/liberty/ - Liberty

>>71026

Almost makes you forget about the twenty million he killed.

>>71026

its about freedom of choice from the options you actually have

not some fantasy about everyone having personal helicopters, rockets and luxury real estate on mars for anyone who wants them

what is the best way to increase real available options?

what the best way to approximate the optimal set of options available to an actor?

>>71026

He doesn't. He's conflating freedom and power.

It's almost like we have 40 other threads on this.

>>71026

Is anal exploitation oppressive as well?

>>71064

How can someone with no power be free?

It is difficult for me to imagine someone who starved millions and locked many more in labor camps having any valid points on liberty

>>71074

As long as nobody initiates violence on that individual, he would still be free, no matter how powerless he is.

>>71026

Based on what de Jouvenel said, I'm actually moving away from the notion that freedom is purely negative. However, I'm also even more certain that positive freedom is a ridiculous concept that conflates freedom with power.

Now, I think that freedom is accessory to justice and property. You are free if you can fully dispose of anything that rightly belongs to you. If you are sick and can't move, then your freedom is indeed reduced. If you fall into a hole, it is likewise reduced. It doesn't follow from this that anyone has an obligation to help you, nor that this obligation can be enforced. To say otherwise is to not to claim that loss of freedom must be prevented, it is the opposite: That the freedom of the helper must be taken away for the sake of the victim of circumstance. Yet, what rational reason is there for that? Why is my freedom worth less than his?

For political purposes, negative freedom is all that we need. Positive freedom, as Stalin described it, is nonsensical, a wicked notion, a juvenile revolt against nature and God and an appeal to envy.

>>71080

>an appeal to envy

communism in a nutshell

>>71080

>an appeal to envy.

Why is this a bad thing

>>71080

>That the freedom of the helper must be taken away for the sake of the victim of circumstance. Yet, what rational reason is there for that?

Would you rather be a victim without a helper or a victim with a helper? Doesn't everybody deserve to have their freedom maximized?

It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by a person who cannot accelerate objects beyond the speed of light. True freedom can only be where there is no special relativity and oppression of one person by reality; where there is no limitation on speed and where a person is not living in fear of horizon problems.

Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not in the imaginations of physicists.

>>71093

You say this as if poverty and hunger are as inescapable as the laws of physics. These conditions are made by men's actions so they can be abolished through men's actions.

>>71096

>These conditions are made by men's actions so they can be abolished through men's actions.

Poverty is a result of inaction most often. It's the default starting position for everyone in life. Reality is hardly man-made. You can't abolish that, only adapt to an extent.

>>71092

I would rather be left alone and not be classified as a victim by very eager "helpers".

>>71091

because its base

nothing to with rationality

since when is relying on literally reptile brain subconscious impulses a good way to judge things?

>>71092

I think maybe conflating promises and rhetoric with results

>>71096

>You say this as if poverty and hunger are as inescapable as the laws of physics

not him

not exactly physics, but economics. although any finite element discrete system will do this, so maybe law of physics isnt so far off

>>71099

You have not become deindividuated yet, comrade. You must awaken from the opiate of your alienation.

>>71092

>Would you rather be a victim without a helper or a victim with a helper?

Would you rather be a victim with ten dollars or a victim with a million dollars? These questions tell us nothing. Of course the victim wants to be as well off as possible; so does everyone else.

>Doesn't everybody deserve to have their freedom maximized?

You're simultaneously denying this question for yourself, and expecting me to affirm it. What about the helper? Doesn't he deserve to have his freedom maximized, too? If everyone deserves it, then the victim must be helped, but we can coerce no one to help him. Pretty strange state of affairs, but that happens when you accept contradictory premises.

>>71730

Not all Gulags were death camps, but some were. The Kolyma camps became death camps after 1939, I think, with death rates around twenty to fourty percent. In some other camps, no one survived.

Besides, not all Nazi camps were equal, either. Auschwitz and Sorbibor were death camps. Osthofen and the other early camps weren't, and they were in fact less bad than certain British camps for anti-war activists.

Either way, as far as size is concerned, thr Soviets had perhaps one of the biggest camp systems of all time. That most of them weren't death camps doesn't make Stalin a saint.

>>71733

The USSR killed at least 8 million people by extremely conservative estimates based on the official statistics. In total, it killed at least four times more people than the US has imprisoned at this moment, and as many as twenty times more. The number of imprisoned people must be somewhere in that range, too, going - again - by official statistics. Personally, I'm inclined to believe the higher estimates, judging by the fact that Stalin tried to blame the Katyn Massacre on the Nazis during the Nuremberg Trials.

>>71741

>Comparing two turds claiming yours is shinier and smells less doesn't entice others as much

Yeah, I know, that's why when you retards say stuff like "capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system we have" I'm not terribly convinced.

>>71742

capitalism, defined for the purpose of this post as the "system" where man fully owns himself and by extension his labor to do with as he pleases, is the only morally correct system and anything else is tantamount to slavery

when I say capitalism "isnt perfect" I mean it will not somehow put us in a transcendent utopia, and anyone who believes a mere economic system can bring about one (commies) is mad

>>71743

Slavery is part of every capitalist society. Capitalism *is* slavery.

>>71744

name one

oh wait you cant because it is categorically impossible

>>71746

>twitter tier guilt by association meme

Everyone's IQ dropped by 20 for viewing this. Establishing presence doesn't establish neither correlation, nor dependency and so far you haven't done either successfully.

