It is rare that I agree with Tucker Carlson but he has a point.  Check the twitter dialogue, as for Molyneux, he made so many ridiculous comments about communism in his reply, I have a hard time taking him serious. He obviously knows little history. See book linked below if you are interested.

Carlson's point has been discussed by economists for some time now, the more radical among them claim UBI will have to be part of future economies. See piece on Molyneux and UBI.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

"I am in strong general agreement with Philippe Van Parijs's argument for a UBI or "patrimony"–a portion of the product of a society that should be shared by all of those who inhabit that society. To establish such a patrimony is equivalent to recognizing shared ownership of a significant fraction of the resources, physical and intellectual, that enable the society to produce what it produces. As the essay makes a very strong case for the UBI and its feasibility, I will limit my comments to just two issues: (1) why a UBI (or patrimony) would be just; and (2) some problems of incentives that such a system poses and that need to be handled effectively."

http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=34315


'The Rise and Fall of Communism'  by Archie Brown

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6004393-the-rise-and-fall-of-communism

Quote from: midcan5 on November 28, 2018, 05:17:46 AM
It is rare that I agree with Tucker Carlson but he has a point.  Check the twitter dialogue, as for Molyneux, he made so many ridiculous comments about communism in his reply, I have a hard time taking him serious. He obviously knows little history. See book linked below if you are interested.

Carlson's point has been discussed by economists for some time now, the more radical among them claim UBI will have to be part of future economies. See piece on Molyneux and UBI.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

"I am in strong general agreement with Philippe Van Parijs's argument for a UBI or "patrimony"–a portion of the product of a society that should be shared by all of those who inhabit that society. To establish such a patrimony is equivalent to recognizing shared ownership of a significant fraction of the resources, physical and intellectual, that enable the society to produce what it produces. As the essay makes a very strong case for the UBI and its feasibility, I will limit my comments to just two issues: (1) why a UBI (or patrimony) would be just; and (2) some problems of incentives that such a system poses and that need to be handled effectively."

http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=34315


'The Rise and Fall of Communism'  by Archie Brown

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6004393-the-rise-and-fall-of-communism

Your belief that ones ideas and innovations somehow belong to the State is quite troubling. Enabling govt to decide what portion of an industry belongs to the State and what profits are allowed by the innovators is what leads to full blown Communism.
Once govt has the right to seize a portion, it decides what size portion is appropriate, when the business suffers, it decides what is best to keep said business alive, eventually leading to Nationalizing it and taking it over entirely.

History is replete with failed industry in the hands of the State, it literally loses it competitive edge in mkt share. This reason alone is Carlson is wrong, because it never ends with one industry.
You really need to quit reading shit that glamorizes Marxism and use some critical thought, govt is a collective that will always seek more power for itself so it can more freely control.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2018, 05:32:01 AM
Your belief that ones ideas and innovations somehow belong to the State is quite troubling. Enabling govt to decide what portion of an industry belongs to the State and what profits are allowed by the innovators is what leads to full blown Communism.
Once govt has the right to seize a portion, it decides what size portion is appropriate, when the business suffers, it decides what is best to keep said business alive, eventually leading to Nationalizing it and taking it over entirely.

History is replete with failed industry in the hands of the State, it literally loses it competitive edge in mkt share. This reason alone is Carlson is wrong, because it never ends with one industry.
You really need to quit reading shit that glamorizes Marxism and use some critical thought, govt is a collective that will always seek more power for itself so it can more freely control.

Not surprising a liberal would support another "camel's nose under the tent" idea.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 28, 2018, 07:22:50 AM
Not surprising a liberal would support another "camel's nose under the tent" idea.

They're all under the illusion that the State will find this wonderful Utopian balance and simply stop when equilibrium is achieved.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2018, 08:58:38 AM
They're all under the illusion that the State will find this wonderful Utopian balance and simply stop when equilibrium is achieved.

That's what all the delusional socialist idiots thought in many socialist countries. How did that work out?

If Liberals expect us to trust the government, then they need to trust the Trump administration.