
If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again - denzil_correa
https://medium.com/basic-income/if-you-think-basic-income-is-free-money-or-socialism-think-again-4a17e8d15b1
======
uoaei
Basic income is a bottom-up stimulus package, like how bailouts for banks are
"stimulus" packages but nestled in Reaganomics, i.e., expecting the money to
trickle down. Except that bailouts sequester the money almost exclusively in
the banking industry and so are useless for everyone except those who are
already rich, and the government itself.

Basic income fills the economy with money that can be really spent, and like
the article says people will vote with their dollars. I can't understand why
free market fanboys don't like it! It's the best way to incite competition in
the marketplace by removing the exploitative (i.e., freedom-revoking)
abilities of the companies that prey on the lifestyles of low-income workers
who are stuck working multiple jobs just to get by.

~~~
candiodari
How about I just point out the huge flaw here:

Bank bailouts, in theory, are to be paid back, with interest. In a lot of
cases they were. Not all, of course, but the economy turned. Net, bank
bailouts were a good investment. QE may turn out to be as well (I may doubt
that, but truth it the jury's still out)

If that same deal can be made, believably, for basic income, we wouldn't be
having this argument: we'd provide basic income, today, as a loan. Hell, I'd
fight to add my own money to provide that basic income.

Since you pretty much don't like me anymore at this point, why not just go
ahead and fully state the problem:

What we cannot have in the economy, is a large, and potentially exponentially
growing, group of expenses without any useful work.

And when I mean "we cannot" I don't mean that I'm denying this to you. I don't
mean states don't want it. I don't mean I don't want to give everyone that. I
mean we cannot. Any such policy must fail in a limited amount of time.

I mean you cannot have basic income for any length of time in the same sense
that you cannot paint the sky green. Disappointing perhaps, but simply a
parameter of existence, nothing more.

You shouldn't blame economics for this. Nor should you blame states, banks,
the rich, or anyone. The only things to be blamed for it is thermodynamics. Of
course the universe couldn't exist stably without those laws, so maybe math
itself should bear the guilt.

~~~
Retric
In risk adjusted terms bailouts lose money by having easier terms than private
investments.

Further, bailout money came from loans (bonds), and the government lost money
both from the loan payment and the higher interest rate from selling more
bonds.

People in prison do no work yet society has plenty of surplus to cover them.
The reality is minimum wage jobs are a tiny slice of the economy because they
create so little value. If BI means 1/2 of those jobs don't get done then no
great loss.

~~~
pmorici
Lots of prisoners work and they are paid below minimum wage to subsidize there
housing cost.

~~~
theyregreat
In the US, paying prisoners is technically optional per the 13th amendment
loophole.

Furthermore, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and
combined with for-profit prisons’ political contributions, there are perverse
incentives and outright corruption to overprosecute poor and minorities, as
evidenced by the skewed prison vs. entire US demographics.

And it’s _”their”_

~~~
pmorici
Yes, that is the point, they are not paying them fairly and pocketing the
difference to subsidize prison costs. Meaning using prisons as an example of
UBI being viable isn't a compelling argument.

Pointing out typos like that is boorish.

------
pjc50
Well, it _is_ free money, that's the point; but neither that nor being
"socialism" automatically makes it bad.

This article is an interesting way of pitching basic income to a
"capitalist"/right audience by phrasing it in ways like "basic income is fuel
for markets", "buying is like voting" (!) and "I like markets. I want to
reduce the size of government. I want less bureaucracy. I want less
administration. I want fewer government jobs."

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes, it was an unusual article in that the author was doing a lot of work to
strawman-out conservatives and then make the UBI pitch.

It wasn't a _bad_ pitch, but it felt really loose and meandering, like it
could have ran a third of its length and been much more cogent and direct.
Instead of direct and succinct, I got the feeling of an author standing out in
a field, waving their arms around, while breathlessly making all sorts of
tangentially-related generalizations and responses.

And I think that's the problem here: folks on both sides of the UBI issue
would rather deal in generalities and grandstanding instead of just trying the
dang thing out a bunch of times and seeing what works and what doesn't.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. was obviously in need of some kind of revamping of
its healthcare system. Instead of trying hundreds of things out and quickly
iterating a learning over time, what happened was that the issue was argued at
the highest level of abstraction and in generic terms: what kind of modern
country doesn't provide healthcare for it's people?

It took decades of argument, and in the end we got a one-size-fits-all
solution that is now going to take decades to modify and adjust. If you want
responsive government, this way of discussion and change is a dysfunctional
way to improve the quality of people's lives.

So with UBI, I'm quite interested in the various experiments and the low-level
details of what was tried and what kind of results are produced, much more so
than some nebulous arguing and strawmanning around the concept in general. I
support the concept in general -- if we're going to spend a lot of money on
the poorer folks in society (I believe that isn't changing), then we should be
constantly looking for ways to make the outcomes better. Big, animated
discussions around what socialism is or isn't? Not part of an effective
national dialog.

Also, Alaska is not a conservative state. It's a libertarian one. Many, many
people seem to want to conflate libertarianism with conservatism. They are
entirely separate (Insert long discussion here about the differences between
libertarianism in the states and conservatism. Also another discussin about
just what the heck conservatism is after the election of the recent president.
Neither of these discussions are probably useful or germane to the topic of
the essay)

