Your elaborate model is basically just describing government taxation and could be applied to our modern welfare systems. I don't follow how it equals "UBI bad".
Also, there are plenty of benefits to the productive for UBI. UBI is intended to be implemented when there arent near enough jobs for large portions of the population to provide for themselves. By shifting resources through taxation and UBI these people who would have no money to spend now have money to spend on basics like a refridgerator. All those extra people buying refridgerators (and other basic items) is far more economically productive then having excess capital sitting in an already bloated stock market. Obviously there are ceilings to how much this can be done (making refriderators and conducting commerce in general still needs to be profitable for those still engaging in such) and where those might be is certainly debatable but there's a shit ton of money sitting out there right now even not doing a damn thing.
After that there's the obviouse issue of social order. People will feal far less compelled to steal and visit violence on others if they have the basics covered. Also, if enough people cant find employment, revolution is a likely result which often does not go well for those in power.
Your link is missing the brave hero part without which you havent made any kind of point. I do dimly remember this but i dont remember her being labeled a hero after the crash.
A) You fail to acknowledge that global UBI might be implemented in a world that experiences the same problems together.
B) You're behaving in the fashion of a classic paranoid. None of what you describe is encouraged in America while all of it is discouraged and my property rights reasonably well protected. What you seem to advocating for is anarchy. Tell me, under a system of anarchy, who will protect your property if your neighbors decide it shouldnt be yours anymore? You against the rest of them? Maybe you'll try calling 911?
What a bunch of made up nonsense your post is. Please point to a real life scenario where something like this happened because as far as I'm concerned you might as well be talking about elves and leprechauns.
UBI demands state control of all productive property? No it doesn't and your post you link to is rot. You literally just make up numbers with no rational as to why they are what they are. If the total taxable income of the B villagers is maybe $100,000,000,000, $10 of which comes from the daily earnings of the milk farmer then everything works great! Why is the total taxable income of the B villagers only 15? So you can make the point you want to make, otherwise it's just an arbitrary number you made up.
"Government is a system if oppression, nothing else, it steals, destroys private property, rapes and murders, that is its function."
Really? Last time I checked my government does a pretty alright job of enforcing my ownership of my private property against those stronger then me, otherwise what I own would just belong to some one with more guns. Likewise, it protects me from theft, rape, and murder. Sure, I have endure a bit of oppression but living with everything I've just listed seems far more oppressive to me.
All 51 states / district are all voting simultaneously for president. Calling it "the election" is not only accurate, it is literally how just about every normal person refers to it.
As I said above it's only irrelevant in determining the literal winner.
The popular vote for president is valuable for a number of reasons outside of that, chief of which is as a gauge for how voters actually voted and thus who they actually favored in the election.
Did you just skip where I said "the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election" or did you just really want to say that?
You have not contradicted a single thing I've said.
Take Florida for instance, our third or fourth largest state by population (dont remember, not looking it up). Are you really telling me an Alaskan's vote matters more or even as much as some one in Florida? Presidental elections are won and lost based on what happens in Florida, meanwhile Alaska votes Republican every election and no one cares because everyone knew that was going to happen just like with every other small (by population) state
So a system where only 7 or 8 states matter in the election is better? At least under the popular vote a voters vote in Kanses (as an example) matters. As it stands now the individual's vote doesnt matter there and in 40 other states because where their electoral votes go is practically pre ordained.
You mean the ammendment that puts a layer of government between the people's vote and the office being voted on? A layer of government between the people's will and the government? A system in which party elites can simply tell voters to go screw themselves and then vote for whoever they want? I thought conservatives were supposed to hate government interference and elites telling them what to do.
I suppose that since it's won them a couple of elections these last couple of decades you cant blame them for abandoning princable. I cant wait for things to go full circle though and they lose an election under similiar circumstances.
No they're not, the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election. What makes the popular vote irrelevant in any other context?
Slashdot Mirror
Your elaborate model is basically just describing government taxation and could be applied to our modern welfare systems. I don't follow how it equals "UBI bad".
Also, there are plenty of benefits to the productive for UBI. UBI is intended to be implemented when there arent near enough jobs for large portions of the population to provide for themselves. By shifting resources through taxation and UBI these people who would have no money to spend now have money to spend on basics like a refridgerator. All those extra people buying refridgerators (and other basic items) is far more economically productive then having excess capital sitting in an already bloated stock market. Obviously there are ceilings to how much this can be done (making refriderators and conducting commerce in general still needs to be profitable for those still engaging in such) and where those might be is certainly debatable but there's a shit ton of money sitting out there right now even not doing a damn thing.
After that there's the obviouse issue of social order. People will feal far less compelled to steal and visit violence on others if they have the basics covered. Also, if enough people cant find employment, revolution is a likely result which often does not go well for those in power.