>>71748

*the double negative proves it

>>71746

name me a country where men universally owned their labor that also had men enslaved? oh, you cannot because if a man is a slave he dosnt own his labor

SLAVERY IS THE OPPOSITE OF CAPITALISM

>>71752

>crony capitalism

not all of the things you think are capitalism but are not are crony capitalism, only some of them, please strive for accuracy and put effort in when shitposting a board you know will take your bait

and also yes, there are very few societies in history that you could really call "capitalist" some people like to point to the Icelandic commonwealth, others to anywhere with extremely low government power, a few people point to the gilded age, and most people dont agree with each other about these things even here

>>71739

>Yes but they had a justified war to fight to eliminate Nazi aggression. Making the mother of all omelettes here. Can't be too concerned if a few Nazis get their heads cracked in the gulag.

Didn't you just say that there were no metaphorical omelettes in the USSR? That's what we were talking about just now, that Stalin didn't imprison many people. Now, your argument is that while oppression under Stalin did happen, that was fine because it eliminated Nazi Aggression. So just so we're clear, you switched your argument out.

And now, to said "Nazi Aggression": Not even Stalin himself bought that lie. He persecuted many Trotskyists and Kulaks who had nothing to do with the Nazis. And the Katyn Massacre even preceeds hostilities between the USSR and the Nazis. Which brings me to how Stalin had no problem at all with "Nazi Aggression" back when Hitler and him ganged up on Poland.

>>71752

They succeeded insofar as they were capitalist. They failed insofar as they embraced socialism. You don't have to judge societies holistically. Your worldview is so simplistic, it fucking hurts.

>>71733

The USSR didn't have any blacks or hispanics though.

>>71752

Also, the "best system there is" was always supposed to be democracy. I have never, in my entire life, heard anyone apply this meme to capitalism.

>>71756

Maybe a true democracy, but a democratically elected representative republic is shit.

>>71757

>Whereas I look at as the society I'm living in right now is true Capitalism and it's broken and breaking.

where do you live?

>>71765

>What if fewer market interventions are needed when they benefit corporations and more are needed when they benefit workers?

lol

>market intervention that benefits workers

what if human being all deserve an equal (none) amount of intervention?

but somehow (one word) in your autistic brain where there are porkies and workers you wont be able to comprehend this

all workers are also porkies btw, they sell a commodity, their labor

>>71777

>but it's all "Capitalism" to me so it doesn't matter

It is easy being lefty.

>>71103

>envy cannot be rational

If I envy someone enough to kill them and take their stuff, it would result in a much better life for me. How is this not rational?

>>71757

>That pic

But most of them are correct and you can see it in our stagnant economy. Businesses continue to squeeze out what little profits they can which makes R&D/Innovation nearly impossible in the given legal framework.

Doesn't mean it's ok to hire niggers and women for less than market wages, but all of them except maybe the 1842 one who wants more laws are correct. Notice how all of those happened right before a depression or recession.

>>71029

Never forget those that were truly freed.

>>71765

>1st pic and 4th

It's not .Govs job to buy nth number of houses/welfare for its citizens. Then again that infographic is designed for people wanting the endless trough to eat out of.

You're comparing the have and have-nots, and that is somehow it's capitalism's fault. Not everyone will succeed, and the reasons for failure are all different. Seems to me these corporations invest into local communities to build new facilities more than the actual state.

>>71721

Fake and Gay

>>71026

The irony of Stalin saying this is enough to make me chuckle every time I read it, but he's not wrong. You can't choose to work when you can't choose *not* to work. Any society where people are forced to either donate their labor to others or die is a society where people are not free. Of course, this does mean that Stalinist Russia was one of the least free societies in history.

>>72712

>are forced to either donate their labor to others or die

>any society where people are forced to work or die is not a free society

>>72731

>Forced to do things

>Free

I don't think you understand how this works, anon. Of course, you're not entitled to any reasonable standard of living for not working, but you are entitled to life. People love to cry about how everyone would just stop working and live as NEETs in abject poverty if there was a UBI, but you already can choose to work <10 hours a week and still feed and clothe and house yourself, and yet no one (but me) voluntarily chooses to do that. The only people who would drop out of the workforce are mothers and artists and such who are already working and contributing to society, but on the behalf of themselves instead of being extorted by one business or another.

>>72744

Uniqueness cannot be subordinated to life.

>>72745

I have no idea what you're even trying to say. Can you try again, but with an actual explanation of your position and justification for it, instead of just a memey sound bite?

>>72746

Being entitled to life implies that it is more important than the ability to choose how important it is.

>>72747

You can't choose to be unique if you're dead. I'm not advocating enslaving the entire population to ensure a constant standard of living for everyone. I'm saying that people should be offered a choice between working for themselves and working for others. There's all sorts of things you can do to encourage people to work for others if you really do think that's the sole measure of a life, but the penalty of working for oneself should never be death in an unmarked grave.

>>72748

First you say that UBI is not so bad, then that you don't advocate enslavement.

>>72750

Look at it this way: a lot of people in the US think that we should have universal healthcare. Let's just accept that for the moment without making any value judgements. Now, the reason the universal healthcare system we ended up with is this retarded Obamacare shit instead of a single payer system like the rest of the world (I'm not necessarily endorsing single payer systems, just pointing out that they are relatively less idiotic in comparison to Obamacare) is because it was decided that a single payer system would result in too large of a tax increase.

