Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

mises.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#21

Post by aminok »

harrumph wrote: post #20
aminok wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is this adorable libertarian dedication to freedom and voluntary interactions naturally ends the second any employer or commercial neighbor says it ends. Such an arrangement produces freedom for the boardroom and nobody else. First, your little "adorable" quip: It's so adorable that I don't want people's human rights to be violated, and them to be imprisoned for engaging in a voluntary interaction with a…

>It's so adorable that I don't want people's human rights to be violated ...except when the boardroom does it, and boardrooms do it all day every day, in far, far greater measure than the governments in our business-run society. That reality is what makes the word "freedom" in your mouth SO adorable. For example, here's a very small sampling of daily, real authoritarian tyranny that libertarians are perfectly fine wi…

>...except when the boardroom does it, and boardrooms do it all day every day, in far, far greater measure than the governments in our business-run society. That reality is what makes the word "freedom" in your mouth SO adorable.

A boardroom firing someone is not violating anyone's rights. You apparently don't understand the principle of people being free and being allowed to enter into voluntary contracts with each other, where they do not assume any responsibilities that they do not consent to, and do not become indebted to provide for that person for the remainder of their life.

Shame on you and your inhuman demagoguery.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#22

Post by harrumph »

aminok wrote: post #21
harrumph wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's so adorable that I don't want people's human rights to be violated ...except when the boardroom does it, and boardrooms do it all day every day, in far, far greater measure than the governments in our business-run society. That reality is what makes the word "freedom" in your mouth SO adorable. For example, here's a very small sampling of daily, real authoritarian tyranny that libertarians are perfectly fine wi…

>...except when the boardroom does it, and boardrooms do it all day every day, in far, far greater measure than the governments in our business-run society. That reality is what makes the word "freedom" in your mouth SO adorable. A boardroom firing someone is not violating anyone's rights. You apparently don't understand the principle of people being free and being allowed to enter into voluntary contracts with each…

>A boardroom firing someone is not violating anyone's rights.

Which is why "firing someone" doesn't appear on my very lengthly list of everyday tyranny that libertarians endorse.

>Shame on you and your inhuman demagoguery.

Good luck with your selective literacy problem.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#23

Post by aminok »

harrumph wrote: post #22
aminok wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...except when the boardroom does it, and boardrooms do it all day every day, in far, far greater measure than the governments in our business-run society. That reality is what makes the word "freedom" in your mouth SO adorable. A boardroom firing someone is not violating anyone's rights. You apparently don't understand the principle of people being free and being allowed to enter into voluntary contracts with each…

>A boardroom firing someone is not violating anyone's rights. Which is why "firing someone" doesn't appear on my very lengthly list of everyday tyranny that libertarians endorse. >Shame on you and your inhuman demagoguery. Good luck with your selective literacy problem.

That's a lie. You implied that firing people (ending the relationship) is violation of the worker's rights:

>And with this awesome nugget of sterling wrongness, we learn that the bubble in which you live apparently excludes the hundreds and hundreds of towns across this country that have become chained-shut, fentanyl-addicted hellholes precisely because the town's main employer and tax base ended the relationship -- usually in order to hire overseas children for pennies instead.

Typical inflammatory emotional-button-pressing demagoguery that appeals to narcissistic and emotionally fragile children who want to be edgy.

More edgy garbage touted by angsty teenagers:

>For example, here's a very small sampling of daily, real authoritarian tyranny that libertarians are perfectly fine with, along with the commonly given justifications: employers drug testing employees (just get another job!), making and selling military equipment for cops to use (herp derp markets!), private profit in markets with inelastic demand such as health insurance (all people are islands with no interest in the health of neighbors nor in their bankruptcies!), industrial pollution (just move somewhere else!), racial, gender or age discrimination at a place of business (freedom of association!), heightened tax burden for communities thanks to tax dodging by the communities' businesses (taxation is theft!) and on and on and on.

I'll just address the first one as I don't have time to deconstruct the entire idiotic spiel.

Employers drug testing employees violates no one's rights. I offer you a job and say that one condition of you keeping the job is being drug tested, and you in your childish arrogance think that you have a right to punish me for making that offer, based on the lie that the OFFER somehow violates your rights.

Again: your ideology is for emotionally fragile children who can't take responsibility for themselves and think they are entitled to work for another party under terms that the other party does not agree to, and moreover you think you're entitled to be safe from "tyrranical" OFFERS, because you lack the autonomy to simply turn offers that are not in your interest down. In other words you think you're entitled to other people's wealth and not capable of making choices for yourself. Typical selfish thoughtless socialist garbage that tries to cloak your desire to plunder others under a cloak of you being a helpless victim.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#24

Post by harrumph »

aminok wrote: post #23
harrumph wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A boardroom firing someone is not violating anyone's rights. Which is why "firing someone" doesn't appear on my very lengthly list of everyday tyranny that libertarians endorse. >Shame on you and your inhuman demagoguery. Good luck with your selective literacy problem.

That's a lie. You implied that firing people (ending the relationship) is violation of the worker's rights: >And with this awesome nugget of sterling wrongness, we learn that the bubble in which you live apparently excludes the hundreds and hundreds of towns across this country that have become chained-shut, fentanyl-addicted hellholes precisely because the town's main employer and tax base ended the relationship --…

>That's a lie.

We can all read what you typed. In the real, existing world, unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone".

>Employers drug testing employees violates no one's rights.

It violates the right to privacy, as bona fide advocates for the right to privacy understand very well.

