You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Unconditional Basic Income and the Question of Freeloading
The key point in your example of digging a well is the voluntary offer of labor in return for an agreement by the participants.
What's missing?
Force. Coercion. Government.
I would love to know how many of you supporters of this plan have formed and/or joined a voluntary association to share incomes? Any of you?
Why not? There is nothing preventing you from forming a voluntary association to give yourselves the very benefits you assert such an arrangement will deliver.
Plus you will get the moral benefit of not using the force of government guns to get what you wish.
So go ahead. Any of you?
Anyone?
https://groupincome.org
Are you a participant in this group? And, if voluntary groups are able to accomplish the goal why use the violent force of government to coerce something that can be done without the use of force?
Why don't you request to renounce your citizenship? You obviously don't want to benefit from anything taxes pay for. Find yourself a nice home where government doesn't exist and you can live in a utopia where no one steals from you, except of course for the various crime lords, and organized gangs, and roaming bands of vehicles driven by skinheads covered in straps of leather hunting for gasoline.
The fact that you're using the internet, which exists because of government, and likely regularly using a smartphone, which exists because of government, surrounded by tax-funded infrastructure and tax-funded protections that help protect you and defend your rights make you a massive hypocrite.
Your utopia of not paying any taxes is possible right now. Why aren't you seeking it out? What are you waiting for? Leave. Find yourself a nice failed state.
Actually it is people of your mind set who have changed what began as the type of society I prefer. There are plenty of statist governments to choose from all over the world, but there were no alternatives for us liberty lovers. If only your gang had followed your advice and left decades ago to find a society that already did what you doomed Americans to suffer we would all be better off.
If you really believe that we have smart phones because of government, or that the internet as it exists today is due to government then you really are misguided.
Of course you really are, because you think implementing a plan that will double the size of government and expand its power over our lives is your moral right and the people who don't want it should find a new place to live...
I live in the real world where facts matter. You should try it sometime.
And the US DoD funded ARPANET. Learn your history. Knowledge is fun.
Also, I want to reduce the size of bloated government just like Milton Friedman wanted, and increase liberty just like Hayek wanted. So you can take your big state loving bullshit and shove it.
You seem angry. A sign you don't deal well with differing opinions, I guess. As for real world facts, you do realize you are using Nancy Pelosi's argument that government is responsible for the I Phone, right? You can't get much farther from facts and the real world than siding with Nancy Pelosi.
Yes, basic research and development in military matters created the foundations of some of the advanced products we enjoy in the consumer marketplace today. That is far different than saying the federal government would have ever created anything like the I-Phone, or the user centered internet we enjoy today with all its market and consumer focus, all its commercial exchange. Giving the government credit for the final products built from foundations they laid long ago is just silly. We all have GPS in our cars, on our phones, everywhere, but the government didn't create the commercial success of GPS, and they wouldn't have. They just wanted a global tracking, targeting, and location system for military applications and they would have happily left it at that.
As for your desire to shrink government, its my turn to call bullshit. Every word you speak in the arena of basic income advocates for a larger, more intrusive government. You can say that because Hayek and Friedman made positive comments about a basic income that makes you their disciple, but I wonder how much Friedman and Hayek you advocate? Is it only the basic income?
In any event your attempt to make it appear the government is the source of commercial innovation in the tech field when they are only the original source of some of the basic architecture and research shows me you give too much credit to government and too little to the innovative, creative genius of individuals acting freely in a marketplace that rewards them for these deeds.
I'll not end my comment with a profane suggestion that you take your opinions and shove them up your ass, because that wouldn't be decent. Apparently you aren't either. The more you face adversity (and your buddy, Revo) the more you expose your true natures. Mean spirited, demanding agreement and acceptance without question. The very qualities that make coercion the great experience we all know it to be.
Have a great day, but I honestly hope you never, ever achieve your goal.
Here's an article debunking the idea the government is responsible for the I Phone. You should really enjoy it because they mention you by name.
Well, you might not enjoy it, because they point out that you're dead wrong.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/11/08/debunking-the-myth-that-the-government-built-the-iphone/id=62865/