Now, for my actual point: this results in a system where the government compels you to not just to pay taxes to them, but to pay taxes to private, for-profit corporations as well. Now *that* is slavery: the coercive extraction of labor for profit. UBI is the opposite: if you really hate the idea of paying one dime to someone who might not deserve it, you're free to never earn a taxable penny and live your entire life on the dole. It won't be an easy life, but living up to your beliefs never is. If you're offended at receiving money that you don't think you've earned, just donate it to charity. If you're mad because now that mothers are leaving the workforce to care for their families the price of labor is going up, that sucks for you, I guess. Welcome to all of human history before 30 years ago.

>>72753

By making everyone poorer, laws may very well make labour offers even lower, as fewer can afford to pay.

>>72756

Now you're just grasping at straws. Wealth inequality does not result in an increase in standard of living for the masses. When more people have money, more people spend money and more businesses can afford to sell more products. Once again, I'm not advocating shooting all the rich people and stealing their shit so that people can be rich without working.

Think of it this way: the current job market is like being locked in a room with 8 guys, and told to pick one and suck his cock or they'll kill you. They claim to be offering a choice, but that choice is nothing but an illusion: you're either going to suck a cock or die. What I'm proposing is being in a room with 8 guys, and being told that if you pick one and suck his cock, you'll get paid a million dollars. Now you actually have a choice: you can just walk out without being harmed, you'll just be a million dollars poorer than if you'd gone along with it. The "no one will choose to work if there's a UBI and society will collapse" argument is assuming that no one would ever choose to suck a cock without being threatened with death. I think you'll find that there's a hell of a lot of people who would if you laid out a million dollars in front of them and told them it could be theirs.

>>72753

>if you really hate the idea of paying one dime to someone who might not deserve it, you're free to never earn a taxable penny and live your entire life on the dole

>If you're offended at receiving money that you don't think you've earned, just donate it to charity.

How do I do both?

>>72957

Same way you do right now: by voluntarily starving. That won't change; the difference is no more involuntary starving.

>>73070

But I don't want to starve, so it's still involuntary starving. How do I independently put food on my table through my own hard work without leeching off anyone else and without letting anyone leech off me?

>>73084

Then you go live out in the woods with no electricity. Apparently shitposting on anonymous Chinese cartoon forums is worth more than your morals, so honestly I can't see why they should matter.

>>72764

You posted nothing but unsupported claims and even more dubious comparisons. Only the employer and employee can agree on a wage. Saving makes someone richer. An effective minimum wage can only cause unemployment, even if the "low" wage would have been fine with both.

>>72744

>The only people who would drop out of the workforce are mothers and artists

That's already not how welfare works. There is no justification for an entitlement to resources just for being alive. A right to life is not a right to anything but not being physically harmed without violating someone else's property rights first. It goes no further than this. Anything more than that and it becomes arbitrary and an entitlement, not a right. A rule that does not apply equally to all, is nothing more than a privilege. Being poor or rich doesn't change the Law to suit you.

>>72764

>the current job market is like being locked in a room with 8 guys, and told to pick one and suck his cock or they'll kill you

What is with leftists and this fetish for being forced to suck dick? The comparison is way off. You just really love using it.

>The "no one will choose to work if there's a UBI and society will collapse" argument is assuming that no one would ever choose to suck a cock without being threatened with death

It assumes that nobody ever has to be forced to work for anyone else's sake by force. That is what UBI is. You can't choose not to participate in it. You still can do charity work. Nobody thinks some people wouldn't. What UBI assumes is that the vast majority are willing to do it. It is exactly such redistribution of wealth that makes it so society can't adapt to resource availability. There is no free market outcome where you would have such a huge unexpected turn of events where you're "stuck in a room having to suck cock or die." That is a uniquely interventionist scenario. Nobody "just" overproduces or overcommits to anything.

>>73087

I never suggested a minimum wage, or suggested that the government should have any say in wages. UBI is not at all a minimum wage and the whole point of it is that it's the same regardless of who (or even if) you work for.

>>73091

>A rule that does not apply equally to all, is nothing more than a privilege. Being poor or rich doesn't change the Law to suit you.

The whole point of this is that it's the same for everyone. It doesn't matter if you're the CEO of the entire world or a literal dirt farmer, you'll get the same check every month. Everyone has the same option to work for themselves and live in poverty or work for others for mutual profit.

>>73092

>What is with leftists and this fetish for being forced to suck dick? The comparison is way off. You just really love using it.

I just chose an example that's as distasteful for you as being forced to work for someone else's benefit is to me. The fact that it triggered you suggests that it was a good example.

> It assumes that nobody ever has to be forced to work for anyone else's sake by force. That is what UBI is. You can't choose not to participate in it. You still can do charity work.

No one is forced to work for someone else's sake this way. You can choose not to make a taxable profit. You can choose not to collect your UBI check. It also makes charities better because it gives the option for """nonprofits""" to operate without actually operate without making enormous profits to pay their employees.

>>73114

>No one is forced to work for someone else's sake this way

Income has to be taken from somewhere to be distributed. If you make it an option not to participate in UBI, as anyone who gains a lot more than wins likely would, then there's no hope of it existing. Nevermind the Keynesian ripple it would send through the economy by giving everyone free limited insurance and distorting the market. It might be included in pricing eventually and become nearly meaningless anyway, but as long as anyone has to pay into it, it's very much another form of extortion. It's essentially an incentive to spend and a forced disincentive to save.

