4 ms·

That’s literally the “universal” part of it. If you don’t have that, you don’t have UBI. The fact that the government has the physical power to withhold a hypot

by baddox 6y ago

That’s literally the “universal” part of it. If you don’t have that, you don’t have UBI. The fact that the government has the physical power to withhold a hypothetical UBI might be an issue, of course, but every government has the physical power to do pretty much anything to any citizen, so there’s nothing unique there.

daenz 6y ago
Until we are in a time where I can't find a disturbing number of people who are willing to deny someone UBI for saying the wrong things--and willing to vote for someone who will do that--then UBI should never be seriously considered.
- baddox 6y ago
  But if you don’t support it being universal then you don’t support UBI. Those people you’re talking about just don’t support UBI.
  - daenz 6y ago
    How does that change anything besides making a "ha, gotcha!" point? That's your definition of universal, which is (I assume) limited to citizens of the USA who are adults. EDIT>> Also there is plenty of precedent for limiting things which are worded in such a way as to suggest they cannot be limited, eg: "shall not be infringed"
    - baddox 6y ago
      It’s just weird to say that you don’t support a policy if there a lot of people that don’t support it. Surely that’s true of every taxation and welfare system in every government, for instance.
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        The tautology you see is in your own phrasing. The problem being raised here is that UBI is easy to abuse. Voters and politicians and bureaucrats can more easily hijack a deceptively simple UBI system after it's enacted, and no amount of "but that's not what Universal means" hairsplitting will help you then. Welfare, on the other hand, is better understood and more narrowly focused. And even there you still have a ton of bullshit. I think UBI's deceptively simple yet vaguely broad scope will be tussled & twisted even more.
        baddox 6y ago
        Why would it be easier to abuse? If anything, the “universal” part is even clearer since it’s right there in the name.
        themacguffinman 6y ago
        "Universal" is a lot vaguer than you claim. Even though you claimed that it means "no restrictions", you probably implicitly accept basic restrictions like "only for citizens" or "only people residing in the US" or "only people who bothered to register". "Universal" has practically never meant "free of all restrictions", but everyone who sees it thinks they know what those restrictions are and should be. Someone right now is probably thinking "obviously it doesn't include people who are in prison for life". Beyond that, it's also ripe for political agitation because UBI would have fewer restrictions than welfare. You can already find provocative "news" segments about how disgraceful and undeserving welfare recipients are because they found one dude buying some crab meat or something using foodstamps. Imagine the outcry when people buy weed with UBI. The pressure to start policing and controlling UBI recipients would be enormous, even more than welfare which already has so many restrictions.
        baddox 6y ago
        > Even though you claimed that it means "no restrictions", you probably implicitly accept basic restrictions like "only for citizens" or "only people residing in the US" or "only people who bothered to register". "Universal" has practically never meant "free of all restrictions", but everyone who sees it thinks they know what those restrictions are and should be. Yes, and it's only for humans too. Raccoons and shrubs don't receive the basic income.
drummer 6y ago
A very good example of how bad and wrong things can go with governments is comparing what the founding members of the USA fought for, with the status quo. Basic rights that they fought for back then are almost completely gone today, including freedom of speech, where you can get cancelled for simply speaking your mind and even the truth. Not to mention personal taxation which brought everyone back to slavery -- something they warned about 200 years ago. It is not difficult to see the train coming at the other end of the government supported UBI tunnel.

by baddox 6y ago

daenz 6y ago

Until we are in a time where I can't find a disturbing number of people who are willing to deny someone UBI for saying the wrong things--and willing to vote for someone who will do that--then UBI should never be seriously considered.

baddox 6y ago
But if you don’t support it being universal then you don’t support UBI. Those people you’re talking about just don’t support UBI.
- daenz 6y ago
  How does that change anything besides making a "ha, gotcha!" point? That's your definition of universal, which is (I assume) limited to citizens of the USA who are adults. EDIT>> Also there is plenty of precedent for limiting things which are worded in such a way as to suggest they cannot be limited, eg: "shall not be infringed"
  - baddox 6y ago
    It’s just weird to say that you don’t support a policy if there a lot of people that don’t support it. Surely that’s true of every taxation and welfare system in every government, for instance.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      The tautology you see is in your own phrasing. The problem being raised here is that UBI is easy to abuse. Voters and politicians and bureaucrats can more easily hijack a deceptively simple UBI system after it's enacted, and no amount of "but that's not what Universal means" hairsplitting will help you then. Welfare, on the other hand, is better understood and more narrowly focused. And even there you still have a ton of bullshit. I think UBI's deceptively simple yet vaguely broad scope will be tussled & twisted even more.
      - baddox 6y ago
        Why would it be easier to abuse? If anything, the “universal” part is even clearer since it’s right there in the name.
        themacguffinman 6y ago
        "Universal" is a lot vaguer than you claim. Even though you claimed that it means "no restrictions", you probably implicitly accept basic restrictions like "only for citizens" or "only people residing in the US" or "only people who bothered to register". "Universal" has practically never meant "free of all restrictions", but everyone who sees it thinks they know what those restrictions are and should be. Someone right now is probably thinking "obviously it doesn't include people who are in prison for life". Beyond that, it's also ripe for political agitation because UBI would have fewer restrictions than welfare. You can already find provocative "news" segments about how disgraceful and undeserving welfare recipients are because they found one dude buying some crab meat or something using foodstamps. Imagine the outcry when people buy weed with UBI. The pressure to start policing and controlling UBI recipients would be enormous, even more than welfare which already has so many restrictions.
        baddox 6y ago
        > Even though you claimed that it means "no restrictions", you probably implicitly accept basic restrictions like "only for citizens" or "only people residing in the US" or "only people who bothered to register". "Universal" has practically never meant "free of all restrictions", but everyone who sees it thinks they know what those restrictions are and should be. Yes, and it's only for humans too. Raccoons and shrubs don't receive the basic income.

drummer 6y ago

A very good example of how bad and wrong things can go with governments is comparing what the founding members of the USA fought for, with the status quo. Basic rights that they fought for back then are almost completely gone today, including freedom of speech, where you can get cancelled for simply speaking your mind and even the truth. Not to mention personal taxation which brought everyone back to slavery -- something they warned about 200 years ago. It is not difficult to see the train coming at the other end of the government supported UBI tunnel.