5 ms·
> "UBI is a pittance offered to the proletariat from the elite to prevent us from revolting" So does the author actually want a revolt? Because that's insane.
by cbd1984 11y ago
> "UBI is a pittance offered to the proletariat from the elite to prevent us from revolting"
So does the author actually want a revolt? Because that's insane. It is not rational to want a war when you can get the essentials, enough to stop a revolt, through peaceful means. And, during and after the war, who will be hurt hardest? The working class! The very people the author claims to support!
This is why nobody takes people like the author seriously. They demand everything and are satisfied with nothing, and then threaten to burn the whole thing down instead of investing the effort to fix it.
Revolution isn't a solution. It's a threat which, if it is carried out, causes even more problems. If it is continuously threatened, it is a cop-out, a way to avoid thinking about how to actually solve anything.
Sometimes revolution is needed. Never think it solves more problems than it creates.
- aidenn0 11y ago> Sometimes revolution is needed. Never think it solves more problems than it creates. I love that. I feel the same way about most forms of government regulation; in the small and short term they can be necessary to solve a problem, but in aggregate and the long term they harm competitiveness in an industry. I always thought "clean your shit up, or we'll regulate you" to be better at improving an industry than actual regulation. Naturally, if you don't ever follow through, the threat has no power, so it is necessary sometimes.
- aidenn0 11y agoI think the main thrust was that if labour does not have sufficient power at the point of UBI's implementation, it is likely to be, at best, neutral for the poor, as welfare will be withdrawn at the same time as UBI is introduced.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- zem 11y agoeven if ubi is the same nominal amount as welfare, it is a huge improvement because (i) it is unconditional. there are a lot of tedious and humiliating hoops poor people have to jump through today to get welfare, and prove that they need and are eligible for it. and they have to keep on doing it, even though in relative terms a poor person's time is worth a lot more than a rich one's and they have less of it to spend on bullshit. (ii) in lots of places, welfare is means-based and scaled back if you find other sources of income. this effectively means that that income bears a huge tax. under ubi, any extra money you earn does not affect your basic income.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]