We might also decide that our society is better when people have a "right" to food, shelter, and health care. Those rights would be contrivances like the ones you already take for granted. But that's not an argument for or against them.
So there have to be arguments and he's giving one, that this proposal is hardly going to be afforded by those in the position to do so. Which part of the actual argument do you disagree with? It seem you are saying the workers would have to want to afford it (because its a positive right), but you don't actually show it.
And no, you can't just arbitrarily give people rights to shit. You can only guarantee things which do not require a human to be constantly working for it as a right. When you declare healthcare, or food as a right, you are enslaving farmers and doctors, not to mention stealing from people on a greater scale for nothing at all, for something the market could have easily done.
And no, the barter system is not a lie and neither is daddy marx true. And no, I'm not going to write paragraphs for your two-liner.
Let's say that the US somehow did implement UBI. You would almost certainly have to be a citizen (or at least be someone who pays taxes with a valid SSN) to get the benefits. Just being in the US doesn't mean you'll get money every month. Beyond this, how does getting UBI benefits give you a cut on your taxes? You would most likely get taxed more with UBI, given you have a job.
There haven't been many studies on it, and sure some people would likely opt to not have a job if they get UBI, but don't discount the amount of people that would be brought up out of poverty and could possibly do something more than they could now simply because they have better circumstances.
Even though I think that UBI will certainly probably never be implemented in the US, given the current system of politics, I would argue that it's inherently a good thing for society even if you are maybe, potentially marginally worse off. A UBI would likely be implemented in such a way that you will have money for the essentials like food, but if you wanted that brand new phone, you would need to have a job to make money to afford it. UBI doesn't mean everything is free, it just means that you don't have to worry about feeding yourself.
And what's stopping people with UBI from sharing half of it with a non-citizen? nothing.
picture of stirner
try harder
What are you doing, replying to comments days after?
The fact that someone else might be in need does not give him any right to my money, or time. Forced social welfare programs ignore this. UBI does not reduce the negative imapct of these programs, but actually enforces and concretizes them and the mentality of "social debt" and "inherent social debt" (both do not exist) by declaring every citizen equally guilty.
UBI sounds nice on paper because everyone wants a cut on their taxes (and that's not bad) but it quietly pushes the agenda that you are entitled to something from everyone else just because you are alive. This will only lead to worse problems in the long run, because then very few individuals would understand that people can actually live without UBI.
The increase in taxes for the majority of the earning population would cancel out the benefits for them anyway, and might even be a negative for them.
UBI gives people something for nothing, which means that people would opt to not get a job but just stay on UBI for as long as they can. And if the government does enforce a criteria, well then, it just increases the surveillance surveillance and mandates it. And to say nothing of the illegal immigration that will increase if UBI is introduced, because UBI unconditionally sacrifices the money and time of people who produce for those who can't, and/or won't.
I just see this as a move for guys like Elon to snuggle up deeper with the government. This kind of short-range thinking is what has led to the massive debt right now and will only increase it. Who knows where this self-sacrifice will stop? People in america cry at the 1%, but being born in America already puts the majority of its citizens in the 1% of the world's population. What will happen when those people say it's unfair for so few to have so much? The people clamoring for UBI do not have a reason for it, and their reason for it is that there needs to be none. The other countries can and will do the same, and that's when people will understand their importance of not basing decisions on feelings.