Universal Basic Income

"I must work harder. Napoleon is always right."

I compromise when I must. The fact that I still live in civilization should be more than enough to convey that. But it's not a foot in the door to unconditional submission.

If cost were the only concern, but it isn't. Job #1 is preventing them from threatening people or property.

You can do what you wish. The trouble is, you demand that others make the same selective compromises.



Corporations have every manner of legal and financial privilege granted by the state, such that they mediate all economic existence: Compromise or go eat your own shit in the woods!

Corporations pay wages that are beneath the level required for subsistence: You get what you agreed! Don't dare coerce them!


It's transparent as fuck.

That's because you're assuming I'm in favor of protecting corporations from consequences, and expect me to have more concern for individuals who fuck up their own circumstances.

There's no assumption. It's your own words. Regardless of what you're "in favour" of, there is an inconsistency in your docile willingness to "compromise" with the coersive mechanisms in place to assist corporations (without which they probably wouldn't exist in the first place) and your militant unwillingness to compromise with those in place to assist low-paid workers.

There's no reason for pragmatism in the first case and intrangency in the second other than that you're a corporate bootlicker, following a simplistic ideology promoted by other corporate bootlickers.

This is your constant fallback. You make vague generalities, and when pressed refuse to specify anything. You just accuse people of assuming the worst about you. It's the same energy as all those Republicans who claim they don't read Twitter whenever they're asked about one of Trump's insane posts.

No reason you can conceive of, because "functional survival" is only a valid motive when you're stealing someone's shit.

Reality is "coercive" if you insist on viewing your need to survive as this unfair lever being used against you. That's still not a green light to impose silly "you must either believe this or that exclusively" dichotomy, or some bullshit requirement that all forms of coercion be viewed exaclty the same.

What the fuck are you talking about? He wasn't pressing me for specifics. He was aping Diacanu's "performance art" as if it made a point for him. He STARTED OUT vague.

And as usual you fall back on boilerplate and slogans. I intentionally made no mention of "the need to survive being an unfair lever", since you desperately want to steer all arguments of this sort back to ranting about that. The immensity of your hypocrisy is plain for all to see.

I'm talking about your refusal to ever give specifics. You say we are assuming you're in favor of protecting corporations from consequences. When have we ever seen evidence that you're not? You claim we make these assumptions, but what evidence have you provided to the contrary?

No, YOU desperately want to draw an artificial distinction between different environments to which you must adapt in order to live, in so you can exist in this mythical construct where your suvival is someone else's problem and you are "victimized" by circumstances that require you to work harder than you feel you should, for less than you feel you deserve.

No, I said I was NOT in favor of that. Learn to fucking read, you absolute twat.

Assuming guilt by default. That's not how it works.

In a normal society, a person's survival IS everyone's problem, to some degree.

Assuming guilt by your repeated spiels against unions, worker's rights, protections against discrimination, etc.

Only if they voluntarily accept that burden. To claim otherwise is to assert unconditional access to other people's property and productivity.

False. I just don't fawn over presumed victims by default.

I've never seen you defend a worker's right to anything. Ever. If I'm wrong, then show me.

I have no idea what you're babbling about. That has nothing to do with what I posted.

Like I said earlier, we've already established you will compromise. The question is how much.
But let's go down this route a bit. Try to pin down something concrete.
In what way does making that claim assert unconditional access to other's property and productivity?

They have the same rights they do in any other setting. What you are describing is enforcing the terms of a contract. Where those terms are not met, one or both parties would have a valid complaint.

Take your time, and don't strain yourself.

Because allowing for conditions allows for the possibility that your prospective human piggy bank will say 'no.'

Unless it's bigot parents of trans kids, then you hand them your giant hanky, and hold their hand.

Or I just don't presume to meddle in someone else's family affairs.

Keep doing your part to render words like "bigot," "fascist," "nazi" and "hate" meaningless though, champ.

What conditions?
And who is the proverbial human piggy bank?

Conditions like "I saw you quit a good job and waste money, so I'm not paying your bills."

Your neighbors. The taxpayers.

This is where you'd quote me telling anyone how to run their family, if you weren't terminally full of shit.

"Baby's First Blowjobs and Buttsex manual".