We have seen the future, and it sucks.

The Top Three Arguments Against a Universal Basic Income

9th September 2017

Read it.

The first argument, which nobody in these degenerate modern times ever mentions, is that it is fundamentally immoral, because it steals from one group of people in order to give unearned income to another group of people. The primary motivation for this institutionalized theft, in a quasi-democratic state like America, is to buy the votes of the underclass under the Clever Plastic Disguise of Compassion. ‘He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.’

3 Responses to “The Top Three Arguments Against a Universal Basic Income”

  1. Roy Heath Says:

    I ran across an article about this concept a few months ago that mentioned support for the idea from Milton Friedman among other libertarian leaning economists. A little googling led to several links proving that it was true to an extent. Friedman’s argument was that universal basic income as a replacement for other forms of public assistance would be cheaper and result in fewer market distortions than existing programs and any other alternatives that have been proposed. I’m starting to warm to the idea as we enter an era when a significant percentage of the population of first world countries will be in a position where it is impossible for them to contribute enough value to the economy to match their basic consumption requirements (food, lodging, clothing, basic medical care, etc.). We truly live in interesting times.

    (BTW I do realize that not all of Friedman’s ideas were good, we have him to thank for income tax withholding for example)

  2. Elganned Says:

    The real reasons, in order: I don’t care, I don’t care, I don’t care.

  3. Roy Heath Says:

    Can anyone explain just exactly what the hell Dennis is trying to communicate?