Thank you for perfectly proving exactly what I wrote a while ago: libertarians will not defend freedoms -- such as the right to privacy -- the instant an employer says a freedom is disallowed.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#25

Post by aminok »

harrumph wrote: post #24
aminok wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lie. You implied that firing people (ending the relationship) is violation of the worker's rights: >And with this awesome nugget of sterling wrongness, we learn that the bubble in which you live apparently excludes the hundreds and hundreds of towns across this country that have become chained-shut, fentanyl-addicted hellholes precisely because the town's main employer and tax base ended the relationship --…

>That's a lie. We can all read what you typed. In the real, existing world, unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone". >Employers drug testing employees violates no one's rights. It violates the right to privacy, as bona fide advocates for the right to privacy understand very well. Thank you for perfectly proving exactly what I wrote a while ago: libertarians will not defend freed…

>unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone".

It's doing it on a larger scale. You're implying the people of the town somehow gain a right to the capital on account of the owners of the capital having been invested in that town for an extended period of time.

Again, you're resorting to appeals to emotion to distract from the fact that what you're really implying is that people get rights to the capital of others without others contractually agreeing to transfer any capital to them, which is a nonvoluntary transfer of capital that violates the capital owner's rights.

>It violates the right to privacy, as bona fide advocates for the right to privacy understand very well.

It in no way violates a right to privacy. If I offer you $1,000 for you to let me film in your home for a year, and you agree, your privacy rights have not been violated. If I sneak into your home and record you, then your rights have been violated.

The fact that you think someone providing private information as part of an exchange where they receive compensation, like submitting to drug tests as part of an employment contract where they receive compensation, shows that you have no integrity when it comes to politics, and don't bother to fact-check your own beliefs before aggressively promoting them. You simply don't care if what you're promoting is the truth or not.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#26

Post by harrumph »

aminok wrote: post #25
harrumph wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's a lie. We can all read what you typed. In the real, existing world, unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone". >Employers drug testing employees violates no one's rights. It violates the right to privacy, as bona fide advocates for the right to privacy understand very well. Thank you for perfectly proving exactly what I wrote a while ago: libertarians will not defend freed…

>unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone". It's doing it on a larger scale. You're implying the people of the town somehow gain a right to the capital on account of the owners of the capital having been invested in that town for an extended period of time. Again, you're resorting to appeals to emotion to distract from the fact that what you're really implying is that people get r…

Yes, I am aware that libertarians are forced to deny that the freedoms they totally fail to protect -- as I have said and you continue to prove -- are freedoms at all. That comes with the territory of a toy political philosophy that rests upon category errors that don't survive their first trip into the existing world.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#27

Post by aminok »

harrumph wrote: post #26
aminok wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone". It's doing it on a larger scale. You're implying the people of the town somehow gain a right to the capital on account of the owners of the capital having been invested in that town for an extended period of time. Again, you're resorting to appeals to emotion to distract from the fact that what you're really implying is that people get r…

Yes, I am aware that libertarians are forced to deny that the freedoms they totally fail to protect -- as I have said and you continue to prove -- are freedoms at all. That comes with the territory of a toy political philosophy that rests upon category errors that don't survive their first trip into the existing world.

You do not have a right to take someone's capital from them without their consent. You also do not have a right to privacy that you voluntarily give up. This is really basic logic, that you're failing at.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#28

Post by harrumph »

aminok wrote: post #27
harrumph wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am aware that libertarians are forced to deny that the freedoms they totally fail to protect -- as I have said and you continue to prove -- are freedoms at all. That comes with the territory of a toy political philosophy that rests upon category errors that don't survive their first trip into the existing world.

You do not have a right to take someone's capital from them without their consent. You also do not have a right to privacy that you voluntarily give up. This is really basic logic, that you're failing at.

Here's a hint: this darling little bubble you live in where consent and volunteerism allegedly rule the day actually happens to utterly exclude your holiest of holies: property rights -- which rest on nothing but violent coercion, specifically not on consent. When you understand that, you'll graduate. Not before.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#29

Post by aminok »

harrumph wrote: post #28
aminok wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not have a right to take someone's capital from them without their consent. You also do not have a right to privacy that you voluntarily give up. This is really basic logic, that you're failing at.

Here's a hint: this darling little bubble you live in where consent and volunteerism allegedly rule the day actually happens to utterly exclude your holiest of holies: property rights -- which rest on nothing but violent coercion, specifically not on consent. When you understand that, you'll graduate. Not before.

You do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use. Exercising our rights to our own body is a case of us doing this.

You want a society where everyone in the world has to unanimously agree with every decision you make for it to be consensual, which makes for a totally unworkable world model, which describes socialism in a nutshell.

Re: The Dangers of a “Universal Basic Income”

#30

Post by harrumph »

aminok wrote: post #29
harrumph wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a hint: this darling little bubble you live in where consent and volunteerism allegedly rule the day actually happens to utterly exclude your holiest of holies: property rights -- which rest on nothing but violent coercion, specifically not on consent. When you understand that, you'll graduate. Not before.

You do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use. Exercising our rights to our own body is a case of us doing this. You want a society where everyone in the world has to unanimously agree with every decision you make for it to be consensual, which makes for a totally unworkable world model, which describes socialism in a nutshell.

>You do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use.

Yes, I am aware that the seizure from natives of the trillions worth of real estate the US is built on is not considered any infringement by libertarians. Their liberty is not worth considering nor defending -- and that comes with the territory of a toy political philosophy that loudly pretends it isn't built utterly upon coercion.

Post reply on HN