SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:36PM (6 children)
Why are you only looking at that for your strings? I think you should just reread my posts and realize thereafter that strings not only manifest in constraints on how one spends money.
What happens if the US no longer is such a wonderful place to stay, for example, because of a theocratic takeover of the country? It's not a strong string, but it is a string that complicates your efforts (and the efforts of your friends and family) to get out.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @07:22PM (5 children)
Because that is what is meant by no strings attached. It always has been. I said it that way to specifically contrast it with current safety net programs that fain due to significant strings being attached.
Otherwise, we can all be deeply concerned that if an asteroid ghits the earth, your job may be gone and other potential employers dead.
Now SHOO! Go buy a dictionary, or at least read this [thefreedictionary.com].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:11PM (4 children)
From your own link:
I already noted three things that qualify. The first counts as a special condition. Create a UBI and someone will need a bunch of info and power to prevent fraud. The second is an implicit obligation. Create the UBI and it will need to be defended from the busy bodies who will want to use it as a societal modification tool (particularly difficult since it was created for that purpose). And finally, the bit about having to retain citizenship in order to continue to receive the UBI is a typical restriction.
Now that we've settled that, I'll summarize my side. I merely pointed out that UBI has some strings attached to itself. It's nowhere as bad as poorly designed needs-base stuff that encourages people to stay in poverty. But they are there.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 17 2018, @12:21AM (3 children)
It's funny how everybody I have ever spoken with but you shares my understanding of the phrase.
But note that your rather over-broad definition of strings attached covers literally everything including breathing since nobody is guaranteed their next breath.
But you do seem at last to see my point. Without the means testing and restrictions on how it can be spent, it avoids being a poverty trap.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:38AM (2 children)
The dictionary shares my understanding of the phrase too.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:13AM (1 child)
Only if you read it sideways with the wrong prescription glasses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:40AM