>It also makes charities better because it gives the option for """nonprofits""" to operate without actually operate without making enormous profits to pay their employees.

Those charities exist exactly because of the regulatory agency you would employ for this. They won't disappear or diminish. As long as you have taxation you will have tax evasion. There is no way around it other than total subjugation.

>>73114

That's right. In minimum wage at least it's obvious who bears the cost.

>>73118

anyone who loses a lot more*

>>73118

>If you make it an option not to participate in UBI

You can choose not to receive it, and you can choose not to pay into it by not receiving taxable income. There will be no welfare trap because every dollar earned will be just as valuable as the one before.

>Nevermind the Keynesian ripple it would send through the economy by giving everyone free limited insurance and distorting the market.

It will have a similar effect to existing agriculture and energy subsidies, except that it requires those companies to actually provide products and services to receive that money instead of corporate welfare that pays them to not do anything.

>Those charities exist exactly because of the regulatory agency you would employ for this. They won't disappear or diminish. As long as you have taxation you will have tax evasion.

Those charities exist because of arcane tax codes that exist in turn so that the wealthy can shirk their share of the tax burden. What I'm proposing is a flat tax on business profit and payroll (not individual income: you keep your entire paycheck) on the order of 10-20% with no incentives or deductions. There's no loopholes here to allow anyone to make a profit off of "charity." Charities will be taxed on payroll and on money that doesn't make it towards their cause, and no one will have any incentive to donate other than a desire to do good.

>>73120

Those who bear the cost are those who earn money beyond their UBI. But even those people will benefit from having a larger consumer base. Don't confuse "harming the luxury widget industry" with "harming capitalism." There will still be enormous sums of money to be made, even if it's distributed differently than it is now. And remember that how the market is distributed now is a result of regulatory interference on every level, so it's certainly not a sacred cow.

>>73124

>UBI

It's just a meme, m8.

>>73124

Amazing, so your entire conception of UBI is literally just a centralized charity that will be even more inefficient. and ineffective than the current welfare people already receive.

>>73124

>There will be no welfare trap because every dollar earned will be just as valuable as the one before.

It's going to be pretty hard to make money earned just as valuable as money given just for existing. Be very sure everyone will be adding UBI rates to their pricing and it will have immediate effects days before its official implementation. The more you make the less UBI matters if it's a set given price, which would take a central authority to attempt to fix to current living expenses. If you make it percent based then the people at the top will be benefiting vastly more than those at the bottom, essentially creating a welfare for the wealthy.

>It will have a similar effect to existing agriculture and energy subsidies, except that it requires those companies to actually provide products and services to receive that money instead of corporate welfare that pays them to not do anything.

You really think the only bad part about subsidies is abuse? Did you not read the part about market distortions and incentivized over/underproduction of goods causing crashes and shortages?

>What I'm proposing is a flat tax on business profit and payroll

Has already been tried and sidetracked. There is no such thing as "personal" and "corporate" income anyway.

>Charities will be taxed on payroll and on money that doesn't make it towards their cause

Which would require a central regulatory agency with ultimate authority to decide what "proper" spending is and nothing to keep it from being corrupt itself.

>>73126

>that will be even more inefficient

Where does the inefficiency come in? What's inefficient is means-tested welfare systems that require an extensive infrastructure for determining who is and is not eligible. UBI is far more efficient because it only requires confirming that an individual exists and has not already received their payment.

>>73128

>It's going to be pretty hard to make money earned just as valuable as money given just for existing.

It's funny that you're capable of unironically squealing "wealth redistribution!" and "printing money!" at the same time. UBI will be paid out with money earned from actual production. It's not creating money, and it will actually reduce the capital available to the finance industry to leverage to create money. The result is a more robust economy based on the products of labor rather than one based on a vampiric finance industry leeching wealth from the system.

>Did you not read the part about market distortions and incentivized over/underproduction of goods causing crashes and shortages?

How is there an incentivized overproduction of goods? If there's more people who can afford to buy basic necessities, more businesses will manufacture basic necessities. There are some things that cause problems with the free market, but this isn't one of them.

>Which would require a central regulatory agency with ultimate authority to decide what "proper" spending is and nothing to keep it from being corrupt itself.

There's no need for that in order for the accounting to balance out. There will be a need for it in order for people to determine whether it's a worthy cause, but that can and should be handled by organizations like GiveWell and Charity Watch.

>>73139

>Where does the inefficiency come in? What's inefficient is means-tested welfare systems that require an extensive infrastructure for determining who is and is not eligible. UBI is far more efficient because it only requires confirming that an individual exists and has not already received their payment.

what's the point of implementing this sort of voluntary charity system organized by a state if anyone can just fucking opt out of it in the first place? If I make $50k/yr and I pay $5000 on my UBI tax only to receive less than 10% of that back. The only option you would have is to force people to have to pay that tax in which case they just leave along with all their assets, or you'd have to raise corporate, and business taxes to such an unsustainable level. You're just arguing for suicide in either case. What's the point of this garbage system if the people receiving it are still living in a type of abject poverty (doesn't even accomplish what its set out to minimize).

>>73141

>if anyone can just fucking opt out of it in the first place?

You opt out of it the same way you opt out of paying taxes today, by not earning a taxable income. That's not an option most people will choose, because most people would rather work than be poor.

