Does anyone else here support this? Take away all levels of government, end public education and public health care. Instead, everyone gets a universal basic income that is not effected by the amount of money you make. I'm libertarian but realistically this is probably the best system you could have in our society because this way nobody would go hungry and it would be much more efficient. What do you guys think?
>>77887580
Why do you think nobody would go hungry? Eventually the cost of everything would rise as the demand for more goods and services rose and we'd be back to square one.
It this sounds good at first but then you figure all the neets that would play video games for the rest of their lives and never produce anything of value
People would still go hungry because retards would spend their government allowance on drugs and booze, then expect the government to fix their mistakes through social programs of yet more money.
Face it, some people are too stupid to handle life for themselves. You either forcibly teach them good moral principles over generations until the cancer of degeneracy is eradicated, or you leave these scum to die in the graves they made for themselves.
>>77887580
Also, what does taking away all levels of government have to do with anything?
>fucking libertarians
>>77887580
Aside from the economic retardation behind the idea, everyone would become lazy subhuman slobs. Look at how shit people already are today, how lazy EVERYONE is. Now give them free fucking money for all of their needs.
The only reason ANYONE would support this is so that the government has absolute control over peoples' lives and consumption.
>>77887772
I'm not convinced that would be the problem, since the price of other services would keep the cost of food attainable to even those people who subsist only on the UBI
The problem is stupid niggers who spend their money before they realize they're hungry and people have to eat.
>>77887832
>implying they do anything of value now
>>77888044
None of what you said makes any sense
>the price of other services would keep the cost of food attainable
Why? Wtf is that even supposed to mean?
I'm saying the income would be just enough to get by but it would be for all people not just welfare whores. You have just as much incentive to work and would end up paying less taxes because you would not be paying for layers and layers of government. The universal basic income would be one of their only functions.
>>77887951
>But people would still work
Ffffffuck No! With a universal basic income and healthcare, I would live the rest of my life in an RV, skiing and mountain biking and rock climbing until one of those activities killed me dead. I only work for the sake of staying alive.
>>77887580
>Take away all authoritarian leftwing bullshit
>Replace with authoritarian leftwing bullshit
And I thought I was the uneducated one.
>>77887580
Better than the welfare state? Probably. At least services will be rendered to the leeches in a more efficient manner.
However, I'm not one to compromise and I don't support any dysgenic wealth redistribution.
>>77888155
The cost of food exists relative to the cost of other goods and services, especially those which are necessary for food to be raised. There will be inflation, yes, but the value of the dollar will be affected by things like new houses and new cars, not just those things that are necessary to sustain human life. It's like the petrodollar, monetary transactions for Oil and the sheer amount of petrodollars out there dampen the effect of actual US Treasury policy on the value of the dollar.
>>77887580
Hell no.
You are a fucking moron.
I don't think we are at the point were we need basic income. Maybe in the future when everything becomes automated or something it would make more sense
Again, it would be not much more than a welfare person would receive. The money you pay out for the income you still get a portion of it back and there is no efficiency in paying for bureaucrats and layers of government. It would still hardly be enough to survive but as a student it would be a big deal. It would really just cover necessities and anyone would still want to work unless they want to live the NEET life. I don't know just throwing out ideas but again I am talking about removing all other government programs and government spending.
give 1000$ a month to Tyrone, he'll still shoot you for air jordans,
give it to Mo'niquekah, she'll eat kfc every day.
>>77887580
Wtf is going on in that picture?
>>77887580
>libertarian
>supports a welfare program that would make everyone welfare-slaves
mediocre shitpost
>>77887580
>reward laziness but punish the hardworking
Yeah that'll fucking work for only a day before everyone tries to game the system leading to its crash
>>77888210
This is exactly why we can't have UBI.
>>77887580
Switzerland already rejected it.
Universal income money would affect students and low income wage earners the most. That money would be spent quickly since they have low incomes and circulate right into the economy versus it being shipped overseas into a billionaire swiss bank account.
>>77887580
It'll eventually happen, but it won't be a standard working wage given out just for free since that will discourage people from putting effort and actually working a job.
$300 a month or something around there would be ideal for universal income. This is a good starting point as it won't inflate costs and it won't be a burden on tax payers.
With automation comes less jobs, less people who are capable of working. With that said, commodities and prices will drop since it becomes cheaper to produce goods with machines. Eventually that $300 will pay for a higher and higher standard of living as technology progresses.
