3 ms·

I'm not sure about that. There's more to being a government than preventing people from using media of exchange that you haven't blessed. Besides, if borders

• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Besides, if borders had anything to do with it, it was never UBI in the first place. Yes, it would; neither form of the “U” in UBI includes free of borders in the sense used in the term, and reinterpreting that way and pretending its what the term means is just lazy equivocation.
  • __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    I don't know what you mean. If you're denying people access to the system based on where they happen to be, it's not universal.
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > If you're denying people access to the system based on where they happen to be, it's not universal. “Universal” seems to be a later construction, it was originally “unconditional”, and in both cases the writings on it for many years under either name made it clear that the reference was principally freedom from means- and behavior-testing, contrary to status-quo welfare programs, but that it would target a population based on (exact scope differs in particular proposals) residency, citizenship, and/or age. Not surprised that the “no borders” crowd has seen it differently, and their version certainly is a valid instance of the general idea, but they don’t get to rewrite history and narrow the scope of the broader concept to their new version.
      • __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
        That's fair. The "no borders" crowd was my introduction to the topic, so I guess I'm ignorant of the other side. Is there a book or something you'd recommend?
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]