~~~
sn9
Like most Medium posts, the author could have used an editor.

------
jasonlfunk
> Everyone should get enough money to be able to refuse to work. That way, the
> incentive is shifted to employers, where it should be. Want someone to do
> something? Pay them enough to do it.

This sounds nice in theory, but how doesn’t this result in price inflation?
Not only are you going to be taking a portion of businesses’ profits in taxes,
but now you are increasing the cost of labour. And frankly, some jobs suck so
badly that no one is going to want to do them without being paid a ton of
money. For example, manual agricultural labor. Food costs would almost
certainly skyrocket. (Unless you account for illegal immigrants, which you
couldn’t naturalize because then you’d have to give them a UBI).

~~~
Stefstefstef
I don't know about the US but in my country manual agricultural labor pays so
much only immigrants living in hay barns can afford to do the work. for
everyone else it doesn't pay enough to do the work

~~~
BartSaM
Would be nice if you would mention what is your country.

------
Mz
I can't manage to get past about paragraph two. What an idiotic piece of
writing with zero basis in reality.

Money is not a means to "vote" on what we should produce. Money is a means to
reduce friction in the trade process. It does other things as well, but its
primary purpose is to make it easier to get the things we want by reducing how
much time and effort goes into coming up with a thing to trade for the thing
we want.

So, say you want a steak dinner and you are a programmer. You don't have to go
to the restaurant and offer to program something for the owner in order to get
your steak dinner. You program for your employer. They give you money. You
take money to the restaurant. The restaurant doesn't have to have immediate
need of programming to cut a deal with you.

There is an argument to be made wrt the idea that lots of people are adding
value to the system that is hard to quantify, hard to translate into money,
etc and those people shouldn't be left out in the cold, not just because it is
cruel, but because it actively harms the system as a whole. I was a homemaker
and the _feminization of poverty_ is a genuine phenomenon. A big piece of that
puzzle isn't sexism per se, but the simple fact that women are expected to
invest time and energy in taking care of other people on an ongoing basis. The
degree to which they do this for other people often doesn't really come back
to them.

But, I am doubtful that basic income does anything to remedy that situation.
In fact, I have fears that it would only serve to entrench the expectation
that women should just accept basically being treated like slaves by the world
around them. I don't think this is a good thing. It is one of the reasons I am
not pro UBI.

I think there are much better ways to try to not leave people out in the cold
entirely. They include universal basic healthcare and access to genuinely
affordable housing. Addressing those two issues wouldn't fix everything for
everyone, but neither will UBI.

I think this is an unusually good write up of some of what is broken with the
idea of UBI:

[https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/after-universal-basic-
incom...](https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/after-universal-basic-income-the-
flood-217db9889c07)

~~~
untangle
The article that you linked was well-thought and well-written. I liked the
more bottom-up approach to the issues and that Mr Sarris at least offered
kernels of alternatives.

Ignoring for a moment that the decision-making ability of the US legislature
is all but broken, I worry that the sheer complexity of the issues surrounding
UBI would make adoption – or even learned consideration – impossible.

And, as you and Sarris mention, the relationship between UBI and healthcare
and housing (rents) is a whole other can of complexity.

~~~
Mz
His article is a delight to read, if only for how he wittily plays with words.

