Universal Basic Income

And then your definition of "harm" includes....

Haha!! No. But could you just imagine if I sucked that hard?

You do.

And now, I need to apologize to garamet in the afterlife for telling her you didn’t deserve the shit she threw at you.

So...are you saying you're not good enough at it to get caught, so you don't try?

yes, we've heard your limited acceptance of what constitutes either of those.

wage theft/sub sustenance wages are alright, according to you

rent increases without improvements, same thing.

but hey... "Napoleon is always right", yes?

In spite of your attempts to incite me into fury, I still find you pitiable.

Incite you into fury? Because I typed words on the internet?

And you have the audacity to comment on the self control of someone you don’t even know.

I'm saying I don't hurt anyone, so don't fucking worry about it.

Yeah, limited to fucking REALITY.

It's not theft if you are paid what you were promised when you were hired. Outside of those exact terms, I am not alright with whatever fantasy bullshit you're trying to attribute to me.

"Same" in that it is in no way "theft."

It would be a fine standard, and it sounds reasonable when you say it. Except that those words are doing an absurd amount of heavy-lifting since you define them in a way that no other reasonable person does, employing a crazed objectivist doctrine muddled with extreme pro-corporatism.

Here we go again with the "not actively shitting on them at all times" meaning I am "pro" something.


By all means, supply a couple of details about my "unreasonable" definitions, and please don't disappoint me with some boilerplate nonsense about the world owing you a living or envy equating with "victimhood."

No, here we don't go again.

Your "paid what you were promised" example is relevant here. That's based on an agreement made between a person and an entity that has - by nature of its very existence - been founded on coersion. If "no coersion" is the standard then all such agreements are invalid. But no, you're accepting (or at least passive) toward one form and in rigid, vein-throbbing hostility towards the other.

Under capitalism, employment is coercion - in that if you don’t work, you cannot meet your basic needs. At the very least, there isn’t a quarter acre anywhere on this planet that isn’t “owned” by someone else. Even if you buy a piece of property, you still need to pay taxes on it.

Then the cave man was "coerced" by his hunger into hunting and gathering in an "unfair" system of survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten.


There is no version of reality where it is reasonable to expect you will only make an effort when you feel like it, under terms that satisfy your personal definition of "fairness."

Your reading comprehension is ridiculously bad. What I said had nothing to do with any arbitrary definition of fairness, and everything to do with your distorted and selective application of the phrase "coersion". IOW the caveman didn't exist in a world where hunting and gathering was controlled by synthetic legal entities which he was compelled to recognise.

P.S.
Hey, congrats on post 666.

It's the easier option, but not the ONLY one.

You are as free as I am to walk out into the woods to eat bugs and burn your own turds for warmth. Instead, you choose to compromise and then claim victimhood. Modern humanity.

And there's no such thing as real victimhood unless a Nazi gets punched.
Or a bigot parent is yucked out by their trans kid, and needs some external force to blame.

Sure there are real victims. The bar is just higher than "I'm offended."

Unless its the aforementioned bigot parents, then teachers need firing, possibly jailing.
And books need burning. But they need to be straw-manned as "porn" first.

Your fantasies are tiresome.

Ok. Let’s start with just this.

What woods? Someone owns those woods and is just as free to sue you for shitting in his woods and eating his bugs.

Then there’s BLM land. Now we’re talking about taxes and fees and preserving the beauty for everyone by not shitting there.

Where are these woods I can freely shit in?

Yeah, okay, Mister ""Baby's First Blowjobs and Buttsex manual".

You're really bad at gaslighting.
I'm sure it works on Jenee.
*Sees her latest post*
Nope, not even.

You could sleep on Blm land for free.

Yes. But people still need to eat. Still need water. Still need to empty their bladder and evacuate their bowels.

I’m not saying one must have a six figure salary to live. But, the opposite is also true. There isn’t any place on planet Earth where one can live without having to use currency to live, sleep, and eat .

Eat bugs and shit in the bushes, or accept the compromise of human economics.

Congratulations, you've just refuted your entire posting history.

First of all: Congratulations, like @RickDeckard said, you just refuted your entire libertarian personality.
Secondly, it's not human economics, it's American economics.
Thirdly: I'm going to bookmark this post, because as the joke goes, we've already established what you are. Now we're just negotiating.

you mean like how it's cheaper to pay for half a dozen people in my office providing meals and shelter for about 130 people who for a variety of reasons can't support themselves than it is to incarcerate or otherwise institutionalize them? Let alone just leave them to scavenge until they die?

Yeah, but the incarceration makes him FEEL good.