!agree

Copypasting my rant about Tim being completely illiterate about UBI here:

Yeah. I ranted on another Discord yesterday how insanely upside down Tim "gets" what UBI actually is.
He talks about UBI competing with taking a job in McDonald's making McDonald's having to raise the salary of employees, just to keep them. Which is inverse of the typical left-wing argument against UBI: it allows corporations to pay less because the pay is subsidized by taxpayers.
Basically, socially conservative socialists tend to argue against UBI because they frame it as corporations benefiting from tax money. And although I disagree with them if that invalidates UBI, they are at least more correct about the facts than Tim Pool is. But I cannot really be surprised by a kigger not knowing how money works and what incentivizes and disincentivizes people to work.
He claims that having few hundred dollars for every citizen disincentivizes working (and it does to a very, very small amount but not much since living off such amount is miserable, it's basically just to ensure you wouldn't starve) and in argument against UBI, actually presents a valid critique toward Finnish existing welfare system that tortures unemployed people with paperwork, unneeded re-training (run by consultation agencies who get paid by government), etc.

Finland even has a phenomenon where companies lay off people, and should they not get a new job immediately, they need to go to the welfare agency to prove that they are an active job seeker (rather than a leech), they get unpaid traineeship offer that is required to take in order to have any social security. And the welfare workers send you to "train" in the company where you worked as a paid employee for years, "practicing" the job you earlier got. It's just that rather than getting for example 2000 eur from your employer, now you would get about 1000 eur from the tax-payer. The company would get you as a slave.
And this is what Tim Pool agrees with, because "UBI is socialism". And the sad part is that very few in the center understand UBI. Only far-lefties and far-righties do... and far-left opposes it because it's not equality of outcome (as you can still affect the bottom line by choosing to work) and far-right opposes it because they are ancaps and oppose every welfare imaginable (even if UBI is by far the least disturbing form of welfare to the job market since it does not compete with working as you can actually keep it even if you work).
In a perfect world, one might hope centrists would understand how UBI works (just like many who are economically far-left or far-right do), but realize they don't have the reasons they have to oppose it (i.e they are neither ancaps nor communists). But no. Centrists just seem to run in the problem of being too dumb to even understand what UBI is.
/rant

@H3llbender I don't really get the difference between NIT and UBI. That said, all conservatives I've talked over the internet call me a commie for supporting NIT/UBI... even though Finnish ancaps (reluctantly) support NIT/UBI because why it's not go-die-in-the-gutter welfare model, it's the closes to that that there could be.

Still too socialist for Tim Pool.

I guess it's the idea of paying even the people unwilling to work that grinds the gears the most, despite existing welfare systems also paying to the unwilling, as long as you play the system correctly and pretend to be willing. UBI is openly OK with unwilling to work getting paid, which causes moral outrage.

Usually leftwingers oppose UBI, though because a non-automated income redestribution is more "caring" and has more "heart". Because UBI cannot intervene if you use your money on drugs, etc. Basically, leftwingers want a nanny state where the state pays directly to the housing company, directly to the grocery store, etc. via means like food stamps.

Basically, left wing thinks that bureaucracy is love.

And the (low quality, emotions before facts type) conservative on the other hand opposes NIT/UBI because "you shouldn't have a welfare system at all". And they ignore that there **already is one**, and UBI would be to **replace** the ineffective old system.

But they treat it in vacuum: because UBI is not full ancap mode, they reject it. They only accept total abandonment of welfare.

Hence, the current, ineffective bureaucracy hell prevails to see another day, because the hard ancap let-them-die-in-gutter is unelectable agenda to run on. And bureaucracy wins with the help of ancaps.

@H3llbender Yeah. I think a proper UBI would be like 600-700 euros/month giving Finnish living costs. It would not be lavish living.

Hint: current welfare via bureaucracy gives 1000+ eur/month but only to the gamers who know how to play the system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

This idea that only libertarians that are libertarians need to be ancap, is the cancer that ensured these libertarians will **all be autistic** without concept of gray area.

Ancap is political autism.

Ancom is political schizophrenia...

@H3llbender Well, minarchism (i.e small "L" libertarians, thicc libertarians) are also pretty much co-opted by ancap thinking.

They are just ancaps who allow for police. Even they reject: roads, welfare, etc.

@halfthink Halfthink really suit as your name.

How is private police different from mafia, btw?

@DefinitlyNotInsane - NL What prevents private police from stealing as well?

@halfthink And different mobs didn't fight each other over turf? How is private police competing against each other different from mafia?

@DefinitlyNotInsane - NL Did morality prevent the mafia from operating?

Title of "police" means nothing without some formal power granted to them.

And they are just human. They are just as easily corrupted as mafia itself.

Who grants them?

Gouuuuud!

Gawwwd does not exist. Sorry.

Does not exist either.

And even if we assumed it did exist, what are the rights granted by that higher existence?

@H3llbender Which are the natural rights? Which rights did God give us?

