That's why they say "let God into your heart"

If I value an object, but the object exists outside of my mind, does that make the value objective?

The point is that you can have a subjective view of the higher moral order, but that doesn't mean the higher moral order itself is subjective.

What do you mean by "the higher moral order"?

God

What do you mean by "God"?

that's quite a straw man

>flag
>God

can you spot the difference? 🤔 🤔 🤔

What do you mean by "God"?

I already answered that question. Read the Bible if you want to know.

Circular reasoning bruh.

>What is this rock?
limestone
>what is limestone?
a type of rock
>What is this rock?
limestone
>Circular reasoning!

... what did you expect from circular questioning?

Going full postmodernist on me doesn't help your argument that morality is objective.

I'm going full postmodernist? This really isn't a genuine discussion anymore.

I never understood why I had to pledge to the flag every morning. Did my allegiance expire over night?

it's a picture of a pipe, not a pipe. halfthink btfo

@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.

@whiic NIT is friedman's version of UBI, i.e. All NITs are UBIs but not all UBIs are NITs.

Also you need to find a higher quality of conservative

Leftists propose UBIs as solutions to automation, Libertarians propose NITs as solutions to welfare

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.

UBI will only increase automation.

If min wage is a price floor then a NIT would be a subsidy is the idea really.

The ultimate goal is UBI/Star Trek society, I think we’re just pushing it too quickly.

Like generations too soon, and resources way too soon.

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.

The welfare system kills personal ambition, IMO. There’s not enough wealth (in any measure) to make everyone comfortable and also nurture ambition.

Ambition is natural.

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.

Not that any libertarian worth their salt is going to propose a UBI provide a comfortable middle class existence. Usually you'd see them require subletting rent at the least.

Welfare is also clearly unconstitutional in the states.

General welfare clause as it’s interpreted disputes that.

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

Just a piece of paper, according to Hamilton.

Pieces of paper matter.