Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive if he had different views on them. But his ideas on them are pretty much the same, just described from different starting points. If you take them to their logical conclusions, they contradict.
For example if he hates what his personal experiment did, making people lazy, undriven, sad potato sacks, why would he want an entire society to do that?
In his UBI argument, he argues back to Tim something along the lines of "But it's just enough to live, people will want more" His argument for UBI is that people will drive to succeed BEYOND their basic needs, and Tim's idea that people will choose not to work is preposterous.
But then he contradicts that with his own experiment of how people don't drive beyond the basic needs. The comedians he helped didn't put more effort into their comedy. They had all this extra time to focus on comedy instead of struggling to survive, and they didn't utilize it. They became lazy and undriven.
Why would he argue people won't become undriven lazy people, but then give his own example of why they do? Why would he say that benefits people, but then explain in his own example why it doesn't?
The way I understood Joe is that he is in favor of UBI because of the freedom that it gives people to pursue avenues and tasks that truly interest them, but he also points out that being given everything for free some people lose the drive that they need to better themselves and their craft.
It's like having a sailboat with a working rudder to go anywhere they like, but having no wind to push them. You have more freedom, but potentially less purpose and/or drive to act on it. So actually moving forward becomes even harder for some people and they are stuck in idle water.
I see what your saying about “drive” and “will” but I don’t see how that’s not a contradiction. His own experience shows that giving people money robs them of drive, so in essence UBI is directly the reason people are held back. Which he constantly complains about, he constantly says he wants society to get its shit together, and touts Jordan Peterson principals, but then touts a system in which that mentality will not thrive.
Sure. You could however argue that it is not necessarily a contradiction in the sense that you could possibly manifest that missing drive in other ways than just through the necessity to generate capital.
Cultural and/or social rank could be one (meaning you would be seen even more of an utter deadbeat if you had no passion, discipline and/or drive).
But doesn't his experience address cultural and social rank you are referring to? His comedian wanted to succeed as a comedian, not necessarily become super rich, just focus on comedy, and improve their comedy. He thought giving them money would give them that freedom to do that, and not have to focus on distracting things.
But once earning a living was no longer necessary, they not only didn't care about earning a living, because they didn't need to, they no longer cared about improving their social ranks as skilled and talented comedians. Is that kind of the point?
Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive if he had different views on them. But his ideas on them are pretty much the same, just described from different starting points. If you take them to their logical conclusions, they contradict.
For example if he hates what his personal experiment did, making people lazy, undriven, sad potato sacks, why would he want an entire society to do that?
In his UBI argument, he argues back to Tim something along the lines of "But it's just enough to live, people will want more" His argument for UBI is that people will drive to succeed BEYOND their basic needs, and Tim's idea that people will choose not to work is preposterous.
But then he contradicts that with his own experiment of how people don't drive beyond the basic needs. The comedians he helped didn't put more effort into their comedy. They had all this extra time to focus on comedy instead of struggling to survive, and they didn't utilize it. They became lazy and undriven.
Why would he argue people won't become undriven lazy people, but then give his own example of why they do? Why would he say that benefits people, but then explain in his own example why it doesn't?
That's a direct contradiction.
The way I understood Joe is that he is in favor of UBI because of the freedom that it gives people to pursue avenues and tasks that truly interest them, but he also points out that being given everything for free some people lose the drive that they need to better themselves and their craft.
It's like having a sailboat with a working rudder to go anywhere they like, but having no wind to push them. You have more freedom, but potentially less purpose and/or drive to act on it. So actually moving forward becomes even harder for some people and they are stuck in idle water.
I see what your saying about “drive” and “will” but I don’t see how that’s not a contradiction. His own experience shows that giving people money robs them of drive, so in essence UBI is directly the reason people are held back. Which he constantly complains about, he constantly says he wants society to get its shit together, and touts Jordan Peterson principals, but then touts a system in which that mentality will not thrive.
Sure. You could however argue that it is not necessarily a contradiction in the sense that you could possibly manifest that missing drive in other ways than just through the necessity to generate capital.
Cultural and/or social rank could be one (meaning you would be seen even more of an utter deadbeat if you had no passion, discipline and/or drive).
But doesn't his experience address cultural and social rank you are referring to? His comedian wanted to succeed as a comedian, not necessarily become super rich, just focus on comedy, and improve their comedy. He thought giving them money would give them that freedom to do that, and not have to focus on distracting things.
But once earning a living was no longer necessary, they not only didn't care about earning a living, because they didn't need to, they no longer cared about improving their social ranks as skilled and talented comedians. Is that kind of the point?
I just still don't see how they are divorced.