I'd like to know some more about what the trojan horse brings hidden as to counteract the argument, but I'll just make a bunch of assumptions and pretend this is a "progressive" argument that states UBI can be used as an excuse to cut back other kind of assistance plans. To which, I really don't care much about so long as the people who would often receive those would still be better off. If people can stilol get the assitance they need, but without having to prove they are "entitled" to that assistance, I see it as an improvement. I think those are arguments that come out of a fanatism or over-attachment to certain ideologies disregarding actual problem solving, such as the argument about UBI being used as a way to not raise the minimum wage, when people have no need to take minimum wage jobs, those need to do better to get people to do them. Is it neoliberal? I mean, I don't see many neoliberals going for it TBH, very few really, but at the end of the day, does it matter? I think it is relatively functional to capitalism, again, is that a bad thing? only if we attach ourselves to a "X ideology good, Y ideology bad!" kind of thinking. It is undeniable that capitalism did raise a big part of the world's population out of poverty, and the original "american dream" was not born out of pure propaganda (as it mantains itself nowadays), it had a leg to stand on, like, back in the 50s/60s, when regular people could live comfortable lives (and taxes were higher on the higher earners instead of the lowest). But the system has developed into a self-engulfing monster that is day by day eroding people's trust in it and leading to its own destruction. Can UBI expand it's life? Surely. Is that a bad thing? I guess that's the debatable bit. Having lived in countries with highly controlled markets, I can tell they don't work, but high deregulation doesn't either as we can see. The thing is we have an all-or-nothing, black/white mentality that takes us through extremes and to get attached to these ideas instead of looking at things in practical terms. Is UBI a solutions-for-every-problem-we-have? No, probably not, is it better than the current way in which people are left to die on the streets if they aren't deamed valuable by the market? Absolutely. Capitalism is, nowadays, a chimeric monster that's devouring itself, but there's a reason why engineers or doctors in cuba drive tourists around in taxis instead of working the careers they actually studied. Could UBI be used as a trojan horse? Probably, but the "powers that be" will always try to use everything to keep power, however, I think it would backfire on them though. If the people have their basic needs met and they are not in survival mode, they can pay attention to things going on and make sure that that doesn't happen. Liberating people from worrying about survival will allow them to participate more actively in politics, educate themselves, and fight for their and their neighbours lives to be better. I know it's not much of a counter argument, but I'd need the argument to be a bit more developed from the beggining, feel free to add some more to it and I'll see what we can say about it, but overall my sentiment is I don't care about labelling so far as it leads to people having their basic needs met and leading better and more fulfilling lives, and if the labelling of it is so important the focus might be misplaced.


People who make these arguments are vanguardists (e.g. Richard Wollf) who want the poor to be as miserable as possible so they they'll submit to being footsoldiers for the a dictatorship of the party. Anyone who argues against giving the poor money probably has a nice warm place to sleep at night. I've never seen an actual poor person argue against UBI.


Some of critiques are for in-kind suppy over cash transfer. How do you argue aganist?


Remind them that there are plenty of long-standing UBI programs that aren't simple cash transfer like the Alaska permanent dividend fund and Macau scheme. The problem with a cash transfer is that it is usually given with no promise of any further payments in the future. UBI is different because it is supposed to be regular payments that are guaranteed to people to give them all the basic income they need to try to meet their basic standards for living and provide them with a proper social safety net that allows them to have freedom to leave jobs that they hate. A cash transfer, in this way, is less like UBI and more of a quick one time thing given out so people stop complaining about how terrible poverty is


If we steel man the argument, it would go something like this: “UBI would ultimately strip away other welfare programs and does nothing to stop wealth concentration. UBI cannot prevent capitalists from raising rents to capture the surplus money.” It’s a fair argument. Here are my counters: 1. UBI is not a panacea. It is an effective solution to ONE major problem: wealth inequality created by the growing gap between productivity and labor. UBI will give some of that wealth back to the people. 2. Jobs are quickly becoming less economically relevant as technological deflation makes everything cheaper. As of this moment, capital has far surpassed labor, and so the only real method to lower inequality is through cold hard cash. 3. Following on point 2, UBI will decouple your livelihood (income) from your job. This is going to become increasingly important as more and more jobs are eliminated via technology. We need UBI BEFORE we reach that point. People are already struggling just to get by even now because of this incessant need to pair survival with jobs. People will still work under UBI, but they’re no longer as beholden to jobs and the workplace. This, in turn, will allow you more freedom to move and reject shitty rents. Being location agnostic is a great way to regulate rents. 4. As we enter into the exponential age of abundance, we cannot keep returning to 20th century ideologies such as communism, fascism, socialism, neoliberalism, etc. Those days are long gone. Labor strikes were effective when human labor was the predominant method of building wealth. How do you strike against software? Or financial instruments? Or robots? Or blockchain? Because in the exponential age, we’re going to see a lot more Vitalik Buterin than Jeff Bezos. How do you seize the means of production when the means of production is simply a good idea and a used MacBook? UBI is a good thing because it gives people more freedom and provides for their basic needs. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.


All on points. Robots take over the work but they don't have bargaining power.


On the neoliberal part, if you're arguing with someone who's socialist or a leftist, you can remind them that there are plenty of socialist thinkers who support UBI as a tool of freedom for common workers which I even wrote an article about: https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/rcn8v5/article_i_wrote_in_response_to_people_who_said/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share. There are also plenty of capitalists who support it as economic freedom and not a Trojan horse or problem like Milton Friedman. Also remember that there are plenty of long-standing basic income programs that have actually helped lift people out of poverty and have continuously shown benefits. None of those programs seem to be "Trojan horses" that have done anything other than lift people out of poverty and add to a pre-existing social welfare programs


I don’t really care about terms like “neo-liberal”, “socialist”, “capitalist”, etc. In fact, so many words have lost their meaning. I think UBI will be a better benefit for society for many reasons. That’s what I focus on.


These all have very specific and well understood meanings. If you think they have lost them, then *you* are the problem. Stop poisoning the discourse and educate yourself.


I guess you have managed to stay away from Twitter, and I commend you for it. If you ever do make the mistake of venturing out into those waters, i highly suggest that you gain agreement with the other party regarding their understanding of all politically loaded terms before wasting your time making any arguments. Seriously, there is no point arguing with someone when you could be talking about completely different things. Gaining agreement is a necessary first step. Based on the way you responded to me, I can predict that you might struggle with this. No one likes a know-it-all who immediately attacks the other person. I would try to temper that a bit, or you will be continuously triggered by all the people you think are “the problem”. In short, assuming everyone understands the above terms exactly as you do is foolish.