------
jondubois
I think that some sort of UBI has become absolutely necessary.

People who have money tend to have so much of it that they can't possibly
spend it efficiently - There is no way for the money to trickle down evenly
because wealthy individuals rarely interact with people who are outside of
their own social class. In the case of extremely wealthy individuals, they
even have to hire a security detail in order to further insulate themselves
from the lower classes.

I think that's why cryptocurrencies are going up so much; the very rich can
afford to keep 'throwing away' an unlimited amount of surplus money. I don't
think cryptocurrencies are a bubble because bubbles only pop when the fear
sets in; but if you have unlimited money which you don't care about losing,
you have nothing to fear. The way I see it, cryptocurrencies are like UBI for
tech people.

------
jostylr
The author also has a series of different ideas on how to pay for it without
raising income taxes. I found that more interesting than this, but I already
fully support and believe in the capacity for amazing stuff from people who
are set free

[https://medium.com/economicsecproj/how-to-reform-welfare-
and...](https://medium.com/economicsecproj/how-to-reform-welfare-and-taxes-to-
provide-every-american-citizen-with-a-basic-income-bc67d3f4c2b8)

------
rentmoney
UBI is free money for landlords.

Just once, just one single time, I'd like to hear or read a convincing
explanation for how UBI will not be completely captured by rents. I'm still
waiting.

~~~
PoachedSausage
You fund it with a Georgist style land value tax.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

~~~
taysic
When you tax something you penalize it - so in this case you'd penalize owning
land. This would seem to concentrate land in the hands of the wealthy as far
as I can see.

------
stesch
After a few years of reading UBI (Universal Basic Income) debates I come to
the conclusion that it is impossible to teach humans new tricks. The way you
earn and spend money is deeply ingrained into our brains.

When the Neanderthal used the ATM he knew that it was his successful killing
of a sabre tooth that lead to the money he had in his hands.

Maybe we should just skip this immediate step and go full on Star Trek/Venus
Project.

~~~
hyperpallium
Some things are already free, such as the air. We don't worry about it day-to-
dzy, because we have that need met. Once a need is met, we worry about the
next one. There is no end to our needs and wants. So, with basic income, it
just means all those needs step up one rung.

But without basic needs met, a workforce is less productive.

It's a similar argument as for universal health care and education. If that's
too contentious, consider that most civilizations provide many things to their
citizens, such as roads, currency, military, law and law enforcement. that are
free to the user.

Thw difference is that today, basic income can be afforded by the state.

------
k__
What are good alternatives?

How can we motivate people to work but still keep them from being poor?

I have some ideas, but no real solution.

For example, I work as a software developer and after I switched to self
employment I noticed that I made more money by working less. I started seeing
people everywhere making money with stuff that requires far less "hard skills"
then software development.

And still people do this, they work for much less than they're worth, so it
can't be "just money" that motivates people to work.

~~~
logicallee
>What are good alternatives?

I'm not an expert but here is my thinking:

Basic income could be interest-free debt extended by the government, whose
repayment is done entirely from future taxes, i.e. without increasing the
taxes they would have otherwise paid.

This would motivate people to stop accumulating the debt quickly, it would
force people to make investments into their education (to increase earnings
later), and it would act as a smaller incentive to game the system than a pure
money transfer.

The basic reason basic income is so important is that people are not able to
make any investment of their time if they are trying to make ends meet: going
to work for McDonald's is not an effective strategy for climbing out of the
poverty hole.

Staying home and attending classes or learning a skill, however, is. There are
few people whose natural talents are so low that after investing 5-10 years,
they cannot become skilled or productive enough to contribute meaningfully to
society.

Additionally it would finance artistic endeavors which often take over a
decade of practice before producing anything worth being sold.

Indeed, many artists could fail ever to make a meaningful tax contribution (to
repay the basic income they were given), however, this may be a burden society
as a whole could bear.

In addition there should be some kind of easy grace period or tapered end of
benefits so that accepting a job does not "endanger" someone's benefits that
they're already receiving.

We can't talk about all the different parts of society, but to talk about this
incentives thing in terms of hackers: some programmers will choose to devote
themselves to open source and take a basic income. This is simply a fact. For
years, (5-10-20 years) they will live on basic income and contribute to open
source. This is just a simple byproduct of introducing basic income.

