There isn't huge support. Step out of the bubble...
It's just the new generation of kids flirting with communism.
It's just the new generation of kids flirting with communism.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619113 and marked it off-topic.
I've no idea what (if anything) you would accept as evidence. Here's the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on communism; feel free to check that the [...]s don't hide anything that changes the meaning.
> [...] communism [...] is a[...] ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
Does a universal basic income cause, or require, common ownership of the means of production? Nope. The means of production stay largely in the hands of businesses (or, as the communists might say, of Capital). Does it involve the absence of social classes? Nope. Successful lawyers (say) will continue to have much, much more money and much higher social status than anyone who's largely dependent on basic income. Does it involve the absence of money? Nope. It depends on the continued existence of money. Does it involve the absence of the state? Nope. It depends on the continued existence of the state.
Well, who cares what those pinko loons at Wikipedia say? Communism is whatever they had in the Soviet Union. How about that?
Well, in the Soviet Union they had a centrally planned economy where the government told factories how many of everything to make, etc. Does a universal basic income cause or require that? Nope. Businesses continue to decide what to make and what to sell at what prices; individual consumers continue to decide what to buy. ("But a basic income would require a big government!" Well, kinda, in that the government would be taking in more tax and handing out more money. But that's got nothing to do with central planning. A basic income wouldn't mean that the government would do more of the work; if anything, it should be less because the BI would replace a bunch of other more complicated benefits that require more administrative work to make sure they're going to the "right" people.) In the Soviet Union they had a totalitarian state with secret police, gulags, etc. Does a universal basic income require that? Nope. Obviously. The Soviet Union had undemocratic politics where the Communists were always in power. Does a universal basic income require that? Nope. Obviously.
"Communism" does not mean the same as "anything vaguely leftish that I don't like".
Confiscating money from everyone, and then distributing it equally amongst the population (Regardless of whether they need it or deserve it) doesn't sit very well with people.
Then the vast majority of the population are rejecting basic income for the wrong reasons. Nothing about basic income invalidates meritocracy. In fact I would say it strengthens it. No longer is the rat race composed of a hodgepodge of willing, unwilling, and incompetent workers. All the unwilling or incompetent workers drop out. Those that still work have reasons to work besides filling a seat for 8 hours so they can continue to afford a meal .
Is critical thinking no longer a thing?
The government has no money of its own. So, in order to fund these programs, it must first appropriate said money from the people who earned it in the first place.
This appropriation (taxation) is non-voluntary, and enforced by threat of violence (force of law).
When someone takes something from me by force that I would not otherwise be willing to give them, it is by definition theft.
Therefore, it would seem to me that taxation/theft is an intentional attempt by the government to reduce the rewards of my own personal merit.
The recent poll I've seen has 54% oppose to 34% support, with the remainder not sure, with the "Social Security for all" phrasing. [1] That is majority opposition, but its not the "vast, vast majority", and its on something which while its gotten some media attention, its been very little in mainstream media, and certainly no big public sales effort in the US. (Same sex marriage took about 10 years to cross a similar, net 19% oppose, gap -- and that's with firmer opinions [fewer unsure].) [2]
[1] https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/01/09/poll-results-guaran...
Meritocracy still persists under a UBI, just like meritocracy persists alongside our welfare system.
> Confiscating money from everyone, and then distributing it equally amongst the population (Regardless of whether they need it or deserve it) doesn't sit very well with people.
Yes, that is a massive political hurdle that will need to be overcome. A large problem is that the way we tax isn't ideal. A land value tax would be easier to justify from a moral standpoint, along with being economically superior to an income tax.