Nostr Web Client

If the value for the UBI it's taken from taxes then it'd be an idea based on coercion. Do you think that'd be helpful for humankind?

Do you believe that good ideas should be forced into people with guns?

CitizenPedro 5mo ago 💬 1

I think the idea of taxes being mandatory will change (for the regular person) in the future due to the nature of money shifting rapidly, i.e Bitcoin, internet, remote work, companies, etc, will make it very easy to pay very little tax or none. It's already like this. It's not hard to pay very little to no tax.

So in that sense I do see a future where people can move to no taxes countries or choose to contribute into some kind of UBI dividend or contribution if they really felt that the system was efficient and fair. Because why not? If you have the capital, the system works and benefits you immensely, i.e you pay tax but you win much more because of predictable consumer demand, why not do it? You know what I mean?

I think UBI is the truly the only tool that can kill the Woke mind virus (and socialism, social democracy to be honest), and also unite the right-wing too. Because I can definitely see a world where the right wing gets onboard just to end this global cultural/civil war of socialism, social democracy vs free-market, because it would centralize the debate in a single point, more or less UBI.

Because we all know the current system doesn't work and is very unstable. At any moment you can have these retarded left-wing revolutions that end up destroying vast amounts of productivity. A UBI would centralize the debate in how much more money for a UBI and when, and that's it. Overnight you destroy socialist, social democrat, the greens, feminists, all these crony lobbies we know of. Boom, destroyed.

Because the moment the people have a UBI, they won't want to let it go. You as a capitalist can still move to another nation with no tax, or a smaller UBI, etc, etc.

I think creating a Dividend that cuts from current government and funnels it to a UBI, showing it to the public, "we cut 200B and you get $200 more on the UBI." I think it's the probably the BEST way to truly destroy government. This I think will be the populist governments of the future. I wouldn't be surprised if the America Party of Elon Musk would go in this direction.

I'm going to write more about this, I think there's a lot of very good economical arguments for a free-market, libertarian person, like myself. I want to live in a world with no states and only voluntary relationships as you know. That's always the ideal world in my mind. In that sense I do think the current system is the greatest threat for that. A UBI is in my view a mind virus that teaches the people socialism, social democracy has failed.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Camilo 5mo ago 💬 2

If you want only voluntary relationships and taxes, you may want to check your premises.

CitizenPedro 5mo ago

I understand the message. It's that real politik vs idealism debate. I'm perhaps more on the side of real politik.

For me I think I'm more focused in bringing a world that is becoming black everywhere to a more greyer area. Not to so much to create microscopic patches of white that in practice only work for very few people.

But both teams are the same, I think it's counter productive when people turn their backs over small details, instead of allying on the big picture and end goal.

I don't for example understand Hans Hermann Hoppe rejecting Milei, when he's bringing about a change to millions of people in his own imperfect way. They all want to go in the same direction, there's plenty of ways to work together and find common ground.

But it's always important to look at the method, like you're saying, to keep the ideal light in mind. I agree there but you know what I mean also I think.

Camilo 5mo ago 💬 2

There's only one reality. And in it we may choose to promote and tolerate only consented relationships or we may choose to promote and tolerate coercion. There's no middle ground nor any other alternative.

CitizenPedro 5mo ago

Sure, we agree there too. The question is which action creates the most consented relationships and which creates less. Because like in the Austrian School, the measure/weight of value is subjective. The same has to be true in moral discussions, because true morality is born or discussed in the real world and thus it's always as complex and subjective discussion.

I think it's the real politik, utiliarian view vs the purist view, i.e more people having access to a 50% voluntaryist system vs less people having access to a 100% voluntaryist system discussion. It's hard to measure but both are heading in the same direction.

This is I think both the purist and real politik people are right and both are necessary, because the measure of necessity/moral value is also subjective by definition.

Camilo 5mo ago

The only moral action is the one that doesn't initiate violence. Hence taxation is not moral.

There's no way to escape this.

Utilitarianism is not rational.