So what needs to happen is that after someone has done that for 15 years, if a
commercial company wants to hire that hacker for some reason, then there needs
to be a smooth way for the hacker to accept that salary. This transition is a
difficult one, but ideally, over a few years of working for their corporate
sponsors, they'll have generated enough taxes to repay all of their previous
transfer payments. All of the future taxes they generate are now tax base
value that never would have existed without the basic income.

So this kind of a 'success story' can work. Basic income needs to be quite
low, i.e. not much of an incentive, and it is important for people not to feel
like they are endangering their basic income, by taking paid work.

I believe these issues can be solved very well.

------
hal9000xp
Yes, it's a free money! What else it could be??

You give free money to people who don't work (and probably don't want to work
at all) and you naively expect them to have high-level of responsibility in
the sense they eventually find a job and pay back money in form of taxes.

Do you know what's happen if you give free money to people? They just ask for
more money! They won't feel guilty for not working because they would think
it's rich people who has to pay back what they "stole from society" during
last centuries. They would create complicated conspiracy stories which justify
their side.

Many people (if not most!) are completely irresponsible for their own life.
Face it! If it were not true, people in Russia wouldn't support paternalistic
ideology of Putin's government, people in Venezuela wouldn't buy free-lunch
ideology of Hugo Chavez, people around the world wouldn't believe in god to
whom they would beg for solving their problems.

The only reason many people work (and contribute to economy) instead of
drinking beer is that they need money for that beer. If you don't believe me,
just go to Ibiza's San Antonio West End street and see how brits got wasted.

~~~
vertex-four
Perhaps, as a society, we don't need everyone "working" (as in participating
in work-for-wages, as opposed to other forms of ad-hoc and uncompensated
work). In fact, the idea that we do is very new - it's only really in the last
60 years or so that women, a good 50% of the working-age population, have
entered the workforce.

Instead of using involuntary sexism as a basis for shrinking the working
population, perhaps building a system in which working several hours 5-7 days
a week for a wage is more voluntary would be a good thing and allow the
rebuilding of communities and society.

~~~
slfnflctd
Anecdotally, I have been on the receiving end of 'free' food and shelter from
a friend or family member on several occasions (as an adult fully capable of
working, but un- or under-employed). The benefits to my mental health were
immediate and lasting, which in turn benefited those around me. I had free
time and energy to further my education, write songs, produce videos, and try
out some business ideas. I was also glad to take up more of the yuckier
household chores, so those who were earning more wouldn't have to.

In the end, I found that yes, it was easier to be 'more lazy', but that
allowing myself to didn't make me happier (more contented, perhaps, but not by
much in the long run). I realized I would ultimately be better off bringing in
more money doing something that matched well with my higher abilities.

As a man, it didn't fully occur to me until I read your comment how closely my
experience matched that of housewives of the past-- many of whom, as it turned
out, very much wanted to do more sophisticated and lucrative work once they
had the chance.

------
johndoe489
The term "free money" is a silly put down term designed to close a discussion
before it even started. Nothing is free. Money comes from somewhere, and it
goes somewhere.

Even if this money did not end up creating more jobs, or reducing health care
costs and so on, it's still going somewhere and doing something.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
> Money comes from somewhere

Someone entering a few zeros behind another non-zero number into a bank
lending system.

[http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-
mo...](http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/)

------
stmfreak
Money is not a market demand signal, it is a medium of labor exchange. I buy
your labor with my labor. Some labor is more in demand than other labor, some
is in short supply. Money bridges all the divides between these.

Where UBI fails is that it cuts labor out of the mix and allows some to
benefit from the labor of others without performing any labor in exchange. Of
course, banks and politicians have been doing this for decades, but a host can
only support so many parasites.

------
dibbsonline
It's very biased, so the people that get the UBI won't be able to afford nice
things or to live in nice suburbs near good social/health/education services
as people with earned money will be competing for those. Choosing not to work
is choosing to not take part in society, social services are part of a
society.

It still needs some sort of utopia to work, that's where it has some
similarity to socialism, but there is no utopia.

------
tzakrajs
I think UBI needs to be thoughtfully and strategically phased so as not to
disrupt the status quo derogatorily. An overnight switch to UBI seems
politically unfeasible because of typical quixotism of so many people. It's an
experiment on a grand scale which always unnerves markets.

