the money anyway. There are always roles that are too expensive to automate and where a human mind is worth 10 machines(ex:for converting archives to digital, translating older texts).

> "When the Facts Change..." that is what courts are for. Good are bad they are the only system we have for sorting out problems like this

- What kind of hurting and to what degree? Does slapping kid in the face just once counts? What about psychological torture? What happens if we get this wrong, can we "unexecute" someone?

- that would a pain to charge and enforce.

- if someone has the means to pay for their own welfare, why would they be eligible in the first place? Isn't providing for those without means like the whole point of social welfare?

- many citizens have no understanding whatsoever of how their country work.

- you can only bind reality through law to some very limited extent. Suppose Winston Churchill had promised "four years of peace"...

- that seems harsh...

- internet is most certainly a public utility.You can, however, live without it.

- I think that's a good idea.

- That too.

> Isn't providing for those without means like the whole point of social welfare

That is indeed the point of it and should be applied to disabled/sick, etc like it already does. That doesn't prevent them from doing various jobs that the government needs to give a paycheck for and are either low skilled or can be part time. For example answering calls in a reception, or even doing first line support over the phone.

> - All transportation should have a weight multiplier to the base price since every kg adds to the fuel usage. Nobody should have to pay out of their own pockets for you.

To avoid accidentally encouraging healthy-weight people to become underweight, I'd suggest one change to this: make it only apply to the amount that people are overweight by. For example, a 5'6" person who weighs 155lb or less wouldn't pay any surcharge, one who weighs 160lb would pay a surcharge on 5lb, one who weighs 200lb would pay a surcharge on 45lb, etc.

Having a range with no surcharge is a great way to do it and keep it healthy and fair indeed. Nice one man.

And I thought that my not liking Rust was contrarian...

> All transportation should have a weight multiplier to the base price since every kg adds to the fuel usage. Nobody should have to pay out of their own pockets for you.

I don't think it would amount to much. A lot of the cost is per seat, no matter the weight.

> Immigrants (like me in UK) should not have a right to vote until they get citizenship. This is the proof that you actually understand the country you live in.

Isn't that already the case?

I'm on the fence for allowing non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. After all, it's mostly local policy that's debated and, by living there, they are directly impacted by it.

> Immigrants (like me in UK) should not have a right to vote until they get citizenship. This is the proof that you actually understand the country you live in.

This is how it is in the US. As a non-citizen immigrant I can understand this point of view. On the other hand, it's taxation without representation which is what Americans originally fought for.

> - All transportation should have a weight multiplier to the base price since every kg adds to the fuel usage. Nobody should have to pay out of their own pockets for you.

So all poor people will have to be as skinny as possible with consequences for their health.

No, so people hauling heavy loads have to pay, and not everyone else.

20% of most populations have an IQ below 83. It is pretty much impossible for anybody with an IQ of 83 or lower to do a job. So it is OK for those people to starve to death?

I don't believe for a minute that it's pretty much impossible for 1 in 5 people to have a job.

Ask the US military. They won’t recruit anybody with an IQ below 83. Even though the US military try to recruit as many as possible. And then check the IQ statistics. They found out the hard way that soldiers with an IQ lower than 83 are more dangerous to the US military than the enemy.

Why wouldn't they be able to pick up a call and open a support ticket? or scan old books (press the button style). I do understand you point though. There wouldn't be enough for all of them. You can keep helping them and only use them when needed.

At the end of the day it's about having workforce available when needed that you're already paying for and not having to pay someone else. Whether you have to use it or not is a different matter.