>If I make $50k/yr and I pay $5000 on my UBI tax only to receive less than 10% of that back.

Yeah, those numbers are not even close to what I'm talking about. Today, if you earn $50,000, you'll pay $8200 in taxes and take home $42,000. In the system I'm proposing, if you earn the equivalent of $50,000, then $10,000 (for the purposes of napkin math) will be deducted before it reaches you, and you'll receive $12,000 in UBI, resulting in a $10,000 increase in net income.

Now, for the cost: there's roughly 325 million Americans. For everyone to receive a $12,000 UBI, the cost will be $3.9 trillion. The US GDP is $19.3 trillion, so a flat tax that reaches the entire economy in order to fund the UBI would be roughly 20%.

However, this $12,000 number is too high, since it means a negative cost to raise a child and puts nonworking couples well above the poverty line. If we reduce that to $8,000 per adult and $4,000 per child, we're looking at a 60% reduction in program cost, and that puts an individual at 66% of federal poverty level and all other household sizes right at 100% FPL. That's an overall cost of $2.3 trillion, compared to the $2.4 trillion the government currently spends on welfare benefits, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Now, UBI is only a partial replacement for Medicare and Medicaid, but a switch to single payer healthcare system similar to Europe and the rest of the anglosphere will cut overall healthcare costs (including private costs) nearly in half. That adds up to a combined welfare and healthcare cost of around $3.4 trillion compared to $4 trillion currently, a net reduction of 15%.

So this isn't all just rainbows and unicorns; it's entirely possible to make the math work out. Once we cut out (((defence))) spending and the cost of maintaining our 1800+ gulags, federal spending will be down by over 40%. Meanwhile, this will result in a tax break for any average size household of 2.6 people earning under $108,000 a year (only counting UBI and universal healthcare vs their existing analogues, keeping all other government outlays such as defense spending fixed at their current rates), and a relative increase in corporate and capital gains taxes. It also means the average person doesn't have to waste time or money filing their taxes each year, that's all shifted to corporate accountants, whose job is made faster and easier by a simple flat tax system that doesn't require mailing out hundreds or thousands of W2s.

>>73144

>Today, if you earn $50,000, you'll pay $8200 in taxes and take home $42,000.

Derp. Doesn't affect my point, though.

>>73085

>worth more than your morals

How is it immoral to want to work, and to want to be paid for that work, and to then purchase the things I want and need by spending the pay I earned by working, while not taking from others or letting others take from me? Who gets hurt by this? Who is being stolen from, if all I'm asking is for the fruits of my labour to remain my own, instead of being appropriated by someone who did nothing to contribute?

>>73146

You are currently allowing the government to steal money from you to give gibs to drug dealers. If you really cared about not having the fruits of your labors taken from you and about not paying for freeloaders, you would go innawoods and stop paying taxes. You haven't done that, which means that it's all just talk, and in the end you'll do whatever the government tells you to do as long as you can go online and complain about it it. If your morals are worth so little to you that you're willing to compromise them for three hot meals and an internet connection, why would they mean anything to me?

>>73147

>You are currently allowing the government to steal money from you to give gibs to drug dealers.

whoops hang on i didn't realise they were only doing it because i said they could

brb gonna go tell them to stop

If I could do something about it, I would. I could go out and fight, but that wouldn't change anything. Taxes and welfare would still exist, but I'd be dead. The only choices available to me are to be alive or be dead, since everything else stays the same, so how does staying alive mean my morals don't mean anything to me? And what about you? I don't see you out in the street throwing firebombs and assassinating politicians. I guess, despite all your talk, UBI really means nothing at all to you. Why should anyone on this board think UBI is a good idea if even the guy singing its praises thinks it's a worthless pile of bullshit?

Besides, you've still failed to address the point I originally made: since you yourself have defined slavery as "the coercive extraction of labor for profit" (here: >>72753 ), how could a person in a society that has implemented UBI live their life without enslaving others, or being enslaved themselves? How is UBI not slavery by your own definition? And if it's not too much trouble, try to give a serious answer this time, instead of saying "lol just sudoku yourself".

>>73147

not the man you are talking to but I would like to point out that it is not completely black and white with innawoods and taxes as the only options, I dont pay taxes OR live in the woods, perhaps there is something they value more then that portion of their labor like their family for example

>>73148

>Taxes and welfare would still exist, but I'd be dead.

No, you'd be living innawoods. Plenty of people do it.

>how could a person in a society that has implemented UBI live their life without enslaving others, or being enslaved themselves?

Anyone who considers it slavery is free to not work for pay and still receive enough income to subsist. Anyone who decides to work for pay either doesn't consider it slavery, or prefers having an iPhone to being free and voluntarily enslaves himself. You'll find that most people (or at least most men) belong to this latter group.

>>73149

>I dont pay taxes OR live in the woods

I don't either, but I'm making a fairly safe bet that the guy I'm talking to isn't Trump, living in abject poverty, living innawoods, or a NEET living in his mother's basement. Even if he's one of the above, he's still profiting from the taxes paid by others.

>>73148

>And what about you? I don't see you out in the street throwing firebombs and assassinating politicians. I guess, despite all your talk, UBI really means nothing at all to you. Why should anyone on this board think UBI is a good idea if even the guy singing its praises thinks it's a worthless pile of bullshit?

