CMV: We should strengthen the traditional safety net rather than replace it with basic income

I sent this as a message, but I'm posting it here as well:

Dear /r/changemyview mods,

Recently this was was removed in supposed violation of Rule B: "You must personally hold the view and be open to it changing. A post cannot be neutral, on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing." I am not sure on what basis you decided to remove my CMV based on rule B, and am not sure how I violated it.

I can assure you that I genuinely hold the view that the traditional safety net is superior to basic income. I wanted to generate a good discussion on the issue, and hear good counterpoints. I really liked how the rebuttals in the comments were specific, and everyone was hearing each other's arguments out.

I did a previous CMV on social democracy in which I cross posted to /r/socialism and /r/socialdemocracy in order to generate more discussion and comments. I felt the cross-postings enhanced the overall debate on my CMV for that topic.

I x-posted in /r/basicincome because I wanted to specifically inform people from that community about my CMV because there would be a higher chance that they had strong arguments in favor of Basic Income. If you look through my profile, I previously held the opinion that BI is a good system. However, due to recent research I've done in economics through my university, I recently came to hold the view that the traditional safety is superior, and present my arguments. Essentially, I've changed my view in support of BI into a a support for the traditional welfare state (and I oppose BI).

This post was deleted from /r/changemyview at +138. It was popular on the subreddit, and people genuinely liked the conversation going on.

Here, user /u/go1dfish , who is very active in the community, is asking for my thread to be undeleted:

I'm sure many others in the CMV community would like for the thread to be reinstated because it was a topic that interested them. I have contributed to the CMV community before (one CMV receiving 625 upvotes, another receiving 553 upvotes).

I genuinely hold the position that the traditional safety net is superior to basic income. I believe that to be the case due to my economics research. I put a lot of time and effort into my post. I wanted to read good counterarguments against my point and engage with them in the comments. I assure you, I was not being neutral, or playing the devil's advocate, or arguing on behalf of other people. I hold that position myself.

I would like to direct you to this exchange between /u/hacksoncode and /u/TRC_esq :

/u/hacksoncode characterized my post and responses as such: "OP's explanation is written like a persuasive essay, not like an explanation of a view. OP's responses do not have the appearance of being open-minded, but rather continue the attempt to persuade, rather than to understand the opposing viewpoints." That is a misrepresentation of my post, and my comments. I was trying to present a strong case in favor my position in the OP, and then listen to what people wrote in the comments and offer rebuttals. I would like to direct to you the /u/TRC_esq who came to my defense:

"Which is what you do when you have not been convinced and you want to continue the debate in hopes the other side will continue to try to persuade you and address your concerns and maybe change or your mind. Or not. But respectful back and forth debate is how that is done. What particularly confuses me is that your rule also demands that the OP not be neutral. So they cannot have a point of view AND they cannot be neutral? How does ANYONE walk on that razor's edge?"

I felt that my post was unfairly removed, and many in the community feel so as well.

I also received private messages in favor of his CMV, who appreciated the discussion we were having

I would strongly urge you to reconsider and undelete my CMV submission. I believe it was unfairly removed. I hold my position, but I am open to changing my view in the face of convincing arguments and evidence. You deleted the post, preventing further conversation from going on.

The reason why I didn't award deltas in my original comments was because I was not convinced with their responses. I provided my viewpoints not with a desire to persuade them, but to have them think about my points and offer strong counterarguments. That's what they were doing before the thread was removed.

Here is how /u/explain_that_shit characterized this thread: "This is a solid debate, and everyone is clearly considering other perspectives, which I'm really impressed by."

I would ask you to please reconsider.

Thank you very much,


/r/changemyview Thread Parent