Not sure which way this post is arguing, but in my anti-UBI opinion, providing UBI does control the lives of others primarily by stealing from productive members to give to unproductive ones.
I have no problem if people want to personally finance folks to not work via private charity, but when it becomes a government program, you are definitionally controlling everyone.
Because control over lives of others is what makes a well functioning society. This is something that every single anarchist/libertarian is incapable of understanding, despite living in the developed part of the world.
It's just not personal control but institutional control.
I can't comment on the parent anymore because it has been flagged.
Sure, it's not great the perks that Hunter Biden (or Chelsea Clinton) have received. But they are adults and their parents are no longer in control of them, or accountable for their actions.
And, in at least Hunter Biden's case, the Republican majority in the House is investigating him.
Whereas here, it's Clarence Thomas himself and his wife who are getting perks (along with his mother, who he doesn't control, and is thus more equivalent to Hunter Biden).
This is all crap, as you say, right, left, center, up, and down. That doesn't mean that some crap stinks worse than others. For giving to Thomas' mother, Harlan Crow is in the wrong. For accepting gifts himself, Clarence Thomas is in the wrong.
I think my above question was just answered here. I think YouTube is more aligned with the cultural movement of "positive things only" and only with certain ideas, i.e. COVID vaccine. I think it is a smart business idea for them.
> I think YouTube is more aligned with the cultural movement of "positive things only" and only with certain ideas, i.e. COVID vaccine.
I don't think you can conclude that from the above. My point was that dislike ratios attacks basically abuse the feature that previously provided valuable signal to the user on whether the video was of good quality. Now, this removes the incentive for dislike ratio attacks to abuse this feature.
Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.
To be fair, taxation is useful for everyone and the common good. What can be considered.... wrong is EXTRA taxation. Meaning the governments job should be to operate as leanly as possible by being most efficient. To me that means, highly systems efficiently, low personnel overhead, large reduction in programs supported.
Instead - the name is big and bloated. Expanding budget deficits mean expanded spending, which can never go down.
Couldn't agree more, I would be happy to pay taxes if the government represented me. However under the republic we have, it has fallen extremely short in representing my interest. I vote in every election, write letters to my representatives and attend town halls.
No, it's payment for goods and services. If you want to live in a stateless utopia, you don't get any of the benefits of the state. That's the social contract.
"Social contract" is the cry of the authoritarian. You do not speak for me. No other person does, unless I hire them. An acceptable solution would be contractual representation.