------
IvanK_net
"First, saying basic income is socialism is as absurd as saying money is
socialism. It’s money. It’s all it is. What do people do with money? They use
it in markets. In other words, basic income is fuel for markets."

The brilliant flow of thoughts and deduction just blew my mind.

~~~
Simon_says
If Basic Income isn’t socialism, I shudder to think of what the author would
consider socialism.

~~~
akvadrako
Socialism might be central planning. Basic income is almost the opposite of
central planning, because it replaces all sorts of conditional and focused
welfare with what is equivalent to a negative income tax.

That's why so many libertarians are on board with the idea.

~~~
Simon_says
That doesn’t sound right to me. Speaking as someone with mild Libertarian
tendencies, UBI seems pretty contra to Libertarian ideals. Not the UBI itself,
but the taxation required to fund it. Can you give references to any well-
known Libertarian thinkers who are on board with UBI?

~~~
Firadeoclus
There is more than one strand of libertarianism, and not all of them strive to
minimize taxation. See e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-
libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism)

~~~
Simon_says
Thanks for showing me this. I never knew about "Libertarian Socialists". I'm
afraid of falling into the Scottsman fallacy, but they don't sound like the
other Libertarians I've read.

I couldn't find anything about basic income on that page. Is there any writing
from a self-proclaimed Libertarian in support of UBI?

------
azeotropic
This looks more like an exercise by someone trying (and in my opinion failing)
to pass an ideological Turing test than a real argument.

~~~
tzakrajs
What is an ideological Turing test? I don't think I understand your
parenthetical remark.

~~~
randallsquared
The "ideological Turing test" is the attempt to argue for a position
indistinguishably from a supporter of that position, when you yourself are
not. If you can't convincingly do so, it's strong evidence you do not
understand what supporters believe. Related to, but not identical with,
"steelmanning".

------
simonsarris
> It’s really hard to look at the evidence and say giving people money is
> wrong, because having enough money means being able to buy enough food.

This person is conflating cash transfers (welfare) with UBI. One can think
cash transfers and general welfare are good while still thinking UBI may have
fatal flaws. And anyone that paints UBI experiments as approaching what truly
_Universal_ Basic Income would look like are deceiving. This person is
repeatedly dodging real criticisms.

This article is mostly a verbose emotional string of arguments, but it doesn't
do a very good job of explaining either of its two title claims.

Claim 1: Many people say "socialism" to mean top-down social programs funded
by taxes, e.g. when people say uncontroversially "Sweden is more socialist
than the USA," this is what they mean. UBI is a top-down social program. If
you don't think that, ask yourself: What happens to the payments if the
federal gov collapses or is incapacitated? (Is unable to organize payments or
tax collection). UBI halts everywhere.

As a contrast, Farming is bottom up: For example the government of Afghanistan
could collapse and it may take _years_ before remote individual farmers even
know that it happened. UBI receivers on the other hand would know as soon as
the first check didn't come.

Claim 2: But UBI _is_ "Free Money." That's the point. It has to be
unconditional to be UBI, that's how they draw the distinction. Most people who
advocate for UBI _contrast it specifically_ with means-tested welfare.

> Have you ever played the game Monopoly? I’m sure you have. Is that a game
> about socialism? According to “free money is socialism” logic it is, because
> everyone starts the game with free money and everyone gets free money for
> simply passing Go.

This is a silly analogy. It's not free money even within the game rules.
Passing Go is the condition. You can go to jail in the game, being forced to
skip passing Go, even. Citing a game mechanic as a proof that UBI isn't free
money is bonkers.

When UBI proponents say universal or unconditional, that's what they
(proponents and opponents) are talking about when they mean free.

I made my own criticisms of UBI last week (OP's article is from Sept) where I
raise objections that I think are relevant _even if UBI is agreeably
implemented:_ [https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/after-universal-basic-
incom...](https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/after-universal-basic-income-the-
flood-217db9889c07)

Convincing people that it's not socalism or free money is not enough. You have
to make the argument that price inflation won't occur, that it can fail
gracefully, that destroying the other welfare programs that do more than just
give cash (like case workers in medicaid) is a good idea, and so on. UBI
proponents ignore these just like Marx ignored implementation details, relying
on the World-spirit-of-the-people (an odd kind of hand-waving mysticism) to
ensure that it would work.

If you meet someone pro-UBI, ask them this: What happens if it fails or we can
no longer afford it, after 30 years running? What does the generation that was
never required to work, do?

If they say it won't fail, you know you're not talking to someone interested
in creating a robust system. If your ideal is incapable of planning for
failure, you haven't really thought about your ideals much. We know what large
scale top down social failure looks like, after the last century.

------
purplezooey
The thing I would worry about mainly is inflation.

------
kapauldo
It's free money by definition. It's a bad idea because it will serve as a
sedative.

------
mmjaa
I feel like this basic income ideology is really rooted in laziness - like,
everyone likes free things, right? You don't have to work for it?

But - do we ever really ask where that money is coming from? The rich just
give it? So then, why would I work hard to become rich, if its just going to
be taken from me?

Its like income tax. Everyone loves paying tax on their income, right? (I,
personally, do not.). So why don't we switch to taxing spending, instead? I'd
much rather see the income tax abolished before any UBI fantasy ...

