Universal Basic Income

[forkitnow]

Agreed. I think it's important to pretty much throw unemployment out of this argument as it's a contained insurance system paid for by employers, not individuals.

Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to.

[OngBonga]

Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to.

I don't care if I'm being trolled.

This is untrue. I used to think along these lines, for a very long time in fact, to the point I actually proved it wrong. I opted out of employment. I made the decision to not be "oppressed" by the system.

Then one day, fairly recently, I decided that I was unhappy where I lived, that I would be happier if I lived elsewhere, and that the only way that was gonna happen is if I got myself a job. So I did, and now I'm in the countryside, much happier than I was.

So the question begs... when was I oppressed? Then? Or now? Before, I was totally reliant on the government (or, more accurately, the taxpayer). Now I'm reliant on myself.

[spoonitnow]

I don't care if I'm being trolled.

This is untrue. I used to think along these lines, for a very long time in fact, to the point I actually proved it wrong. I opted out of employment. I made the decision to not be "oppressed" by the system.

Then one day, fairly recently, I decided that I was unhappy where I lived, that I would be happier if I lived elsewhere, and that the only way that was gonna happen is if I got myself a job. So I did, and now I'm in the countryside, much happier than I was.

So the question begs... when was I oppressed? Then? Or now? Before, I was totally reliant on the government (or, more accurately, the taxpayer). Now I'm reliant on myself.

I don't feel like logging into that account to continue the conversation because the novelty has worn off for me now that there are copycats, but the left's line of thought on something like, "Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to," is that consent has to be given freely with the threat of negative "violent" consequences hanging over someone's head when they make a decision. The decision put to people they qualify as the oppressed is that they can either get a job and be miserable or not get a job and die/at least be significantly worse off (the "violent" consequence). Their idea is that the consequences of the latter decision makes the whole situation coercion, which I obviously don't agree with, but that's their logic.

What you just posted here in response is exactly the truth. However, I want to point out a couple of things.

These people would call you a bootlicker and worse for the opinions that you've given here. A big part of that is that they believe you cannot make a decision to no longer be oppressed. This is the rejection of personal responsibility we've talked about in various forms. If you want to use the Christian mythology examples, it's the way of Cain refusing to take responsibility for the lackluster nature of his sacrifice and lashing out at God (ie: the "oppressor") by striking down Abel.

This is also tied into why they jump to making themselves a victim in everything they do because that is the currency they use to figure out who is the most oppressed since being oppressed is their only virtue in their value system. The more oppressed you are, the bigger the victim you are and the better you are as a person, etc.