There is no moderate decision with either choice. That’s the crux of the problem with modern politics. I’d soon see a global slash and burn policy than to choose between either of those choices.
I think , to a degree , Your wish is coming to be, as we speak.
Z_S:
“So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income?” Yes, basic income just means everyone gets the money, people can earn other income as they do now.
“[I]s the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody?” Yes, it’s the same amount for everyone
“Will some individuals still have more wealth than others?” Yes. Think of it as establishing a floor: everyone gets $X/year, and they can go from there. Wealth and income inequality would still exist, though presumably at a lower level than they do today (assuming the UBI is funded through progressive taxation and has the affects I believe it would have).
By convincing people on humble internet backwaters, of course! Winning the hearts and minds!
But seriously, this looks a lot like the expectation-racist-violence-justifies-racist-violence argument. The fact that people don’t support it doesn’t entail that it’s a bad or ineffective policy intervention. It may not be where sitting politicians should expend their limited political capital at the moment, but then I don’t see that kind of consideration holding you back from casually endorsing soft white nationalism.
Uccisore, you make a good point about the future-focused nature of scaring people away from the other party. And I think that tells you something about why future focus is so scarce in positive political visions: for any group of people, it’s relatively easy to find a description of the future that they will all agree is bad, but it’s quite difficult to find one where they all agree it’s good. That’s true even where people ostensibly agree about a lot of things. Take the Clinton vs. Bernie divide on the left: in terms of achievable policy outcomes they aren’t that different, but you can barely keep the house hanging together due to the small differences in the ideal world they’d like to see. I see something similar going on on the right, though it’s suppressed because they’re in a position to achieve their achievable policy outcomes.
Explain that to me since I’ve always heard that universal basic income would only go to those that need it mainly those with a consistent history of having little to no income whatsoever.
Why would a millionaire for instance collect a universal basic income?
So, in other words nothing really changes as some will still have more than others and with that rule over them.
Good luck with that, remember that they own all of the internet including the shut off button.
Violence begets violence as is standard of all human history which I’m sure you’re already aware of.
The rest of your post makes a bit of a mockery of me for surely you think of me as a naive simpleton as your tone towards me expresses such. I would of expect a more in depth reply concerning this conversation from you but I guess that was asking for too much.
I can think of two reasons, not equally persuasive:
- Trying to target a universal income means making a big elaborate bureaucracy around it. It increases the overhead of running the program, and it increases the political pork barreling that can be done with it.
- Making everyone get it changes how people think about it. When it’s raised, it’s raised for everyone. When it’s lowered, it’s lowered for everyone. I find this reason less important, but not nothing.
It creates a floor of individual wealth. I think that’s important, even if the floor is low. It meaningfully decreases the degree to which people are ruled over, because they have a minimum amount of autonomy, a minimum amount of power to exert. People can quit their job knowing they won’t starve.
I also think it changes dynamics at the community level significantly. Think of opening a store in a poor community. At present, there’s not enough money in some communities to justify that kind of investment. So no one in the neighborhood can open a store in their community, and the people in the community have a harder time getting work, and when they buy things they spend that money outside that community. Over time, there is a net money outflow from the poor community, and it’s a vicious cycle because the more money flows out, the poorer it is, the less space for investment.
Introduce a basic income and things change. There’s money flowing into the community. That money allows for people to invest in the community with an expectation that the community will have enough money to make it worth while. Now you have a virtuous cycle, where the whole community has a floor to their poverty. That gives every member of that community more opportunity, more choice, more freedom.
I own this site, and there are others like me. I do think a distributed mesh network would be better, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near the point where we need one.
That’s a bad habit of mine, and I offer a sincere mea culpa. I mean to critique your ideas (and I appreciate your critique of mine), but I don’t mean to mock you.
Well, then we’re left with the inequality of those whose income solely depends on universal basic income and those who receive it but also have another income stemming from somewhere else. With that how has monetary social inequality changed at all?
Yes, having some kind of income is better than not having any kind of income at all however I fail to see how the market won’t price gauge individuals on universal basic income like they do when individual wages rise considerably. For instance people’s wages rise and so individuals that control the markets raise the price on everything including both goods or services.
Also, I fail to see how being dependent on the state for everything is a form of autonomy.
I’ll believe it when I see one. 
Perhaps I am becoming impatient because for me I keep hearing the same tiring inconsistent rebuttals that for me doesn’t explain much of anything. I view myself as a rational racialist and you’ll not meet many others like me that can explain everything in terms of point of views more clearly. I have problems just finding others like myself that embrace similar views.
If you want to have a concise and precise conversation on race, ethnicity, or culture I would really enjoy that. I only ask that you don’t take me lightly and hear out everything I have to say responding to my points where I will do likewise. If we are to learn anything from conversations about this particular subject it requires considerable amounts of dialogue between even opposition or opposing sides. We always hear from the anti- racialist point of view but concerning my side of the argument on the direct opposite we don’t get much consideration at all. Until that changes this particular subject will always install conflict, bickering, and contemptuous behaviors.