god damn it.

this isn't about gun control, stop it, it was one analogy that was VERY LIMITED IN SCOPE

Im against all guns. Even toy guns. And nerf guns. Im also against knife ownership.

That may sound like sarcasm, at least to my ears. But i actually grew up in a house with no toy guns. Heavily frowned upon if i did get my hands on one. Never did me any harm...

Of course i also had a guarenteed basic pocket money. And all i had to do was my chores ;)

Eh... When it came to guns, my gang had the biggest guns, sixteen inch guns that can hurl metal the size of a volkswagon beetle, over twenty miles; guns so big that we only needed accuracy of one block, precisely because it would blow a hole about a block big. Oh and Ortho, i totally understand both government service and parochial service having done both. And private property rights are paramount to a free society. As to the problem of imbalance of the have and have nots, that will never be ended as we are as individuals limited in financial ability and driven towards selfish means. As for 'states' that impose their political will on others to 'equalize' the imbalance, they are doomed to failure as institutionalism will block their efforts. As case in point, the us and its states spend enough money to give every poor person about $30,000.00 USD per year. Yet most of that money is spent by the government agencies on salaries, overhead and upkeep. The school system I worked for had an office of six to oversee all of the high schools it was in-charge of where as the local districts have hundreds to do the same task. Governments have an inherent flaw in inefficiency and waste.

@PE

yeah, i won't egg him on

"As to the problem of imbalance of the have and have nots, that will never be ended as we are as individuals limited in financial ability and driven towards selfish means."

The limit does not mean we can't provide for everyone their basic needs. It doesn't matter if people work hard and earn more, so long as everyone has no need to worry about shelter and food each day.

We spend huge amounts on free education for every individual, we can clearly afford to structure society in a way which also provides for their basic needs.

Education is a big program which results in 'equalize'-ing under our current system.

At some point wealthy people realised that they would be better off if everyone was raised to some basic level of education. And there is no reason this kind of reasoning can't be extended to well fed (ie educated workers are great, but if they are also well-fed then they can be even more productive)

What basic needs are would also likely depend, if you've already got universal healthcare, then your citizen's needs are lower.

Same with things like public transport. If it is subsidized for everyone then your basic needs are lowered. If everyone needs a car to get around then the needs are higher.

The neighbor next to me blamed me for a beebee gun hole in his window. My gun was a fake air rifle. Lol

Perhaps i need to convince you otherwise with my big gun!

I am merely claiming that it is a perfectly reasonable social structure to have, not that it is the one you may personally want.

OF course you can come over here with your stupid gun and have it immediately confiscated ;)

@Brainbomb: Why are you trying to derail this discussion?
Stop it.

you don't confiscate battleships, you sink them or surrender.

and only if you are supported from the Eng Chan

Anyone want to check out my gunboats? No? OK, I'll just help myself to some pizza. Someone said there'd be pizza in this thread.

@JamesYanik

"we need resource capital too increase drastically to maintain the current trends with mechanization."

What do you mean by resource capital?

"Mexico has a right wing Green Party."

I'd like that in the US.

How will they get here if trump builds the wall leon?

Build the Wall! Lock Her Up!!! Build the Wall! Lock Her Up!!! Build the Wall! Lock Her Up!!!

Build her Up! Lock the Wall! Build her Up!!

the bigger the better the t+++++r the sweater!

TL;DR, no idea what UBI has to do with guns and don't really want to find out.

Sooo, UBI can be a pretty right wing concept for two reasons. Firstly, the state giving a basic income to the wealthy (since it's universal) is essentially the same as a nice big tax cut. Secondly, cutting the nuanced subsidies and benefits the state offers for housing, disabilities, unemployment etc. and rolling them in to one department with minimal administration is a pretty right wing concept. I imagine we've already covered this.

When UBI is done in a more balanced way, I'd consider it a radical centre policy. Interestingly enough, we have an economist in NZ who once wrote a book proposing the UBI, and he just launched a radical centre political party yesterday. Given that he wants to be taken seriously, I don't imagine it will be party policy.