Oops, I missed this one. You're the one that thinks that paying or receiving benefit from taxes is slavery. I just think that being forced to work for others is slavery, and so I don't. I run my own business, and I work at it around 8 hours a week, which is enough to just barely cover my meager expenses. Soon I'm hoping to monetize another of my hobbies and spend a little more of my time making a little more money. I'm living on $6000 a year because I live what I preach. What have you given up in the name of your beliefs?

>>73152

>>but I'd be dead

>No, you'd be living innawoods

I didn't realise the government was so forgiving. So, can I just repeatedly keep setting off carbombs outside parliament until the state dissolves, or what?

>Anyone who considers it slavery is free to not work for pay and still receive enough income to subsist.

Great, you've come full circle. Well, I'll ask my original question again - how do I work and keep all of my pay, instead of leeching off others or having others leech off me? Is the idea of someone taking responsibility for their own existence really so abhorrent to you?

>You're the one that thinks that paying or receiving benefit from taxes is slavery.

So do you. Again, remember what you wrote earlier? "Now, for my actual point: this results in a system where the government compels you to not just to pay taxes to them, but to pay taxes to private, for-profit corporations as well. Now *that* is slavery: the coercive extraction of labor for profit. UBI is the opposite: if you really hate the idea of paying one dime to someone who might not deserve it, you're free to never earn a taxable penny and live your entire life on the dole. It won't be an easy life, but living up to your beliefs never is. If you're offended at receiving money that you don't think you've earned, just donate it to charity. If you're mad because now that mothers are leaving the workforce to care for their families the price of labor is going up, that sucks for you, I guess. Welcome to all of human history before 30 years ago." You say that it's slavery to to be forced to work for someone else's benefit. Care to explain how UBI is not slavery? Sure, you say that no-one is forced to work (before immediately going on to say that UBI will barely be enough to keep you alive), but whenever someone chooses to work for their own benefit, a portion of their labour is automatically extracted for the benefit of someone else, and if the person in question doesn't want to collect UBI, their only two choices are to have their labour coercively extracted for someone else's profit, or to starve. Either you believe that UBI is slavery, or your definition of slavery is wrong. Which is it?

>I'm living on $6000 a year

Holy shit, where the fuck do you live? I pay double that just for rent, and I live in the cheapest place I could find, in a shitty, run-down, cockroach-infested apartment that's too close to the city to be tolerable, and too far away from the city to be convenient.

>What have you given up in the name of your beliefs?

When have I ever had the opportunity to give anything up for my beliefs? I would give everything I have to fix the shitty state of affairs that the world is in - even my own life - but when have I ever had the opportunity to do so? Every day I have myriad opportunities to just throw my life away for no gain, but when has there ever been the opportunity to actually change something? You seem to be having fun getting all preachy, talking down to me like some fucking sage sitting on his fucking mountaintop, asking me what I've sacrificed, so tell me, mister preacher man, what would you have me do? If you're so superior to the rest of us mere mortals, what's the price I'm supposed to pay to make things happen? Obviously you know the answer to this one, so share some of that wisdom, why don't you?

>>73154

>how do I work and keep all of my pay, instead of leeching off others or having others leech off me?

You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. In ancapistan, the standard wage is whatever a working couple can subsist on, and has no relation to the actual value that the employees actually bring to the company because the employer can always just find someone to do it cheaper if you try to haggle. This changes a little if you have an obscure skillset, but that isn't and shouldn't be the case for everyone. So if you're a prole, your employers are leeching off your labor.

With UBI, the minimum wage drops a lot because it doesn't have to pay to support someone's life, but even moderately skilled jobs increase greatly in value because that worker can sit and wait for a better opportunity instead of taking the very first offer he gets or let his family starve. That forces employers to increase the pay for that position to as high as they can go and still profit from filling it, in order to compete for workers. This gives skilled workers enough individual bargaining power that it completely eliminates the need for unions, for safety regulations (anyone can just quit a job they consider to be unsafe and other employers will scramble to snap them up), for a minimum wage, for basically all government regulations on businesses that exist.

>their only two choices are to have their labour coercively extracted for someone else's profit, or to starve.

As I said, it's not coercion if they choose to do it. You're entitled to a life, but not to an iPhone. If you choose to work just so you can have your toys, you don't get to cry oppression. Especially not when UBI probably means that you'll be able to negotiate a more favorable contract with your employer and actually earn more money than you would be able to otherwise.

>>73154

>Holy shit, where the fuck do you live?

20 minutes outside of town in the Pacific Northwest. I'm on 2 acres, with rent split 5 ways. But you can live cheaply just about anywhere if you're smart about it and willing to lower your standards (and get a bunch of roommates). My expenses were about $9,000 a year when I was living in the SF Bay area.

>>73154

>You seem to be having fun getting all preachy, talking down to me like some fucking sage sitting on his fucking mountaintop, asking me what I've sacrificed, so tell me, mister preacher man, what would you have me do? If you're so superior to the rest of us mere mortals, what's the price I'm supposed to pay to make things happen? Obviously you know the answer to this one, so share some of that wisdom, why don't you?

If taxes are slavery, stop paying taxes. I got $200 more back from my last tax return than I paid in. If everyone stopped feeding the beast, the government would collapse and you would have your ancapistan with no taxes and no gibs. You don't get to labor for the forces of oppression and then complain that you're being oppressed. Be the change that you want to see in the world.

