You can still have other forms of social welfare, along with UBI. Although, if we also have universal health care, the cancer patient and the disabled person can at least afford the basics, and the perfectly healthy person will roughly break even between the tax increase and the UBI funds. So, you've failed to provide a scenario where UBI doesn't work for someone at least as well as the current system. And of course that's the case, it's much more efficient than welfare.
No, that's not a flaw, that's a bugfix. Shitty jobs that can't be automated, even unskilled ones, should pay more. The reason they don't is because of the gross imbalance between supply and demand of labor, particularly that people are screwed without a job. UBI fixes that, and allows the labor market to correct itself.
The argument was minimum wage isn't supposed to be a "living wage".
No, I get your point. it's typically GOP/Libertarian ignorant bullshit talking points.
Your fundamental claim is that not all jobs need to provide a living wage. I agree. That doesn't mean that the minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage, though. If people need extra income that is less than the cost of living wage, there are two ways to accomplish that:
1) Work full time for less than a living wage.
2) Work part time for a hourly rate equivalent to a living wage.
If we go with 2), then everybody who is working full time CAN support a family, or at least themselves, and people who need extra income can get said income, while having more free time. The only people that lose are business owners that can't afford to pay a living wage. and they DESERVE to go out of business.
You are cheapskate moron. Even if I was a millionaire or billionaire, I'd care far more about not having so many urchins, addicts, and crooks in the street than an inconsequential difference in my net worth that has no real effect on my standard of living, and probably not even the standard of living of my children or grandchildren.
Okay, that's a bullshit metric. What you are really saying is that half of US households get income tax returns because too much is taken out for withholding.
Why not have them work for a living wage, but not work full time? They can get all of those extra things, and spend less time working for them. If they want to work more to occupy their time after that, THEN they can volunteer.
Except the structure of a UBI is that everyone gets it, it's more efficient than welfare, and lacks the perverse incentives of welfare where earning more can result in having less. Plus, SO MANY people will be more happy and productive, because they can actually choose their career. The uber-rich will complain, but that's just because they're spoiled brats.
Generally speaking, psychedelics aren't the best choice for hiding from reality. You are likely to end up with a heavy dosage of reality, possibly more than you feel you can handle. Now, alcohol and opiates, those will let you hide from reality.
Then give me some hard data, and then address the point about magnitude. I'm getting bored of arguing banal technicalities over what is clearly a case of giving power to a numbskull tyrant. I don't care if it's Fred Rogers, I don't want the government having any more information than the bare minimum it needs. That is a key principle of modern governance, even if it hasn't always been well followed. Because even if they are fluffing their numbers, they aren't fluffing them to the extent to justify getting all of the site's data. They've already arrested more people than the number that deserved it, and the resources they are using this could be allocated to something worthwhile.
I mean that your theory is such a stupid way of trying to describe traffic that their webmaster would strangle them for using it, regardless of personal politics. You've only published a record of relative popularity do dispute absolute traffic, and the threshold for their claims is roughly in line with a popular niche youtube channel.
And unless each user averaged around 100 IP addresses in the short timeframe where the site had a purpose, the ratio between the number of IP addresses sought and the number of parties that the government has a legitimate interest in investigating is still fucking ridiculous. But maybe you can do math while you're so busy licking boots.
You might when the entire web site's stated purpose for existing is to coordinate the activities of people planning to commit a wave of crimes. How hard is that to understand?
It's probably because your hypothetical has nothing to do with this scenario, where the site stated purpose was disruptive protest.
probably even RUSSIANS!
Wrong number there, kiddo. Russia isn't a scary word to me, and I think there's currently more credible evidence for the Seth Rich theory than the Russian hackers theory.
Your problem is that I am nearly an absolutist on free speech, and am deeply opposed to government surveillance. IMO, the number of people who were legitimately arrested was probably nowhere near 230, let alone going after any "conspirators."
It's not, AFAIK. For example, when someone suspected of a crime was using Lavabit (Snowden aside), Lavabit cooperated with law enforcement, but only gave them specifically what they need. How is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?
if you have a better idea for warrants I would love to hear it. Actually, nvm considering how you respond.
