4 ms·
Great, more political flame bait that has nothing to do with the article. Just what HN needs.
by ok_dad 3y ago
Great, more political flame bait that has nothing to do with the article. Just what HN needs.
- unsupp0rted 3y agoIf you steel-man what I said, you'll see it's a direct concern about how UBI can be used as a boot on the face of Canadians.
- voisin 3y agoI don’t see it. You’ve pointed to a thing the government did before a UBI and say now it’ll be a thing they’ll do after a UBI but don’t really connect the dots in a way that seems reasonable. Just my 2 cents.
- unsupp0rted 3y agoBefore UBI the government used its power to get banks to freeze private funds in order to quell protests. After UBI the funds are coming from the government. The government can use its power to withhold those funds at the source to quell protests. How is this not a direct 1:1 connection?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- voisin 3y agoMy point is that if the government wants to, it will - regardless of UBI. There’s no reason to believe that it will be used more if there is a UBI (it doesn’t seem anything stopped them other than their own restraint in the past). But UBI helps a large portion of the population and streamlines a number of social payment programs to reduce overhead. So I see obvious benefits, but no reason to believe from your comment that this potential drawback would be increased if UBI existed.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoYou don't see the reasonable conclusion here? They're going to stop punishing dissent from now on or what? "You're reliant to pay your bills on a check we send you. We have the leverage to make you homeless if you dissent." This is not s reasonable connection of the dots?
- voisin 3y agoSee my response to a sibling thread.
- andromeduck 3y agoImplementation details are a pretty important part of policy.