Don't be those faggots who buy into the redistribution of wealth scam that destroys nations. It doesn't work and never has. Giving $3000 a month to niggers would just inflate the costs of basic goods. They would rush to buy stupid shit. This is probably why rent is so high everyuwhere, because niggers flood the market by doing no reasesarch and getting the first section 8 or whatever housing and not maintaining it because it's literally not their money they earned.
>>77887580
If the Swiss vote "no thanks" to such a system, than it's probably a bad idea.
>>77887580
>A
>FUCKING
>LEAF
>>77887832
What do they do now?
>>77888650
That still doesnt explain why inflation would magically not affect food prices
Honestly it doesn't even have to be a living wage. Even a hundred bucks a month would make a big difference for a student. Take everything else away and replace it with this and the negative effects will be negligeable at most for your average person.
>>77887580
>Take away all levels of government
>give everyone free shit
What
>>77887580
>taxes will increase significantly to cover the costs of a basic income
>to cover the costs, foods and services will be taxed
>companies will be taxed; they, along with rich people, send their deposits over seas to avoid the wealth tax
>the cycle continues
This plan will only work once we have automated the majority of the food and services production processes, and even then it wouldn't be popular. My shithole of a country is already experimenting with basic income, and so far they've learned that it makes people of all ages even more lazy and less willing to work. In fact, they saw corruption rising among those who received basic income.
It would make the world of difference to my life. I would still work but It would be nice to know I no longer need to struggle. I'd assume the base income would cover my living expenses and the rest I would just use for luxuries which would be incentive to keep me working. The only difference is my quality of life would increase exponentially. Right now I feel like I just work to continue existing. I don't seem to ever be able to get ahead of enjoy the fruits of my labour.
I'm not a diehard libertarian like some people. I am a common sense libertarian and think there is no ideology that holds true in every situation. A hundred bucks a month for everyone would literally be a small stimulus to the economy because it would be spent right away and would leave you will low taxes with all the other government programs taken away. With automation I think there will be a universal basic income at some point no matter what.
>>77887580
No, everyone would go hungry. That's why solcialism always fails. You can't save everyone.
>Im a libertarian that supports ubi
Please dont try to use words that you dont understand.
>>77889527
There are 300,000,000 people in the U.S.
$300/month is $3600/year
x300 million =
$1,800,000,000,000/year
Almost $2 trillion year. That's what, half the entire yearly federal budget?
>Bernouts cant do math
>>77889423
In the united states, at least, food prices are entirely fictional, and based on gov't intervention from the beginning, so there's that.
I'm just trying to say that the inflation that occurs as a result of a UBI would be absorbed by things other than food before it affects food prices.
but then again, if i was a landlord I would immediately raise rent by whatever the UBI was.
>>77887843
t. Welland, Ontario
I was just throwing out ideas. Sue me. Libertarians are so black and white. You are never going to get a "pure" libertarian society in my opinion. Simply not going to happen. That's why I think compromise is important. Is a small income something you would consider compromising on?
>>77890149
If food prices in the U.S. are based on government intervention, imagine how high they would be without that money. Imagine the farmer passing down the cost of lost crops and droughts to the consumer instead of the farm bill covering it
>>77890270
>the government paying every adult over $1000 a month to exist is a compromise
I'm not a libertarian, but UBI is retarded as hell m8. And libertarianism is already kind of a pussy version of ancap.
>>77890270
See:
>>77890006
$2 trillion/year in "small income"
>>77890006
I'm stupid and don't understand economics but would an increase in tax on all goods and services go somewhat towards covering that?
And wouldn't incomes be scaled? I can't see children getting the same base income wage as adults. That would reduce total sum considerably I would have thought.
>>77887580
A big problem with universal basic income is that poor people like niggers are going to try to live beyond their means. Say you give every person over 18 20,000$. A frugal man uses that money to buy food, pay utility bills, etc where a nigger is giong to buy a car and jewelry and stupid shit and still have the same problem they would have before. Universal basic income is still subject to the invisible hand of the free market and he will get his hand on it.
>>77888851
The only right answer
I'm starting to think this: $1,000 is too much to be comfortable. If the universal income is around $500 then you would still need to get a job but the people benefiting would be students and seniors and shit like that. And again that money is spent right away and not saved like with millionaires and stuff. It'll go towards stuff like cigarettes and small purchases and will not be THAT wasteful.
