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.

No, people think General Welfare means a bunch of stuff it doesn't. The meaning is clearly laid out in the constitution.

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

Which is why you've seen libertarians utterly shut up about UBI once it got to leftist minds.

The issues that are always run into are how things have been interpreted. I think you have to start from here and move forward, not try to reargue settled arguments.

Libertarians don't support UBI by definition.

Libertarians think they are the only libertarian in the room

Libertarianism is perfect, except we’ve already got systems that work that conflict with their beliefs.

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

Really it is split 50-50 between minarchists and anarchists

Arguing with a libertarian is usually a nightmare. Almost as bad as arguing with a communist.

Libertarianism is based on the non aggression principle. You can't advocate for something that violates that and still call yourself a libertarian.

Yes, communism can work. No, it can’t work in any practical sense today.

Post scarcity is fantasy, not sci fi, comrade.

@halfthink Commies advocate for things that violate the core of their belief system all the time

communism is close to perfect on very small scales but as soon as you dont see/speak/know the people you are sharing with it goes to shit

I don' t know why other utopian ideologues can't

Communism is incoherent, it is impossible to advocate for it at all.

Communism as a system of government cannot work. It is inherently authoritarian.

Their core beliefs are set up in a capitalist world. They’re not possible in a world where resources are scarce.

NAP STATUS VIOLATED

That is the issue.

Resources will always be scarce.

At the end of the day I'll say that the moment that Anarcho-communism becomes possible, Anarcho-Capitalism became possible a few moments prior. Both are utopian.

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.

There is zero chance a spacefaring society like a Star Trek world doesn’t become communist.

Ancap is political autism.

Communism is science fiction.

Ancom is political schizophrenia...