Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

moonlune wrote

The former? Is the nuance really important in this case?

2

Squabbles wrote

I think the distinction is important and useful, but that's just from my perspective. I've seen arguments both against and for UBI, and from various anarcho and leftist positions. I'd prefer to read a balanced critique than a potentially selective polemic. Or, at least, I'd prefer to be well-equipped with the full range of pros and cons, and implications, pitfalls, and consequences. That doesn't rule out a critique so devastating as to be a criticism.

3

ziq OP wrote

there are anarchist arguments for the government giving everyone money? how does that work?

3

asterism wrote

I got one word for you: /f/fuckdave

Been awhile but his argument is basically that UBI would lead to a reduction of government control because conservatives would use it as an excuse to phase out all the government welfare programs. With less welfare programs there is less government. Then, with people able to afford shit, many of the governments that are business would die out because people would refuse to work pointless jobs and have the capability to pursue their actual interests.

Even if I agreed with this premise he is somehow confusing no government with less government. Doesnt seem anarchist to me anyway.

2