Hacker News Reader

??? What sounds sinister?

A tax, but where the tax money goes directly to everyone instead of being allocated by a government.

First of all, the most evil institutions that have existed over the last 120 years or so have been doing it in the name of "the people."

Secondly, if a government isn't both confiscating and redistributing the money, who are the group of robbers that you would designate doing this instead? UBI requires authoritarianism.

The government is doing it. But the government is not making decisions. It's just giving everyone their share.

Please see the Alaska example. Alaska isn't authoritarian.

Sir, the Alaska fund is run by a government corporation governed by government employees and government appointees. The government decides how it's funded. The government decides how the money is spent. It's all government, and it's completely authoritarian because there's nothing voluntary about it.

I'm not sure how I can word this better. There's a difference between paying out the same amount to every person, versus picking specific things to put money into. I'm sure you can figure out what I mean.

> it's completely authoritarian because there's nothing voluntary about it

Yeah okay. It's exactly as authoritarian as every other tax. I thought you were using normal person language; I'm not going to argue semantics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com