Basic income, along with all other state welfare, is literally putting a gun to some people's heads to pay for other people's stuff. That has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberty. You're not kidding anyone.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't think you understand what "literally" means. I also don't think you understand what basic income means.
The closest thing in the world to basic income is in Alaska, where every resident gets a check every year as their share of the natural resources. You know, natural resources, as in the shit no one made, but someone calls dibs on.
So is your argument that the oil companies have a gun to their head? Because that would be as stupid as saying that you'd be pointing a gun at someone's head if they asked to drill in your backyard for oil, and you both voluntarily agreed to drilling terms where they paid you for the right to drill. It's negotiating a voluntary contract, and what the oil companies in Alaska pay to drill is the up front cost of doing business, not a tax.
Don't be a fool. If you lived in Alaska, would you turn down your dividend as being state welfare? Would you feel your individual liberty had decreased every time you cashed your dividend check?
Do you currently turn down every tax credit offered to you as being welfare? Because it is. Giving you $1,000 in tax credits is the same thing as not lowering your taxes but providing you $1,000 in cash. I doubt you have a problem with tax credits, and I definitely doubt anyone has ever literally put a gun to your head.
You're a funny guy and you're trying too hard here.
Yes, I do know what literally means. I was talking about taxes. If I refuse to have my wages stolen from me, men with guns will eventually come. If I resist, they will kill me. You know this too, but you pretend to be a know it all on the Internet. /golfclap
Oh, and the reason I called you a funny guy is because you clearly don't understand economics, but that's to be expected for someone with your beliefs.
How do you think that oil is taken out of the ground in Alaska? Do you think it magically appears on the market to be sold for profit? No, it does not.
Yes, the state has a surplus, and the people living there get small checks yearly as a share of the profit. That oil gets to market though through a ton of people actually working. They don't sit home collecting universal income checks.
Speaking again of those checks, the Alaskan ones are not enough to live off of for the entire year. Instead, it is a bonus. To provide people with full universal income, you would have to TAX others instead of simply rely on oil profits.
Oil profits I might add are WAY down these days. You knew that already though, right? Entire nation states such as Russia and Saudi Arabia have had to completely rework their economies because of the drastic changes lower in oil.
Again, you're so funny... 40% of my income is stolen every year to be given to other people, and you try to suggest I should be happy with child and other tiny credits. That's brilliant!
Hey buddy, I'm going to rob you today, but don't worry. I'll leave you with $5 bucks for the metro. Oh, you have a child? Okay, here's $5 more. Now, give me the money, or you go to prison. Resist? You're dead, mister.
You literally don't understand basic economics. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere, has to pay for what is given out through welfare.
If socialists understood economics, they'd be capitalists.
Yes, if they also had the correct definition of capitalism. Unfortunately they tend to lump any social issues they see in with the term. Capital is considered the poison causing all the ills. Being anti-capitalist then, to such people, means simply to be against everything that's bad...
What's peaceful about taking, by force, from some to pay others? You people crack me up.
Using your line of language all extortion fees are paid voluntarily, correct? So is intercourse under threat of having your throat cut, right?
"Voluntary" normally (when not explicitly pointing out the specifics) means different things depending on context, as it then should. The common theme with anti-capitalists is that they confuse the proper uses in these contexts - such as the difference between discussing free will and it's narrow practical defence in the legal realm - and that they strawman the anarcho-capitalist position as being one for a society where no positive moral or contractual considerations are given to the poor, the weak or the person currently residing on someone else's property.
Genocide isn't genocide if you willingly walk to the station, voluntarily walk on the train, and peacefully walk into the shower. It doesn't matter if a Nazi has his uzi pointed at you. You did it, voluntarily, on your own.
haha Yeah, I didn't rape that woman either. She voluntarily let me have sex with her. I had a gun and was threatening her with it, but hey... why would that matter?!
There is no universal basic income. How can I prove what does not exist?
Are you talking about taxes in general? Every year the IRS sends me corrections to my taxes. Every year, if I do not pay those corrected amounts, they will garnish my wages to get them.
I cannot keep my job without paying taxes. Remember Peter Schiff's father? He went to jail because of taxes. Countless other people do too.
Sure, there are ways to fight the system, but it is VERY difficult to avoid income taxes these days.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove though. You think UBI should be given by government, and you think giving it is all voluntary?
Taking from corporations and "rich" individuals to pay UBI to others will not be voluntary. It will be mandatory. It will be a "do it or else" scenario.
All of you "free men" are always so cocky. You think just because you supposedly beat some court issue, probably simply because you were not worth the judges time to bother with, you think everyone else should do the same? You also think because of what happened to you, it should also be the same for others?
I was sued once in court by a thief. He used the court system against me to steal. I fought him as much as I could, but guess what? He still won. Then what happened? The courts GARNISHED MY WAGES.
There was no way for me to ignore the courts as you and people like you suggest. I was going to be robbed, and that was the end of it. If I didn't pay, I would have lost my job, etc.
You're delusional. Seriously, you are out of touch with reality.