The one true unifying marker of Libertarianism to me seems to be the ability to deem others as not sufficiently Libertarian. Other than that it's kind of all over the place.
This is not inaccurate. It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand is a good account of this. Spoiler http://lfb.org/products/it-usually-begins-with-ayn-rand/
Bless, you haymitch, you seem like a nice soul who might actually be the one in a hundred of so called "libertarians" who doesn't vote GOP and is not just a conservative with a couple of liberal social stands. Keep the faith, baby. Been to any small meetings or read any obscure websites of the faithful lately where you claim to be the only true "libertarians?
"I don't care what you believe. Just believe in it." - Shepherd Book No more meetings for me. I get nothing out of that. And no, no obscure political websites either. Frankly, I just DGAF anymore.
That seems like not a bug so much as a feature - if the absence of regulation/intervention is always good/better, anybody who tries to build any organizing framework around it, even in the sense of just laying out principles, is always going to be vulnerable to this type of purity test.
I agree with you. What I meant to say was that getting rid of billionaires and power structures has to go hand in hand with setting basic income. I am as certain as you are that just having a basic income won't solve those problems. In fact, I'm saying there's no point setting a basic income if those other two things are still going on.
+1 We need either 1) more jobs, 2) existing jobs to pay much more, or 3)companies to lower prices. Since 2 and 3 are unlikely we need to focus one 1. Problem with that is you need blue collar manufacturing, construction, etc. jobs that pay living wages. You know the the jobs that have been outsourced for years? Since this is also unlikely to happen we need to tax those companies and turn that money into infrastructure WPA type jobs.
Basic income should be accorded to people who are focused on learning or creating new ventures/contributing to open source/collaborative social projects. Society suffers every time somebody decides to devote their time to a low-end function that could be easily automated. To make myself clear, I include the vast majority of white-collar workers who deal with data or analysis here as well as a limited range of blue-collar workers: the hallowed upper-middle class will be among the first decimated by machine learning. I refuse to believe that people are the same as horses when it comes to swapping labour for money, and I believe that if you give people the chance, especially immigrants, you'll unlock the reams of human potential now buried under societal and capital-imposed constraints to create rather than maintain. So yes, basic income for everybody who is truly working for it right now.
Those jobs are just for a small percentage and you would probably be forcing workers who will give poor production to those jobs. People have more of an incentive not to work with the way the welfare system is set up now but yet many of the people who are on welfare work... That probably wouldn't change with basic income for all. Money is needed for other things besides food and shelter. Also with basic income minimum wage can be done away with which would probably create more jobs which means more employment opportunities with better benefits.
