Do you know anybody who is financially struggling? Would you tell them to their face that you consider them to be human pigeons?

One problem with UBI is that it would go to millions of people and surely there will be tens of thousands that fulfill the stereotype that poor people just waste their money and a layabouts. That 5% or whatever will be provided as evidence ad nauseam that UBI is a boondoggle, entirely dismissing the 95% who are helped by it.

> Do you know anybody who is financially struggling?

I know plenty of people who are financially struggling. I am not convinced that the best way to help them is to make them perpetually dependent on the state for direct subsidies, instead of addressing the problems that are making it difficult them from becoming more financially secure within a pluralistic economy.

I agree that addressing the systemic issues that are contributing to inequality is ideal, but that is a huge tangle to unwind. UBI doesn't solve those issues.

But UBI is a pragmatic help to people here and now in a single stroke. The ideal solution would require somehow rewinding the clock to make corporations pay more taxes, undoing much of the corporate welfare, getting society to be truly colorblind (vs those who just claim they are as an excuse to not recognize racial discrimination), and so much more.

> But UBI is a pragmatic help to people here and now in a single stroke.

I'm not sure that it is. It sounds like a transfer of dependency to an even more centralized institution with even more dubious motivations.

> The ideal solution would require somehow rewinding the clock to make corporations pay more taxes

I'm not sure how making corporations pay higher taxes would resolve any such problem. It seems like it would have the opposite effect, and centralize more control over wealth in the hands of political institutions.

In other words, it's pure ideology and not rooted in any scientific evidence.

The discussion pertains to a political position, and all political questions are fundamentally normative ones, on the "ought" side of the gap. Both intended aims and ethical limits are defined by what you're calling "ideology".

The "is" side of the question defines the empirical constraints within which those aims are pursued, but that's an instrumental question: it bears out the means, but has little to say about the value of the ends.

In other words, "is this course of action likely to produce the outcomes we intend?" is a question to be substantiated by evidence, but "are these the ends we wish to pursue?" and "are these ends worth the cost and/or risk to other things we care about?" are normative questions for which subjective values ("ideology") determine the decision criteria for all parties in the debate.

I disagree with you, but I upvoted you. It sucks to wade into a discussion like this where you are going to get piled on.

The most effective way for “my side” to win is to convince enough of “your side” to join me. I can only do that through understanding your position. So I appreciate your participating, even when it is unpopular.

What are you implying. You can just print the money, like the system does today, but benefit the poor more than today.

We're living through proof you cannot right now.

Sure. My main point is that the economic system is so perverted, that it is silly to refute UBI on common sense grounds. I don't think I am an advocate.

That's a fair point, if we're not going to fix things why not?

If you live in a 1st world country, your country believes in the coercive appropriation of other's property.

You already participate in that appropriation. The coercive appropriation is called taxation. You can choose to not pay, but you'll be incarcerated. You cannot choose where your monies go, or what they go for.

You're already a participant, and you don't seem to realize it.

Also, eleemosynary... really? Means charitable or charity. Did you really have to use a word most of the world hasn't ever heard of to prove the point that you don't like charity?

You should stop using our roads then. You should stop using our schools. You should stop using emergency services, voting, or participating in the first world country you're living in.

Because every single program, service, or project uses confiscated monies from the masses to benefit the smaller minority that use those programs, services, or projects.

Taxation is social charity. UBI is social charity. What's the difference?

Taxation to address collective action problems like the military or the legal system is not charity. This is captured in the US Constitution which provides for the "General Welfare" not welfare for individual citizens.

Historically utopians have been far more dangerous.

There's a lot of leeway between advocating for gradual, realistic change and reaching for an impossible utopia.

I would argue UBI is in the latter category.

So, let's hear some arguments instead of ad hominems.

Do you consider "utopian" an ad hominem, but not "danger to democracy?"

It depends. Let's test this.

Presume 80% of the country wants to increase taxes for the rich and corporations, tax churches, have Universal Healthcare and a Universal Basic Income, reform your educational system, legalise abortion, make sexual education mandatory, legalise dreamers, have easier immigration and they all vote for a party who has detailed plans on how to finance and realise those ideals.

How do you react?

That's a big hypothetical, but first I'd be pretty devastated because I've been told my whole life we have checks and balances to protect the minority from the raw will of the majority, but I would probably try to sue for violation of my rights as laid out in the constitution. Barring that I would try to leave for another country.

That doesn't violate any of your rights. The fact that you really think so is already undemocratic. Hence my remarks.

Mandatory sexual education violates my freedom of religion, as my believes around sex are a deeply held religious conviction.

Edit: The rest I would just try to leave. I think they're the wrong direction for any country and I wouldn't want to be part of a country that voted that way, but you can't fight with that kind of majority.

If I say the policies that are being implemented by your side violates my right to freedom from religion, how do you react?

I'm very sympathetic to that I think we need far more ways for people to opt out based on freedom of religion/conscience to be able to maximize personal liberty. I don't like being forced by the government but I don't like others being forced either.

So does abortion fall under my personal liberty? Is reading a book with some sexual content permitted for a child?

I'd say yes, and yes for your child if that is what you want. I think you know better for you than I do. So as long as me and my family don't have to participate.

Just so you know. A growing part of Americans feel that there are a lot of laws in place that force them to participate in something a shrinking part of America wants. You know all the talking points. Try to think from their point of view. Hopefully in a couple hundred years humanity has evolved to a point where we don't need religion to form clubs.