Oops, you didnt write the parent i was replying to. My main point stands but sorry i implied you said something you didnt.
Your link is missing the brave hero part without which you havent made any kind of point. I do dimly remember this but i dont remember her being labeled a hero after the crash.
A) You fail to acknowledge that global UBI might be implemented in a world that experiences the same problems together.
B) You're behaving in the fashion of a classic paranoid. None of what you describe is encouraged in America while all of it is discouraged and my property rights reasonably well protected. What you seem to advocating for is anarchy. Tell me, under a system of anarchy, who will protect your property if your neighbors decide it shouldnt be yours anymore? You against the rest of them? Maybe you'll try calling 911?
What a bunch of made up nonsense your post is. Please point to a real life scenario where something like this happened because as far as I'm concerned you might as well be talking about elves and leprechauns.
UBI demands state control of all productive property? No it doesn't and your post you link to is rot. You literally just make up numbers with no rational as to why they are what they are. If the total taxable income of the B villagers is maybe $100,000,000,000, $10 of which comes from the daily earnings of the milk farmer then everything works great! Why is the total taxable income of the B villagers only 15? So you can make the point you want to make, otherwise it's just an arbitrary number you made up.
"Government is a system if oppression, nothing else, it steals, destroys private property, rapes and murders, that is its function."
Really? Last time I checked my government does a pretty alright job of enforcing my ownership of my private property against those stronger then me, otherwise what I own would just belong to some one with more guns. Likewise, it protects me from theft, rape, and murder. Sure, I have endure a bit of oppression but living with everything I've just listed seems far more oppressive to me.
By your line of reasoning all taxation is just like your Venezuela scenario.
Meanwhile most normal people think some level of taxation is necessary for a government to run so then the debate from there is what is reasonable.
Also, UBI isnt really socialism as it has nothing to do with the state controlling the means of production.
So that's why in this past year almost every fast food place has started offering $5 meals made up of far more expensive items if bought individually?
Sounds state sponsored to me. Anti Kurd, anti Armenian genocide claims and pro "don't make fun of Erdogan".
Of course I don't have proof but that's pretty much Erdogan's platform, particularly in regards to issues the West cares about.
Not a fan if AC comments but extremely culturally insightful. Mod up please.
I strongly suspect you're being purposely dense to further your own views.
Maybe it's just you that's confused.
Losing the popular vote doesnt mean anything? That's ridiculous. At the very least it shows that one doesnt have a clear mandate from the people.
I've certainly done that a few times myself.
Thanks for the reply, very polite of you.
world = word
Pure world play on your part.
All 51 states / district are all voting simultaneously for president. Calling it "the election" is not only accurate, it is literally how just about every normal person refers to it.
As I said above it's only irrelevant in determining the literal winner.
The popular vote for president is valuable for a number of reasons outside of that, chief of which is as a gauge for how voters actually voted and thus who they actually favored in the election.
Did you just skip where I said "the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election" or did you just really want to say that?
You have not contradicted a single thing I've said.
They matter more only in small swing states.
Take Florida for instance, our third or fourth largest state by population (dont remember, not looking it up). Are you really telling me an Alaskan's vote matters more or even as much as some one in Florida? Presidental elections are won and lost based on what happens in Florida, meanwhile Alaska votes Republican every election and no one cares because everyone knew that was going to happen just like with every other small (by population) state
Drastically different? No it wouldnt.
Also your quote
"but in no way relevant to picking a winner."
My prior comment
"the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election. "
Thanks for repeating what I said.
I agree with a lot of what you say but how would Hillary "rig her own primary"? People voted, she won the vote.
Just because she was favored by her party (a political party favoring a candidate!? *gasp!*) doesnt mean the election was rigged.
So a system where only 7 or 8 states matter in the election is better? At least under the popular vote a voters vote in Kanses (as an example) matters. As it stands now the individual's vote doesnt matter there and in 40 other states because where their electoral votes go is practically pre ordained.
What a world you live in.
I'm sure if you try hard enough you can find other things fringe democrats have brought up and then you can pretend that applies to everybody too.
By applying dumb stereotypes to all Democrats you're no better than someone applying dumb stereotypes to all Red Staters.
You mean the ammendment that puts a layer of government between the people's vote and the office being voted on? A layer of government between the people's will and the government? A system in which party elites can simply tell voters to go screw themselves and then vote for whoever they want? I thought conservatives were supposed to hate government interference and elites telling them what to do.
I suppose that since it's won them a couple of elections these last couple of decades you cant blame them for abandoning princable. I cant wait for things to go full circle though and they lose an election under similiar circumstances.
No they're not, the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election. What makes the popular vote irrelevant in any other context?