>>73156

>In ancapistan, the standard wage is whatever a working couple can subsist on, and has no relation to the actual value that the employees actually bring to the company

That's a gross oversimplification and you know it. The main deciding factor is how in-demand those particular skills are - the cost of living barely even factors into it in comparision.

>With UBI, […] that worker can sit and wait for a better opportunity instead of taking the very first offer he gets or let his family starve.

So UBI is not enough for one person to live comfortably on, but it's enough to raise a family with?

>You're entitled to a life, but not to an iPhone.

Nice projection, you champagne socialist. I don't want an iPhone - I want a roof over my head and food in my belly, and I want to provide those things for myself through my own work. Is that really asking for too much?

>UBI probably means that you'll be able to negotiate a more favorable contract with your employer and actually earn more money than you would be able to otherwise.

I don't want to earn more money if I have to steal from everyone around me in order to do so. Remember those morals that you said I don't have? This is them.

>20 minutes outside of town in the Pacific Northwest. I'm on 2 acres, with rent split 5 ways.

I hope you appreciate how lucky you are. Not everybody has those sorts of opportunities. There is no "outside of town" in Australia.

>you can live cheaply just about anywhere if you're smart about it and willing to lower your standards (and get a bunch of roommates)

My standards are as low as it gets. My apartment is literally (and not an exaggeration, and not the dumb figurative kind of literal) the cheapest place that was available. It's shit. The carpets go crunch because of all the dead bugs trapped underneath. The walls and ceilings are covered in bug feces which I can't clear off because the plaster on the walls crumbles off if you just look at it wrong. I have to wash all my cups and plates before I use them because the cupboards in the kitchen were filled with cockroaches and cockroach shit when I moved in, and not only will the smell not go away, but it clings to everything that goes in the cupboards as well. The tops on the kitchen cupboards are covered in a layer of rancid, blackened grease about half a centimetre thick. The phone line is literally just a wire run through a permanently open window. I never get any sleep because on the rare occasion that my upstairs neighbour isn't shouting at his girlfriend while she cries and screams and threatens to kill herself, the night-time construction work outside my window picks up the slack, and they work until 6AM (they should be finished in a few years, though, so that's nice). The power (and sometimes the water and gas) regularly get shut off because of the construction work. There's constant busy traffic (and ambulance sirens pretty often) going right past my window because I live next to a big intersection for a main road going right into the city, and when the construction work is done, it'll be even busier. When I was inspecting the place before I moved in, I was the only person who didn't walk out in disgust after looking around for less than a minute. I wanted to walk out, but I couldn't exactly afford to be choosy. But please, tell me how much lower my standards need to go.

>If taxes are slavery, stop paying taxes.

ok yeah cool i forgot it was that simple thanks for the advice man

>I got $200 more back from my last tax return than I paid in

>You don't get to labor for the forces of oppression and then complain that you're being oppressed.

You don't get to be the forces of oppression and then criticise others for not liking being oppressed. Your shitty leech-like behaviour is exactly what I want to be free from. Generally speaking, what do you think people are like? Are they like you? Perhaps a bit more selfish? More generous, maybe? Face it, just about everybody who would tolerate a system like you propose does so because they expect to get out more than they put in.

>>73158

>The main deciding factor is how in-demand those particular skills are - the cost of living barely even factors into it in comparision.

Sure. Except that in Ancapistan, everyone– man, woman, and (probably) child– is press ganged into the workforce, which devalues labor. The cost of living does factor into it, because most people won't accept a job that won't pay their bills. There's only so far that people with families can squeeze their budgets until it just won't work out.

>So UBI is not enough for one person to live comfortably on, but it's enough to raise a family with?

It's enough to not die on. But it's actually a little bit better with a family than solo because everyone gets an income. You only need to pay rent once for everyone, for example. It's difficult to normalize between individuals and families without adding all sorts of inefficient regulatory oversight though, so I guess we just have to accept that it's a system that disincentivizes MGTOW. Take that however you will.

>I want a roof over my head and food in my belly, and I want to provide those things for myself through my own work.

Then go off and build yourself a mud hut in the middle of nowhere and live off the land. It should be easy in a practically uncolonized wasteland like Australia.

>I don't want to earn more money if I have to steal from everyone around me in order to do so.

Right now, by working and supporting the status quo, you're contributing to a system where employers are effectively stealing from laborers. By paying taxes, you're contributing to a system where money is stolen from the middle and working classes to pay for the poor, while the wealthy shirk their share of the burden. You can't escape wealth redistribution. You can either support redistributing it to everyone (in which case it will work its way back to effective capitalists anyway), or support redistributing it directly to the wealthy. The first option enhances the free market as more people buy more things and more money changes hands more often; the second destroys it as money is withdrawn from circulation, fewer people can afford things and economies of scale dry up, and debt balloons as people start relying on credit cards just for their necessities.

>Remember those morals that you said I don't have? This is them.

I never said you don't have them. I just said they're irrelevant if you won't live up to them. Talk is cheap.

>Not everybody has those sorts of opportunities. There is no "outside of town" in Australia.

>But please, tell me how much lower my standards need to go.

>ok yeah cool i forgot it was that simple thanks for the advice man

See "live in a mud hut," above.

>You don't get to be the forces of oppression and then criticise others for not liking being oppressed.

If you want the gibs to go away, abuse the gibs until they take them away. If you want the taxes to go away, abuse the tax codes until the government goes away. Paying taxes and then complaining about it isn't going to change anything. No one in a position to change things gives a fuck as long as they're getting their shekels from you. You're literally voting for the state with your wallet, which is the only vote that counts.

