RE: Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you...
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.
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.
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...
http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq
dude drop mic!
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.
What if you throw a hypothetical monkey wrench into a successful project that has proven itself monumentally and continues every single moment measuring insurmountably more than the last, and then tag along like an asshole and chime in "Yep, it's Hush Money". Well then I'd have to call you a hypothetical monkey wrench suckup.
Then they will drill all around your land, or the pipeline will have a bend in it. Period.
You speak of spills and cast doubt on the Alaskan Pipeline Project, you have no idea about it's history though or that's the last thing you'd be doing, but stick with the meme of "EVIL SHALE TAR SAND" because it applies in the least to the specifics.
LOLOL, here it is, evil greed for utilizing resources, evil resources.
One hand washes another, we get it, evil government how dare 10 men with a purpose to supply millions by employing an army of men to try to buy off the people's land involved in this project, and how dare they, hypothetically "blackmail" those who don't sell, good 'ol america, as if the pipeline couldn't go around, as if there is no mediation and one asshole who doesn't sell will stop the efforts of thousands of men and those men will resort to force, because force, and free money. They have the money to buy the whole world 3 times and you think they care that one person doesn't sell and will make a giant fuss about buying to the point of force, why not, it continues the myth that you so firmly believe in, that the nature of the state is force.
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 ..........
First and foremost your whole Spiel is Hypothetical. It's in the realm of what would happen, and not what happened and what has been happening and completely counter to that. So when I pointed out that neither does Spills Apply to the pipeline we are discussing, but neither does the fact that ANYONE is forced to go along with the plan or was, and I pointed out that I don't see the people who do these kinds of projects as nefarious and bribing, profits over everything. I am awaiting to hear some acknowledgement of those things, but I'm not holding my breath.
The nature of the "Federal" state is to Provide 19 Services enumerated in the Constitution, and the nature of the unincorporated Land Jurisdictions such as the Alaskan State (vs the Municipal services corporations STATE OF ALASKA or the counter part State of Alaska Federal LookAlikes) is to provide services such as Due Process/Justice and Record Keeping.
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.
More like an Agreement. A meeting of minds, not a Theory. Hence your inability to understand the very nature of the thing you're arguing against, under the presumption that you are a party to this Agreement. You are not. It has nothing to do with Belief, so the point is lost completely once again: it's a matter of fact, this is not about "does burger king have a right to sell burgers!". Yes there is a contract, yes you are not party to it, yes it's solely concerning those who are Federal in nature, or Foreign Agents acting in a Private Capacity. Therefore it's not force, the Status is presumed onto you but you can clear the presumptions and therefore the whole system doesn't apply to you, the only things that would apply to you would be the Golden Rule and Law of Free Will, Due Process, Facing your Accusers, Jury of your Peers etc. Read the Maxims of Law and understand that there are exceptions to all the federal rules, they have to give remedy and cure or it will be tyranny. Tyranny on paper is the evidence that keeps Anarchist from grasping and pointing at substantial facts that you are forced. You are not, but what you don't know is used against you, once you clear the suppositions on what the state is because you believe people cannot join and make such agreements and deal with the reality of questioning any and all presumptions supposed onto you by all agents of the state, which are lawful presumptions at this point. Yet the manipulators of money did commit the largest fraud mankind has known under the auspices of government, which is indicative of every other government out there, by raking in odious debts on a debt based system which was vouched without right for the bankrupted United States of America Inc back in 33 and did the same thing 65 some odd years before with the Public Charitable Trust, except back then they just claimed to own all our lawful copyrighted names and thereof trademarks, and created a strawman Citizen to which the newly chartered "Federal" government presumed onto all souls.
If me and Charley make an agreement that we will take care of everyone's mail, trash, utilities, and all those things there is nothing wrong with that, if we don't deliver then we lose our integrity, yet if we deliver you aren't forced to accept these things, you can refuse as you'd imagine, and the government is doing the same thing.
Wrong, demonstrate that such is the case, that people made up Rights to Rule, especially with impunity or immunity as you seem to want to imply and regardless of consent and in spite of it being tyranny.
Show us the undeniable proof that this Tyranny exists. You're making paramount claims with nil evidence.
It's like you're likening the nature of something you don't understand the premise of and reject it's foundation by claiming it's a mater of belief to something you show more than cursory knowledge about, that's all.
The existance of the entity is not the problem, the problem is your supposed premise that a Good Faith Agreement is a matter of belief or it has anything to do with imposing some will on people when it's essentially a tool to guard against tyranny and a Public Trust, and not a "way to rule over people because they can call themselves government", utterly disrespectfully novice theory of the reality of lawful governance, which involves consent and not Force.
Assholes are as assholes do. Example is Finnian, can you argue on his behalf that he was not an asshole and has continued to be exemplary in that regard? Nobody Becomes or Is Made into an asshole, asshole is a LABEL that I and anyone can use freely, yet it's not going to mean shit if there is no substance behind that Label: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck, so it doesn't say anything about the Individual being labeled or their character, contrary to that it only speaks on MY-CHARACTER, and what I find to be asshole in deed, and if you disagree you can say why you don't think This Act speaks as to Their Character, which is fine, or you can try to chastise me and tell me that even if they are an asshole or act as an asshole, that doesn't "make" them assholes or that "it's not nice to call people assholes", or even start fomenting at the mouth with Ad Hominems! That's a Fallacy! I am of the firm position that if you seek to IRE people it's done simply in speaking and spreading the truth, it's quite a grueling endeavor: Truth, the love of it. Calling people assholes is akin to "I think you're acting in a very rude, intolerable manner" and if my opinion of you then offends you, it's frankly none of my god damn business to coddle your insecurities.
I have no idea what this reply is about.
"This" is a direct response to your Quip about "Assholes" if you didn't understand it's subject and wondered "why is he talking about assholes" or somehow missed how you opened up discussion on Assholes.
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.
Did I say it was my problem or that I was in an argument with him? Nope, Why ever do you find it strange that after your Quip about Assholes I responded Directly with what I think about assholes and what I think about your thought about assholes.