>>77887580
Universal income is a dumb idea. Great for parasites. There will be no more science tific progress and civilization will rot till collapse.
>>77890270
No I get the appeal.
The point that most people don't get is that there's no net increase in tax burden. You're eliminating a huge chunk of gov't services you pay for with your taxes now, and just let every individual citizen decide how best to spend that money instead of arbitrary, corrupt, inefficient bureaucracies.
It seems like a relatively benign way of achieving wealth redistribution.
Not happening in this decade though.
>>77890555
Why would human curiosity just die in those circumstances?
you are turning a significant portion of the world's population into economic non-participants who are dependent on government aid for survival
we would all become Africans overnight
i can't think of a fate worse than having even my most basic means of survival dangled in front of me by the government and the corporations
>>77890520
Pretty much everything except initial product design and personal service is already completely automated and you could up with infinite one time unique personal services that are highly subjective which automation would not be efficient at predicting or addressing.
>>77890555
why the fuck would you pay people to live lol. Universal income will be the beginning of future monarchies.
>>77890503
>>77888044
An interesting idea I heard to tackle this is to make the payments come at a very short interval. Say a week or less instead of a larger lump sum. Dumbasses who are incapable of using money wisely, would basically be forced to have enough to meet their basic needs on a weekly basis.
Im a libertarian that supports communism gusy
Automation basically means though that at a certain point you can just flick a switch and all the robots start doing their work and everybody can be NEETS and survive with unlimited goods and services been made with little input. I understand that will all accumulate to one person but if it is somehow done in the right way it could lead to the ultimate society. Small populations to maintain and fix and recreate new automative processes will be all that's needed. With declining birth rates there might be some chance this is a natural process that we end this way.
>>77890531
Once again, $300/month = $1.8 trillion/year. $500 = $3 trillion/year. The entire federal budget is $3.8 trillion. Where does this money come from?
>>77890717
>economic non-participants
No, when automated production can outpace consumption by an order of magnitude, the more valuable economic participant is the consumer, its the only reason slaves were freed in the first place, their value as "intelligent" consumers became much higher than their value as mindless producers.
>>77887832
On the other hand they would all become shut ins and therefore never reproduce and make more of themselves.
I think the future there will have to be restrictions on the number of kids. Soon the job supply will outweigh job demand. At that point having an extra baby guarantees that kid will not have a job. In the end maybe only a billion at most will be needed if that.
>>77887580
Seems like the only option once AI and robotics eliminates 95% of jobs.
Until then...die commie pinko scum!
>>77887580
>nobody would go hungry
Except of course for all the useless saps who cannot manage their money.
I'm all for it.
>>77888974
>No fun allowed
It's a way fairer and more difficult-to-subvert system than what "democratic socialist" countries have now.
The thing is that any sane politician would never voluntarily abrogate power over the purse strings back to the citizenry. Hence, any UBI scheme would only compliment existing bureaucracy instead of completely replacing it.
>>77889026
Give it time.
>>77891165
As more people are born, more services are needed, hence more jobs. It's how Americas population has rose exponentially in the last hundred years, yet unenployment is relatively unchanged. You're pretty stupid for a libertarian. At least most of them usually have a clue how free markets work
Automation will lead to the most wealth ever being created. The only issue is how that can be distributed. However, if tons of ressources can be produced with little effort or input or costs related to paying people, then the prices will be low too. Idk I'm just throwing ideas out there but there will always be a need to make better systems and people are always made to adapt to even the worst of situations. Nobody can predict how this adapting and change of behaviour will work but it will happen.
>>77887580
If you dissolve the functions of government and everything it's for, why tax people in the first place?
>>77889527
Alaska gives everyone about $1,400 a year just for living there.
>>77891362
I don't take the ideology as seriously as pure libertarians or whatever. I just want to reduce the government as small as possible but I think there is zero chance a libertarian utopia will ever exist that you imagine. Just gotta keep chipping away at what we have now and see how small we can make the state. It's not gonna happen with one big leap.
>>77891535
>libertarian
>proposes complete financial government dependence
"Well guys, we just need to chip away at the government a little bit at a time..." Fucking leaves
>>77890503
government services could be created that help people manage their money. They could set it up so some goes to the rent automatically, some gets turned into food stamps etc.
