... which is totally different from attaching strings to ToS'es or employment contracts.

Gosh, i hope some sweet day all those libertarians would realize, that government is not by definition bad but instead required for everything free markets cannot achieve (tragedy of commons, responsibility diffusion). And similarly, you to realize that you only critized goverments, without a UBI-unique spin or a constructive solution.

What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?

Careful, whatever you want to reply here, i am going to project it onto large private corporations immediately ... something you seem to be unable to.

▲

almosthere a day ago | parent | next [-]

> What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?

Then bad actors would immediately kill all the leaders of said government because they made their location data available. (you said 100% transparent).

Also there are too many definitions for "ideal sense". It could mean it's 100% allowable to kill, steal, rape, etc... Since in a 100% direct democracy everyone will vote for the thing that's 100% good sounding to them.

	▲	throwawayqqq11 a day ago \| parent [-]
		... then lets extend the definition of an ideal government to include the absolute monopoly of power, which is a hard requirement of nation states/governments anyway.

▲

coldtea a day ago | parent | prev [-]

>... which is totally different from attaching strings to ToS'es or employment contracts

Yes, quite different, since government is a singular entity, and also a monopoly of power and a monopoly of violence. You can find another job, not another government, lest you immigrate.

>And similarly, you to realize that you only critized goverments, without a UBI-unique spin or a constructive solution.

I already gave the UBI-unique spin: governments with UBI control the very basis of the livelihood of the citizenry, including creating a whole large underclass with no other income than that.

>What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?

What if everybody got a magical pony?

>Careful, whatever you want to reply here, i am going to project it onto large private corporations immediately ... something you seem to be unable to.

Or you know, there's a trivial answer for that, which I already half-gave in this post. You seem to believe I think "large private corporations" are fine, or I'm some Ayn Rand type - as if you can't understand any other angle of critique to UBI.

▲

throwawayqqq11 a day ago | parent [-]

> as if you can't understand any other angle of critique to UBI.

I think i have to repeat: You didnt criticise UBI but gov. abuse of power. Which could already reach deep down into everyones life in plenty of other domains besides UBI. Is any kind of state service by definition bad now?

Heck, we could even unnecessarily complicate the issue by putting the UBI responsibility on an extra governmental body, neither state nor private. The true question still remains: Is this whatsoever organisation good or bad and what to do about it. Once we close in on that answer, you might conclude that democracies are in principle pretty neat but this

> You can find another job, not another government

gives me little hope.

Your pessimistic stance on goverments hinders you from accurately describing problems with it, which means you cant articulate constructive solutions too. And as a cherry ontop, you might even reject reasonable policies "because government". Sounds pretty Randian to me.

▲

coldtea 15 hours ago | parent [-]

>I think i have to repeat: You didnt criticise UBI but gov. abuse of power. Which could already reach deep down into everyones life in plenty of other domains besides UBI. Is any kind of state service by definition bad now?

Ah, here's the difference: You're considering UBI based on the idea that "if governments behave well and to the interest of the people, UBI is fine too". I'm starting from real world governments and their real world behaviors, not fantasy.

In the real world, total control of hundreds of millions of people livelihood via a standardized UBI scheme, is a huge additional government tool for abuse. And the extra reach and power it gives government, and the constant dependency it adds, it's a totally new game.

And that's not compared to some dictatorship or "emergency powers" (which duh!, can be more abusive), UBI would be a steadily available tool for low-burning abuse and subtle control.

>Heck, we could even unnecessarily complicate the issue by putting the UBI responsibility on an extra governmental body, neither state nor private

Ah, yes, like the FED for example. Controlled by government but also unaccountable when it's more convenient to those in power.

>Your pessimistic stance on goverments hinders you from accurately describing problems with it, which means you cant articulate constructive solutions too

Actually my pragmatic stance on governments ("pessimistic" and "optimistic" stances are for people unconnected with reality, of course the latter way more so), which means I'm not in favor in giving them huge guns to extend their power more, especially given their track record.

But if you look at the world around you, and think "it's pretty neat", more power to you.

	▲	throwawayqqq11 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm starting from real world governments and their real world behaviors, not fantasy. In the real world, many dictatorships have formed without UBI. Yet you regard UBI as a certain step towards it and even pretend its a hard argument against it, meanwhile the problems root causes you are concerned about are entirely detached from UBI. You are simply projecting. I cant state it any more clearly. You are a lost cause.