Be careful what you wish for. UBI assumes a small group in power will, while having all the resources in their hands, fairly distribute them to everyone and never use them as a bargaining chip to force our compliance with whatever actions they’re trying to take.
The whole UBI idea seems like a trap for the general public to accept the notion that it inevitable that a small oligarchic group must have all the resources consolidated to them, to stop us from working towards a true egalitarian economy.
There is no time I am aware of in history where a large group in power distributed vast resources to the community without being compelled to do so by threat of force.
The sky isn’t transparent it’s translucent giving it a blue color. Revisit the dictionary.
Chicago is in America. There is also other chicagos in other places but YES Chicago is in America much like Paris is in France and another one is in Texas.
Palm trees aren’t grass. They are closer to grass than a tree. They aren’t trees.
Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemma… by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least that’s a conversation.
You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.
Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees aren’t trees.
It’s like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.
You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.
I’m carrying on the conversation because it’s hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. I’m dying to see what comes next.
Taxes are redistribution of the capital of the general populace of the governed area. UBI is different in that it proposes a special tax only on the capital class where wealth is concentrated, which is then used to supplement the incomes of the general populace, with the most future-utopian thinkers envisioning UBI replacing income and work entirely some day in a super-automated future.
The point of great concern to me is that people bought in to the idea will not resist the ownership class’ attempts to consolidate resources and capital into fewer and fewer hands, because they believe those are stepping stones on the path to UBI. Then, when the capital class has got all the resources and control all the production, what force on Earth can make sure they follow through on the redistribution?
That last question is rhetorical. If someone’s got all the money, food, and weapons, there is no such force on Earth.
Edit to add another note: Observe how the capital class already actively seeks to avoid taxation at every turn, and are typically successful. I believe a government to successfully implement UBI, it would have to be somehow completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying.
Not sure it’s even possible to achieve being “completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying”, but at least getting to a system where the legislature or whoever has the power and the will (if not absolute mandate) to continually evaluate the situation and combat corruption (sanctioning, suspending, or expelling violators; penalizing lobbyists who don’t follow the rules; amending the rules as needed to keep ahead of the problems).
There’s just not enough real consequences for any of these people failing to live up to the standards we should expect of them.
Be careful what you wish for. UBI assumes a small group in power will, while having all the resources in their hands, fairly distribute them to everyone and never use them as a bargaining chip to force our compliance with whatever actions they’re trying to take.
The whole UBI idea seems like a trap for the general public to accept the notion that it inevitable that a small oligarchic group must have all the resources consolidated to them, to stop us from working towards a true egalitarian economy.
There is no time I am aware of in history where a large group in power distributed vast resources to the community without being compelled to do so by threat of force.
Well if my choices are
A) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all
Or
B) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all but I have money for food…
Man that’s a tough choice. I’ll go with B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Really? Because you’re living in that false dilemma and and humans always have lived in that false dilemma.
So it’s not all that false
If you only present 2 options then it is a false dilemma.
The sky is blue. True or false?
Is Chicago in America or not?
Are palm trees a tree , yes or no?
You need to revisit the dictionary. Not every a or b choice is a false dilemma.
Dude, you don’t even know the difference between a decision and a question.
And, just for fun.
The sky is transparent
Chicago is in Kwekwe
Palm trees are a grass.
The sky isn’t transparent it’s translucent giving it a blue color. Revisit the dictionary.
Chicago is in America. There is also other chicagos in other places but YES Chicago is in America much like Paris is in France and another one is in Texas.
Palm trees aren’t grass. They are closer to grass than a tree. They aren’t trees.
Dictionary. Buy one.
Wait until night. Is the sky blue?
You can be in chicago and not in America.
Apart from their size, palm trees are nothing like trees.
These questions have absolutely no relationship with the topic of false dilemmas.
Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemma… by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least that’s a conversation.
You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.
Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees aren’t trees.
It’s like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.
You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.
I’m carrying on the conversation because it’s hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. I’m dying to see what comes next.
That sounds concerning, but how is it different from regular taxes to collect & distribute the funds?
I mean, besides the obvious push from them to reduce taxes to 0% as they already do in the States.
Taxes are redistribution of the capital of the general populace of the governed area. UBI is different in that it proposes a special tax only on the capital class where wealth is concentrated, which is then used to supplement the incomes of the general populace, with the most future-utopian thinkers envisioning UBI replacing income and work entirely some day in a super-automated future.
The point of great concern to me is that people bought in to the idea will not resist the ownership class’ attempts to consolidate resources and capital into fewer and fewer hands, because they believe those are stepping stones on the path to UBI. Then, when the capital class has got all the resources and control all the production, what force on Earth can make sure they follow through on the redistribution?
That last question is rhetorical. If someone’s got all the money, food, and weapons, there is no such force on Earth.
Edit to add another note: Observe how the capital class already actively seeks to avoid taxation at every turn, and are typically successful. I believe a government to successfully implement UBI, it would have to be somehow completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying.
Not sure it’s even possible to achieve being “completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying”, but at least getting to a system where the legislature or whoever has the power and the will (if not absolute mandate) to continually evaluate the situation and combat corruption (sanctioning, suspending, or expelling violators; penalizing lobbyists who don’t follow the rules; amending the rules as needed to keep ahead of the problems).
There’s just not enough real consequences for any of these people failing to live up to the standards we should expect of them.