Too bad, asshole, cuz here it is: Ask for specific data on specific users. If that evidence leads to more potential users who are involved, get another warrant. How is that so fucking hard for you to grasp?
And you lost it. the fuck is wrong with you.
I have very little tolerance to appeals to emotion, which bringing up "child porn" undeniably is. I'm making it clear that such a technique will not sway me, and that I don't care about the children, especially if they are used as a means to undermine freedom (which it always is). There are countless other crimes that could be mentioned, but you brought up child porn. that makes you a pathetic cunt.
It certainly does imply unique ip addresses, because it doesn't make much sense to count redundant IP address. Where there would be wiggle room is that a single user might have had multiple IP addresses over the period of time. If I wanted to say what you are claiming, it would be clearer to claim something like "the IP addresses of our 1.3 million page hits."
The basic point is 1.3 million unique visitors isn't true.
Is it a possibly inflated number? Sure. Is it likely to be more than an order or magnitude off? Probably not. Is it the two or three orders of magnitude off the could mean that there is a somewhat legitimate need to hoover up all the data. Not a snowball's chance in hell.
This was a site dedicated to arranging a riot.
No, this was a site dedicated to arranging a disruptive protest. That's the most important thing for Americans to have, and compared to riots in just about any other country, or even in this country's past, it was fucking nothing. No need to waste taxpayer's money protecting President Snowflake's tender ego.
To my knowledge, the site itself did not coordinate any illegal activity, so they are protected by safe harbor provisions that make user generated content possible. Thus, the government has no legitimate rights to the server itself, just the relevant information on relevant users on that server.
Narrow is relative, but it's relative to a particular crime. So, if we assume that all 200 people arrested actually used the site, were rioters instead of protesters, and used the site to organize a riot, then the scope of people that would be reasonable to be asking info for would be the protesters themselves, and frequent contacts. So, it could cover maybe 2000 at best, maybe 5000 if we are really playing loose.
Slashdot Mirror
You can still have other forms of social welfare, along with UBI. Although, if we also have universal health care, the cancer patient and the disabled person can at least afford the basics, and the perfectly healthy person will roughly break even between the tax increase and the UBI funds. So, you've failed to provide a scenario where UBI doesn't work for someone at least as well as the current system. And of course that's the case, it's much more efficient than welfare.
No, that's not a flaw, that's a bugfix. Shitty jobs that can't be automated, even unskilled ones, should pay more. The reason they don't is because of the gross imbalance between supply and demand of labor, particularly that people are screwed without a job. UBI fixes that, and allows the labor market to correct itself.
No, I get your point. it's typically GOP/Libertarian ignorant bullshit talking points.
Your fundamental claim is that not all jobs need to provide a living wage. I agree. That doesn't mean that the minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage, though. If people need extra income that is less than the cost of living wage, there are two ways to accomplish that:
1) Work full time for less than a living wage.
2) Work part time for a hourly rate equivalent to a living wage.
If we go with 2), then everybody who is working full time CAN support a family, or at least themselves, and people who need extra income can get said income, while having more free time. The only people that lose are business owners that can't afford to pay a living wage. and they DESERVE to go out of business.
You are cheapskate moron. Even if I was a millionaire or billionaire, I'd care far more about not having so many urchins, addicts, and crooks in the street than an inconsequential difference in my net worth that has no real effect on my standard of living, and probably not even the standard of living of my children or grandchildren.
Okay, that's a bullshit metric. What you are really saying is that half of US households get income tax returns because too much is taken out for withholding.
You think imitating a simple machine teaches useful life skills? Weird...
Why not have them work for a living wage, but not work full time? They can get all of those extra things, and spend less time working for them. If they want to work more to occupy their time after that, THEN they can volunteer.
Why not have those workers work for the hourly equivalent of a living wage, and simply work fewer hours?
Congratulations. You are more economically right-wing than Milton Friedman, or you just don't understand proposed models of UBI.
Except the structure of a UBI is that everyone gets it, it's more efficient than welfare, and lacks the perverse incentives of welfare where earning more can result in having less. Plus, SO MANY people will be more happy and productive, because they can actually choose their career. The uber-rich will complain, but that's just because they're spoiled brats.
Low wages slow technological growth and reduce leisure time.
