“you have made an awful lot of presumptions here that strain credulity”
I’ll adress them in my response to your other comment.
“but are you serious with this response, or just giving me a hard time for some reason?”
Of course I am serious. I am not giving you a hard time. I am asking you to outline your plan.
It seemed more to me as if you were trying to insult and discredit me without understanding my plan. It seemed as if you were insinuating an awful lot that I neither believe nor ever mentioned. But I will take you up on good faith and answer those questions in my response to your other comment, despite my suspicion that you’ll scour it for one sentence to straw man into some ridiculous conspiracy theory or claim and use it to try and descredit me entirely. I hope that you won’t, because I still believe that the real purpose of argument is mutual growth, and not winning, and I have hope that others will see the value in that approach as well.
It is easy to say that you are going to give everybody a basic income. Who doesn’t want that? But where is it going to come from and who is going to foot the bill.
There are many possible ways to go about it, but as a side bit of reading, Scott Santens puts together one very reasonable set of ideas as a start on how to pay.
I put it to you that you are trying to sell a very dangerous old poison in new bottles and I asked you very relevant questions concerning enforcement, price controls, currency devaluation, access to resources and border controls; not to mention cost of living variations from place to place, amongst a myriad of other things that your ridiculously naive vision just completely skips over.
This is because you’re going by a short comment response to another short comment to a short philosophical piece that was intentionally big picture and brief. Any real vision of a UBI plan is necessarily much more complex, and I’ve written much longer, more complex pieces on it (see here and here), and in many ways my ideas have evolved even since writing those. Many others have ventured forth strong ideas as well, if you look for them with an open mind. I would point you to the writing of Karl Widerquist, Scott Santens, Peter Barnes, Philippe Van Parijs, Guy Standing, and many more.
It is easy to get on a soap box these days and sell pretty much any kind of idea just as long as you pepper your speech with a lot of touchy-feely nonsense about “equality,” (whatever that is) and promise people free stuff. But do you actually have a plan that Alexander Solzhenitsyn would not have recognised?
See the above. And see my response to your specific questions in your other comment. I’ll try and ignore all the angry insults as best I can.