Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel like your position is to rigid. Its similar to the logical arguments religious fanatics construct.
It's a response to a paradigm provided by you, not me.
If A = B and B= C,according to you, then A = C.
You don't get to pick and choose the logic. Don't throw a fit when I proclaim that A = C in your paradigm. If consent is given by being born then that means that is the definition of consent hence forth.
You wanted it, you got it.
* Shout out to the Transitive Property of Equality for the assist.
It's a response to a paradigm provided by you, not me.
If A = B and B= C,according to you, then A = C.
You don't get to pick and choose the logic. Don't throw a fit when I proclaim that A = C in your paradigm. If consent is given by being born then that means that is the definition of consent hence forth.
You wanted it, you got it.
* Shout out to the Transitive Property of Equality for the assist.
A contract to you is a mutually agreed upon reality that allows economic transaction.
Property laws and governance over land and aggression are realities made to allow individual action, or economic transaction.
Anarchism is not unique as itself is a form of governance. I've asked you many questions you have avoided.
Does a property owner have governance over their own capital/land, and do individuals forfeit their right from aggression and to property when they oppose that governance?
A contract to you is a mutually agreed upon reality that allows economic transaction.
Property laws and governance over land and aggression are realities made to allow individual action, or economic transaction.
Anarchism is not unique as itself is a form of governance. I've asked you many questions you have avoided.
Does a property owner have governance over their own capital/land, and do individuals forfeit their right from aggression and to property when they oppose that governance?
You got the definition of contract wrong.
You've got everything wrong in here so that's no surprise.
hayek believe in UBI because he believe a myriad of boondoggle welfare programs was worse. He was right. I would fully support a very modest UBI if it replaced our current welfare programs. Problem is that will never happen.
hayek believe in UBI because he believe a myriad of boondoggle welfare programs was worse. He was right. I would fully support a very modest UBI if it replaced our current welfare programs. Problem is that will never happen.
He seems like a reasonable philosopher. He even supported a modest social safety net it seems libertarians have drifted far from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Friedman also supported a universal basic income.
As far as I know, Milton Friedman supported UBI as an alternative to the present system of food stamps, WIC, Section 8, etc. all of which require massive, inefficient bureaucracies. He thought it would be more efficient to cut people a check and let them purchase food, housing, etc. as they saw fit.
My guess is that Friedman would have preferred zero, or at least a very limited welfare state. But he probably realized that such was not politically possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