To be honest I wish there were an ideology between the extremes of pure libertarianism and conservatism. Something right in the middle probably closer to libertarianism. I just hate how much of a leap it is to jump from one ideology to the other there should be an in between for practical people. Libertarianism and it's inability to compromise is the reason it is just virtue signaling and will never happen
>>77890803
>why the fuck would you pay people to live
Because modern society has made it illegal for the masses to live off the land even though it's the birthright of every animal to do so.
The rich didn't invent the earth. If they want to keep their claim on it, they better satisfy the masses or prepare for war. Seeing how human labor itself is becoming obsolete, there won't be enough jobs for everyone.
So you can share enough to sedate the masses or try to kill them all before they kill you.
Libertarianism is really autistic because it's an "all or nothing" ideology. Because of this people just jump to conservatism. I am trying to brainstorming if you are not willing to listen to ideas then go back to your echo chambers and don't bother to listen. Whatever I'm not a libertarian labels are stupid anyways they confine you.
>>77891968
Hows this:
Decide what you believe and stop forming your opinions around those of a specific political group.
Trump 2016
>>77887580
>paying people for simply existing
Top wew, faggot.
>>77887580
If you take away all levels of government, it wins.
>>77887580
I want to support it, but ultimately a big problem is that it simply wouldn't replace other welfare programs directly.
People need food and shelter, therefore we have food stamps and low-income housing programs. It's very difficult to take your housing subsidy and buy drugs/buy alcohol/gamble/etc with it. Same with education.
However, there exists a large part of the population that doesn't make remotely good choices with their money, so their family might end up starving as a result. This means we would still need additional welfare programs for these sorts.
>>77887580
Won't happen unless you have univeral guaranteed production otherwise you get starving people living in communist countries giving costanza faces like Anastasia here.
>>77887580
>universal income begins
>prices on cheap shit skyrocket immediately because there's no longer anyone barely scraping by now, therefore, manufacturers raise prices accordingly
>those who were on the bottom before are immediately on the bottom again.
Yep, that sounds about right, leaf.
>>77887580
>ake away all levels of government, end public education and public health care. Instead, everyone gets a universal basic income that is not effected by the amount of money you make.
It wouldn't work like that. If you wanted people to cover education and health care with it, it'd have to be set so high that it'd make work unattractive for a big chunk of the population.
>>77891853
That's how our welfare system works anyways. Everybody is entitled to "enough" money for renting a small appartment, food and other basic needs, about 750€/month. If you fuck up and are unable to manage your money yourself the agency will automatically send the rent to your landlord and give you a bunch of foodstamps so that it's pretty much impossible to become homeless or starve. Problem cases like junkies or mentally ill folks get personal guardians assigned to them who manage everything, in the worst case. And it werks just fine without our economy collapsing - yet.
One problem is, while 750€ isn't a lot of money, there are plenty of shitty jobs where you can barely earn more, if at all. As a result we have plenty unemployed people with zero incentive to ever look for a job again. If you have the choice between 750€ for doing nothing (well, you gotta pretend that you're looking for a job at least) and say 850€ for a shitty blue collar part-time job, why bother?
And that's where basic income is a better idea than welfare. It actually gives people more incentive to work. The only remaining question is, where will the money come from?
>>77887580
Universal income will only work when Automation takes over the majority of production. And it will, eventually. Until then you work and you get paid.
Again, this will only work, and actually be required, to avoid bloodshed, when automation of industry reaches a certain level, thus cause an unsustainable increase of displaced workers.
>>77887580
>Does anyone else here support this?
Not necessarily supporting it, but I think it would be an improvement over the system Germany currently has, where a large part of the taxes paid for it get eaten up by the bureaucratic process and especially unqualified people are discouraged from getting a job because it would leave them with not much more (if not even less) than they get on welfare.
It should be limited to just enough for a small apartment (and not one in the capital, if you want to live in a big city get a job you fucking leech) and food plus bus fare maybe. Enough that you don't have to sell yourself into wage slavery just to survive, not enough that you can actually comfortably live on it.
>>77887843
If you ever introduced it, you'd need to either
a) have it as separate currency which can only be spent on certain goods
b) grow a pair of balls and tell the morons who went hungry that it's their own fault and they better learn from that mistake if they don't want to starve
>>77887580
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZgUhN_sF6E
this demonic spawn tells the story
>>77887580
Nigger kids would still starve because giving their nigger parents more free money isn't going to change their dumb nigger ways. Fuck, I wish I was wrong.
>>77887580
Weed
>>77894940
>>77887580
Elimination of the welfare cliffs within the current system is a far smaller but more achievable goal.
