But if the HackerNews Libertarian Army would prefer to live in a gated communities which keep the uneducated hungry masses away from their Montessori Schools and Gelato serveries, and fly by private helicopter over the wrecked and broken infrastructure to their friends in other gated communities so that they can 'keep all of their hard earned money', then so be it.
The article has nothing to do with the dystopia you're describing; an actual read-through reveals that it's concerned about UBI worsening inequality compared to the existing benefits system. It's explicitly a piece about how to reduce disparty, and whether UBI is a bad way to do so. (I note that it's currently near the top of HN, which is awkward for that "libertarian poverty-lover" narrative.) And Furtherfield is essentially an art collective with no ties to HN, so it's not that they're part of the Libertarian Army.
Am I missing something here? Because I see a writer disputing whether UBI is a good way to achieve your goal, and you replying with "see? they hate my goals!"
Except when they're not. That's the point of this article. UBI is one of those ideas that can be all things to all people depending on the details.
For example, say you set it at a level that could sustain an able-bodied person temporarily but needed supplementing for comfort. Say you then remove all other state funded payments. That's UBI.
For example, say you set it at a level meant that most people could comfortably live off it and was topped up where necessary e.g. disability payments. That's UBI.
Of these, the first is, arguably, purer UBI. It'll also do very little to reduce income disparity.
I would see UBI as beneficial if, in practice, it at least pushes the balance in this direction a little, even if it doesn't reduce income disparity.
Whoa, now. You mean 'covenant' communities, and they are intended to keep the masses 'physically removed (so to speak)'.