One way to look at it is that alcoholic beverages compete with other beverages, so maybe Coca-Cola and Pepsico would benefit.
Another way is that alcohol competes with other neurotropes, so maybe pharmaceutical companies and drug dealers would benefit. Or even makers of psychedelic music and images.
A third way to view it is that alcohol competes with other stress-removers, so massage therapy and calming music vendors would benefit.
The statistical studies have been used to suggest that drinking 6 drinks a day is healthier than drinking nothing, even when you account for people who don't drink because of long term health conditions.
You are arguing for a world that might benefit you, will definitely benefit intelligence creepers, and would be considered by most human beings undesirable and downright hostile. Expect resistance.
I firmly disagree. Hiding things is a hack; the actual solution is to change society such that exposure entails no significant consequences.
Sure, as a band-aid to make existing real people feel secure? Hiding things and keeping them hidden is fine. It's just an indicator of how far we as a society still have to go.
Do remember: "it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy" is the exact argument used by the government against things like Wikileaks. The exact argument.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. So are you saying if we were a further advanced society people could have sex a crowded bus or restaurant and we should just all accept it and not expect them to get some privacy?
I'm not suggesting anyone should be ashamed of sex. I am suggesting that most people want that moment to be private and even those that around them want them to keep it private as well.
"Do remember: "it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy" is the exact argument used by the government against things like Wikileaks. The exact argument."
The government does not have the right to privacy, we do. And exercising that right is well doing something we have the right to do.
It's a noble attempt at compromise, but at that point, you're not talking about UBI anymore. The entire point of UBI is a rejection of the notion that a person must contribute before they have permission to live. It's a statement that the right to life is inherent to every individual, details on the morality of suicide or abortion aside, and that if we can't simply provide those necessities, then we can at least provide the means to get them through guaranteed income.
Basic Income is, by itself, already a compromise. To compromise again is to no longer be a separate concept.
At the point you're talking about, it's not actually different from the situation as it stands now: what you're really saying is that the minimum wage needs to be sufficient for living expenses. Nothing more.
The fundamental offering that diversity brings to a society is plurality of opinion. This presents us with a mildly interesting paradox: a segregated society has no use for plural opinion, but a highly integrated society flat-out lacks them: diversity is the middle ground at which plural opinion is available.
As an aside, mainstream "controversy" is a segregated-society phenomenon, not a diverse-society one. You can tell the three kinds by their reaction to a reasonable alternative: a segregated society reacts with hostility or contempt; a diverse society reacts with toleration or moderation; an integrated society reacts with confusion or ignorance.
