Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday October 15 2018, @05:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the perpetual-motion dept.

Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence.

UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.

Meanwhile, UBI also obviates the need for people to consider true alternatives to living lives as passive consumers. Solutions like platform cooperatives, alternative currencies, favor banks, or employee-owned businesses, which actually threaten the status quo under which extractive monopolies have thrived, will seem unnecessary. Why bother signing up for the revolution if our bellies are full? Or just full enough?

Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers. Once the ability to create or exchange value is stripped from us, all we can do with every consumptive act is deliver more power to people who can finally, without any exaggeration, be called our corporate overlords.

No, income is nothing but a booby prize. If we're going to get a handout, we should demand not an allowance but assets. That's right: an ownership stake.

https://medium.com/s/powertrip/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-latest-scam-fd3e130b69a0


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:14AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:14AM (#748889)

    The difference is your pets don't get to vote and their reproductive rights can be regulated/removed by you.

    As long as you can in theory vote the government out, stand for election etc you are not a pet.

    That said, if the economy isn't good enough, reproductive rights might eventually need to be regulated[1] - can't keep breeding for indiscriminate breeders. It might never become a big enough problem to regulate though.

    [1] As long as you're a pet of the state, you can't have more than X children, unless other people donate their quota to you or you get sponsors to pay upfront the entire total costs of supporting your extra kids.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:02AM (#748905)

    The perfect designation for career welfare recipients.
    However, as with abandoned pets, the alternatives are either inhumane, or a danger to the public.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @09:17AM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @09:17AM (#748914) Journal

    The difference is your pets don't get to vote and their reproductive rights can be regulated/removed by you.

    If you live long enough, you realize that both of them are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things we call life - you can no longer do first and, for the second, it doesn't bring any change you think to be good.

    Now, get off from my lawn (large grin)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:56AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:56AM (#748931)

      The difference is your pets don't get to vote and their reproductive rights can be regulated/removed by you.

      If you live long enough, you realize that both of them are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things we call life - you can no longer do first and, for the second, it doesn't bring any change you think to be good.

      Isn't that backwards? You can no longer do the second (or never were able to) while the first is taken away from you.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @10:18AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @10:18AM (#748939) Journal

        Isn't that backwards?

        I... can't remember, it may well be.See, the mind is the second thing to go (grin)

        Have you gotten off from my lawn yet? (large grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @01:47PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @01:47PM (#749022) Journal

          See, the mind is the second thing to go

          First, they went for my reproductive organs and I was a bit upset over that.

          Then the dumb ones got removed from power and they went after my brain. Things worked out smoothly after that.

  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 15 2018, @05:40PM (2 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Monday October 15 2018, @05:40PM (#749153)

    Statistically speaking, the breeding problem is solved by making birth control extremely available. Most people have at least some understanding that parenting is a job. If for whatever reason you can't hold a paying job and need to rely on UBI, you probably aren't looking to pick up a non-paying job that's really hard to get fired from. And if you are holding a paying job, you probably don't have the time to pick up a non-paying one.

    When pregnancy is an optional result of sex, it turns out that few people opt in. Those that do tend to limit themselves to between 1 and 3.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:41PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:41PM (#749263)

      We evolved to have some restraint. This kept us from diverting resources to adopted kids. Also, it barely mattered, because there was no birth control.

      Now the environment has changed. Evolution hasn't caught up yet, but it will. Birth control is the primary influence on genetic fitness. Those who overcome birth control, by any means, will pass on their DNA.

      Today, a tiny portion of the population is having large families. Pretend all the other people don't exist; they are going extinct anyway due to low birth rates. That tiny population will grow exponentially until it hits hard resource limits.

      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:02PM

        by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:02PM (#749548)

        What is that, the Idiocracy hypothesis? If you don't have any science to back up your claims, all you're doing is perpetuating speculative pseudoscience. Would you please stop? This kind of unsubstantiated bullshit being passed off as science makes creationists think their "theory" is just as valid as evolution.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?