You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you...

in #freedom7 years ago (edited)

Nope. I believe no one should be able to force their will on others, and that everyone should be free. You just appear to believe that anything done by the state is violence.

I recommend living in Alaska for a year so as to qualify for the Alaskan dividend, so you can honestly tell me all about the horrible violence of money forced upon you the following year that increases your ability to say no to other people who would otherwise try to take advantage of the increased economic insecurity that would exist without that increased income.

Oh no! An oil company is effectively paying you for the right to drill in your land! What violence!

By the way, here's why Hayek supported UBI.

For Hayek, then, and for those who follow in his footsteps, a basic income is motivated not by an allegedly misguided commitment to egalitarianism or to positive liberty. It is motivated instead by the value that libertarians prize above all others – freedom. And it is motivated by an understanding of freedom that libertarians ought to find highly attractive. The point of a basic income isn’t to give everyone the same amount of wealth. It is to ensure that everyone has enough access to material wealth to render them immune to the coercive power of others. That’s an understanding of freedom that appears to have been good enough for John Locke. It ought to be good enough for his contemporary followers as well.

Sort:  

Successful private corporations lease land from the state of Alaska, they make a profit, and the money earned from those leases is put into a fund to give to people as a bonus each year. It's about 2K a year currently.

Let me repeat that first fact. It's a private corporation. You know what I mean. Those evil capitalists are making hand over fist in profits from a successful business! Clearly, we should use that as a model for government provided universal income, right? LOL

2K isn't even close to enough. The money is provided through a fund. That fund wouldn't work at the amounts needed to actually give universal income. You all know that though, and you would simple demand/force the corporation to pay more.

Guess what happens though? You end up with a situation like Venezuela.

Again, you guys don't understand basic economics. Nothing is free. Hell, oil prices fluctuate horribly anyway, so basing any payment system off that would not work. The fund Alaska uses:

"Our current portfolio includes global bond, stock and real estate investments, private equity, infrastructure, multi-asset funds and hedge funds," --Laura Achee

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5wdb/only-state-free-money-alaska

Did you even research the concept before trying to use it as your primary argument for universal income? I suspect you did not. In case you still do not understand, let me break it down for you.

  1. Private corporations produce and bring oil to market from Alaskan land.
  2. They pay "rent" to the state for that access.
  3. Part (25% if I remember correctly) is used to put into the fund.
  4. The fund INVESTS in private markets to make more money (or lose in market collapses)
  5. People get tiny checks each year from that fund as long as it is profitable.

That model will not work for universal income, and everyone here knows it. Therefore, how would you propose to expand your plan to make it work? More "rent" charges to corporations perhaps? Maybe you'd raise the price of other corporate provided goods too?

Hell, let's raise the prices of all goods brought to market by 10%, and then use that 10% to pay the poor people. Sure, that'll work...

dude drop mic!

Loading...

What if you don't want the oil company to drill in your land. And you don't want the money either.

(Edit; More explanation )

It looks as if the state in this one stood up for the people against the big oil companies, but if you look a little bit further, you see it for what it is.
If you don't want the oil company drilling on your land, (for whatever valid reason under which one is, that it is your land and another you don't want it spoiled) And all your neighbours accepted the bribe of the government (ofcourse they accepted they bribe of the oil company), they will attack you. The level of greed in those who take the bribe, the so called "free money" is way higher as the level of greed from those who don't want the oil company to ruin their land with tar sand or (shale gas - as is here the case)

In other words

The way for oil companies to get excess to your land is by telling your neighbours, that you are the one who is preventing them to get free money, and they do that via government. And those in government have their positions of power secured.

Yep, it's hush money in one sense. It's pennies compared to what the companies are making too.

I'm not talking about greed for using resources.
Or greed of the oil companies or government.
I'm talking about the poisoning of interpersonal relationships, bringing out the worst in people, which I find truly sad to notice, I wish for it to be different and work towards that
I'm not talking about evil tar sands. I took that as an example where some people might have concerns on which I may not agree, but I validate them.
And it is mostly not one person who is, what you call an asshole but more people, and calling them assholes does not make them one.

What is the nature of the state according to you? Co-operation? Giving advise to people on how they can better life in peace together? Doing suggestions on how to get along with others? Learning people how to resolve conflicts?
Or maybe you say this is BS, the nature of the state is ............ and I like it because of ..........

I'm not talking about those people who do those projects as nefarious.
You are missing my point.

You've explained the nature of the state according to a theory scribbled down on some paper. And maybe you believe that it has a right to do those nineteen, so called services, but I don't. I don't believe in constitutions or governments and that "one" describes the "other" or that a piece of paper can restrict the other.

Some people long ago who had the desire to rule in the name of so called government, have written a story that whoever "represents"that entity "government" has the right to rule

It's like saying the nature of Santa Claus is bringing presents to good kids (and punishment to bad kid's, in the sense of hitting with a sort of rod and kidnap them in a burlap sack to his house in spain this is how the story goes in europe), because that's written in the Christmas books. And because I believe those scribbles on paper in that book, that is the nature of Santa Claus.
In reality the nature of santa claus is you fooling your children that if they are good they get presents and if they are bad they get punishment from santa claus but in reality they don't get the presents from santa claus And santa claus is not looking if they are good or bad. Because santa clause does not exist.

It's manipulation, and lying and ruling via an non existing entity.

I have no idea what this reply is about.

What you have with finnian is your problem. And I find it strange why you ask me to argue on his behalf.

I'm not gonna let myself be pulled in arguments you have with other people. Hope you understand.