~~~
devdad
Comparing it with laziness is not far away from saying poor people are lazy.
Laziness has nothing to do with it.

More often than not, such claims are often connected with not seeing hidden
privilege as a competitive advantage. Of all of my successful friends, only
one come from a socioeconomic environment that isn't middle class or above.

The ability to climb on the socioeconomic ladder is much harder for those
without means and connections - these means and connections are almost always
directly correlated to your family.

As a personal anecdote, all of my kids friends have parents which are able to
support them financially and are able to work 40-hour weeks. They are all
academics and their kids get the benefit from having the language and mindset
of academics from an early age.

At the same time, my cousin is a couple of steps down on the same ladder. Her
kids friends parents are working part time, often several jobs, and still have
a hard time making ends meet.

My kids are according to studies (on phone so won't be able to reference - an
easy Google away) more likely to achieve economic success, go to college and
have a better chance ending up one step up on the ladder. Her kids are more
likely to end up in crime, less likely to go to college, more likely to stay
in the same socioeconomic class.

I'm pretty sure my work gives me more slack and ability to be able to be lazy
than the part time factory worker. "Free money" would probably create more
equality and a better chance for all kids. Your statement is shortsighted.

~~~
Simon_says
In my opinion, informed by what I’ve witnessed personally amongst my peers,
poor people _are_ lazier, at least in a statistical, group-average sort of
way. This isn’t meant to contradict anything you say about privilege or
economic status of parents. In fact kids learn that hard work and
contentiousness pay off from their role models, parents, and peers. So
successful parents end up having successful kids, and the phenomenon is not
explained fully by Dad’s connections. Saying it’s “privilege” is only the
beginning of understanding. There are some aspects of personality that parents
are imparting to kids, and if you’re interested in helping the rest of the
kids, you have to understand what that is.

------
dingo_bat
I want to write a loooong point-by-point rebuttal but I'm just too lazy. Now
if I were awarded a basic income maybe I'd take out a day and write it up! But
here's a summary:

I am in the top 20% whose income is still going up and whose tax will be used
to pay out the UBI. What's in it for me? Why should I care? I really don't.
And all the politicians are also in the top 1% (POTUS is a fucking
billionaire, former POTUS gets $400k for a speech). Even a poor man becomes
rich when he is elected. Why would he care about the 80%. There is no rational
world in which a UBI will work or be implemented as envisioned by the author.

~~~
madez
The poor won't burn your neighbourhood and threaten your children. That's
what's in for the rich. That sounds dramatic, but look at Brazil, and you can
see that what I'm saying is not hyperbolic.

There is a huge correlation of the success of one person and their
surrounding. In other words, for ones own interest the success of those around
one is important. Helping the weaker helps a lot of other people.

~~~
thescribe
I feel like you're saying that basic income is extortion? That seems like a
bit of an extreme stance.

~~~
madez
I think it depends on how you want to frame what I said. Helping the poor at
least around you is good for you. Now, you could say equivalently not helping
the poor around you is bad for you. Rephrase what I said if you feel
uncomfortable with how I stated it.

If in a mafia controlled city you tell a friend not to publicly expose a
mafioso for else he and is family is in danger, are you blackmailing your
friend or are you simply stating facts?