For example, many (even libertarians) think copyright is natural.

I think that's the biggest load of shit I've ever heard, to argue copyright monopoly as a natural right.

Because it's "property". Property of an idea. Or word.

@halfthink But isn't all property kind about positive rights?

For example, is any land you circle with a fence "your land"?

Well, some would fence of more land they can work with, just because it's expected that free land will run out, and being too greedy allows them to sell it with nice profit later, when there's no land to grab onto.

Basically, Molyneux land ownership logic stopped working a few hundred years ago in USA, and was already outdated much earlier in Europe.

Which would be?

What's wrong with Georgism?

Land use tax is probably more just way to tax than income or trade tax is.

@H3llbender And if there's nothing wrong with Georgism or Geo-Libertarianism, what is that makes it annyoing?

I know it annoys hardline capitalists because they like to think land as property the same way niggers were property once.

But what makes Georgists the most annoying?

@H3llbender Same role? As in threatened some part of capitalism, just like slavery abolitionists did?

I mean, threatening to release a type of property (whether it's land or niggers), it annoys the owners.

I'm a Geo-Libertarian, btw, despite being a land-owner.

Randians aren't ancap.

Ayn Rand was minarchist.

...also Rand supported copyright because she was a selfish bitch who wanted monopoly of her writings.

@halfthink No-one's perfect.

@Unwound Well, that applies more to copyright than to land. And you can modify the land, but you didn't create it.

On the other hand, if copyright was a legit property, what is the libertarian argument against Cultural Appropriation?

Nah, I was asking against. But I was particularly asking it from @Unwound because he said "own work that you produced? how absurd" and I found it a particularly retarded thing to say.

I'm definitely against intellectual monopolies, as they aren't even tangible goods but just ideas. You cannot own an idea, if you cannot even own a nigger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyS1j2EeSrc

I don't think art will die if copyright did.

Whether it's painting something on canvas, mural or Sistine chappel, copyright doesn't even come to it.

And lots of digital arts is released on other funding models to begin with such as Patreon.

Commissions.

Considering it's illegal to take photographs outside, with a known building on the background, behind your friend, I think pressure to destroying copyright is already past the point of salvaging copyright.

And the CP promoters are just pushing more and more dystopian levels of protection, more dystopian levels of monitoring, and more dystopian jurisdictions for both police and private investigators. And extortion letters, etc.

@Yuukimaru Some countries in Europe has copyright extended to architecture. And the consider the copyright to belong to the architect, not the photographer.

Same could be said about fixing the EU.

Yet both the copyright holders and EU resist being regulated or fixed. Of course they do. The critique is coming from outside.

To check whether you have the right to take pictures of buildings and art placed in public areas, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

Both EU and copyright are jokes separately. You don't even need to combined them to make a joke.

Still a better than:

An hour long commentary? What makes it worth listening to?

@ihereou How does "bestiality" agree with "lolicon"? Your meme is broken. Here, have some toes.

Well, the meme about handshaking is with two entities agreeing, and handshake being labeled as the thing they agree on. So "Canada" (as an entity) and "Bestiality" (as an entity?) agree on "lolicon".

What was that meme about, then?

Canada and "bestiality" agree on getting rid of lolicon?

Hmmm... I'm probably out of the loop. So Canada has legalized bestiality?

But criminalized fictional CP?

That's rather weird, considering animals are at least... real.

But... **CANADA**. Need not say more.

What about Islamic child brides?

Is Canada multicultural enough?

(Meanwhile banning lolicon despite not involving actual humans.)

There's this funny dilemma of many countries allowing child marriages (or polygamy) even if illegal under country's own law, if formed outside country's borders... and even if the spouses aren't legally allowed to have sexual relations.

Who's Monica Rial? Some voice actress? (I watch all my anime subbed, so fuck her.)

Or not fuck. Don't stick it in crazy.

Also, what controversy is she commenting about?

@Stefan Payne
>Because all people have the right to tell their opinion.
But I'm not obligated to listen.

Nomen est omen.

Like I said, all shitlordy types should make their primary effort to tie blood emoji to Ebola-chan.

(correction: like I said on Sargon's server)

People like halfthink is why libertarians are a joke.

Private laws... lol. Tells a lot about libertarians spergy side (the ancap retards) that they call judges work as "just giving their opinion". Sure, consideration is required but they make the consideration based on the law. In anarchy there's no law. You could have a private judging executing someone based on ugliness of a garden gnome because **why the fuck not**. Why would you need a written law when you can have private law (i.e you just give an opinion).

You can argue that of course make it based on NAP but **dude, that's just an opinion**. You could also have anarchotyranny (in a different sense that it's understood under statehood). You'd probably have EULAs that would not only just be legally enforceable but carried out privately. Small print declaring you give their child to the land owners rape dungeon, along with all your other belongings. Why the fuck not.

halfthink already proved that a libertarian society would not defend liberty, when he said animal fuckers would be shot, despite not violating NAP.

So... killing in general not a violation of NAP?