It's essentially stating the same thing, but without the worship of jobs, which are a means to an end.
Depending on the exact context, authoritarian, nationalist, and supremacist are all pretty descriptive.
Generally speaking, psychedelics aren't the best choice for hiding from reality. You are likely to end up with a heavy dosage of reality, possibly more than you feel you can handle. Now, alcohol and opiates, those will let you hide from reality.
Then give me some hard data, and then address the point about magnitude. I'm getting bored of arguing banal technicalities over what is clearly a case of giving power to a numbskull tyrant. I don't care if it's Fred Rogers, I don't want the government having any more information than the bare minimum it needs. That is a key principle of modern governance, even if it hasn't always been well followed. Because even if they are fluffing their numbers, they aren't fluffing them to the extent to justify getting all of the site's data. They've already arrested more people than the number that deserved it, and the resources they are using this could be allocated to something worthwhile.
I mean that your theory is such a stupid way of trying to describe traffic that their webmaster would strangle them for using it, regardless of personal politics. You've only published a record of relative popularity do dispute absolute traffic, and the threshold for their claims is roughly in line with a popular niche youtube channel.
And unless each user averaged around 100 IP addresses in the short timeframe where the site had a purpose, the ratio between the number of IP addresses sought and the number of parties that the government has a legitimate interest in investigating is still fucking ridiculous. But maybe you can do math while you're so busy licking boots.
It's probably because your hypothetical has nothing to do with this scenario, where the site stated purpose was disruptive protest.
Wrong number there, kiddo. Russia isn't a scary word to me, and I think there's currently more credible evidence for the Seth Rich theory than the Russian hackers theory.
Your problem is that I am nearly an absolutist on free speech, and am deeply opposed to government surveillance. IMO, the number of people who were legitimately arrested was probably nowhere near 230, let alone going after any "conspirators."
It's not, AFAIK. For example, when someone suspected of a crime was using Lavabit (Snowden aside), Lavabit cooperated with law enforcement, but only gave them specifically what they need. How is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Too bad, asshole, cuz here it is: Ask for specific data on specific users. If that evidence leads to more potential users who are involved, get another warrant. How is that so fucking hard for you to grasp?
I have very little tolerance to appeals to emotion, which bringing up "child porn" undeniably is. I'm making it clear that such a technique will not sway me, and that I don't care about the children, especially if they are used as a means to undermine freedom (which it always is). There are countless other crimes that could be mentioned, but you brought up child porn. that makes you a pathetic cunt.
It certainly does imply unique ip addresses, because it doesn't make much sense to count redundant IP address. Where there would be wiggle room is that a single user might have had multiple IP addresses over the period of time. If I wanted to say what you are claiming, it would be clearer to claim something like "the IP addresses of our 1.3 million page hits."
Is it a possibly inflated number? Sure. Is it likely to be more than an order or magnitude off? Probably not. Is it the two or three orders of magnitude off the could mean that there is a somewhat legitimate need to hoover up all the data. Not a snowball's chance in hell.
No, this was a site dedicated to arranging a disruptive protest. That's the most important thing for Americans to have, and compared to riots in just about any other country, or even in this country's past, it was fucking nothing. No need to waste taxpayer's money protecting President Snowflake's tender ego.
To my knowledge, the site itself did not coordinate any illegal activity, so they are protected by safe harbor provisions that make user generated content possible. Thus, the government has no legitimate rights to the server itself, just the relevant information on relevant users on that server.
You don't have to be Antifa to be against Trump. Most of America hates Trump, even many of his voters. Even Trump hates Trump
It's actually 1.3 million ip addresses. You are correct that this may not equate to exactly 1.3 million users, but it's likely not that far off.
No, the stated purpose was to protest. if this has your panties in a bunch, you'd piss yourself during a French protest.
Narrow is relative, but it's relative to a particular crime. So, if we assume that all 200 people arrested actually used the site, were rioters instead of protesters, and used the site to organize a riot, then the scope of people that would be reasonable to be asking info for would be the protesters themselves, and frequent contacts. So, it could cover maybe 2000 at best, maybe 5000 if we are really playing loose.
There is no sane argument for collecting the data for 1.3 million users.