For what it's worth, I provide a valuable service for a lot less than market value, because I enjoy it and it's enough to keep me clothed and fed. If UBI happened, I wouldn't stop working, I'd just stop charging for it. You're not (well, people like you aren't; obviously your Aussie dollars aren't paying my Burger checks) subsidizing my lifestyle with your tax dollars, you're subsidizing my clients to learn valuable and potentially life saving skills at a price anyone could afford. Call it charity if you'd like.

>>73163

You're just talking round in circles again, and sidestepping the one question that actually matters. Earlier in the thread, you gave a definition for slavery. UBI meets this definition, yet you insist that it's everything that isn't UBI that's slavery. Explain this contradiction. Explain how UBI is not slavery.

>>73198

>Do thing or die

>Do thing or don't get thing you want

Do you really not see the difference? One is coercion, the other is a free exchange between individuals.

>>73200

You can't be coerced out of something you don't own. That's not how coercion works or is. Reality can't coerce. Wanting something that doesn't belong to you is not you being coerced.

>>73211

>Your life doesn't belong to you

Yes, this is what we call slavery. It's generally considered to be coercive.

>>73212

My life belongs to me, the means to keeping it isn't an entitlement one is born to. Don't attempt to rephrase it. It doesn't work either way.

>>73163

>Except that in Ancapistan, everyone– man, woman, and (probably) child– is press ganged into the workforce, which devalues labor.

You're assuming that there is no competition for labor.

>Inb4 starving people will work for any wage the capitalist wants

That misses the point. Starving people still work for the best wage they can get. So if one capitalist gives them two dollars a day and another four dollars, they will work for the latter rather than the former capitalist.

I could go into more detail here, but I have other things to do right now. My main point is that your argument only works if we somehow completely eliminate competition between capitalists.

>>73144

>a switch to single payer healthcare system similar to Europe and the rest of the anglosphere will cut overall healthcare costs (including private costs) nearly in half.

Actually it will increase it, unless there is an increase in rationing. Current US Healthcare expenditure is mainly (but not solely) due to AMA monopoly on licensing creating an artificial shortage of physicians.

> resulting in a $10,000 increase in net income.

But his production has not increased, resulting in inflation. Ultimately, real wages have not increased in this scenario making this program pointless.

>>73139

>How is there an incentivized overproduction of goods?

Any subsidy misallocates resources in overproduction of one good and underproduction of others.

>>73147

>you would go innawoods and stop paying taxes.

This is not possible since these woods are either state/federal property or private property, and I would be jailed for trying to subsist off of it.

>>73163

>You can't escape wealth redistribution. You can either support redistributing it to everyone (in which case it will work its way back to effective capitalists anyway), or support redistributing it directly to the wealthy.

False Dilemma. A third option would be to not support redistribution altogether.

>he first option enhances the free market as more people buy more things and more money changes hands more often;

Wealth redistribution is not a free market because it results in market distortions. Disincentivizing those that contribute larger shares to UBI will result in less production, and thus less available goods to UBI recipients. Also, UBI recipients are disincentivized to labor as much sans UBI, which further lowers production.

>>71721

2/10

Not even effeminate. Typical cookie cutter camwhore. Basic bitch.

Nah, liberty doesn't imply free food or free medicine.

Fuck off bitch.

Stalin is an exploiter

>>73333

Liberty is no rules, no transactions

>>73333

>liberty doesn't imply freedom

kill yourself retard

>>73338

Freedom doesn't imply free food, free medicine, no.

Freedom ain't free.

>>71757

Corporatism != capitalism

Ancap means no taxes subsidizing businesses that shoukd die (ie General Motors), and businesses do not have any "rights" unless the worker signs a contract agreeing to it.

>>73349

also Monsanto "owning" plant DNA would not be a thing in ancap

>>73339

Freedom is doing what you want, no need to spend money on anything, we take what we want

>>73354

Free to take a bullet up your skull too when you touch my stuff.

>>73358

We can have wapons too

>>73358

We have the freedom to lynch you, take your stuff by force, or just destroy it. Freedom aint free bud.

>>73386

We have the freedom to blast your fucking legs off and dump your halfings down a creek, you piece of shit.

>>73359

Not when I steal them from you.

>>73396

You may do this, you may not

>>73396

if you steal, you are a state and not an anarchist

>>73336

>no transactions

if there is no rules what is stopping there from being a transaction?

>>73412

Anarchists do not obey the idea of borrowing, we take what we want, and destroy those in our way.

>>73395

The have-nots will always outnumber the haves in your society. And we will always have the freedom to maul you like wild animals.

>>73428

Because there is no rules on property

>>73433

so if I wanted to I could respect someones claim to property, and if they wanted to they could respect my own claims and if we wanted to we could trade some stuff, AKA a transaction

>>73430

That is what the state does, therefore you are a state.

>>73431

> commies admitting to be nothing but wild animals

Ayyyyy

>>73439

If you respect rules therefore you are not an anarchist

>>73479

Is that a rule?

>>73481

No it is a fact

>>73485

Are the rules of logic rules?

>>73486

It is about human rules here

>>73489

>human rules

Remove that flag

>>73495

I am against human rules

he has a point but most leftists in the western world like to use him as a dartboard. there's only certain forms of anarchism that would work and most people I know find them 'niche'