I don't have to have the answer to point out UBI is not a solution. An argument against UBI is not an argument for the status-quo. Big problems exist and need to be solved. The problem is no matter how

I am not jumping from anything but from your own statements. If you see senselessness look no further than your own words. "...there is no price discovery possible if people don't have money to signal

Except traveling IS a right. "DRIVING" however is a commercial act which involves interstate commerce which puts it under the firm jurisdiction of Federal law which impose the driver's license

I stated my counter argument. As far as sources, I refer to basic math. My statements are factual, not opinion. Why don't you try actually supporting your original assertion rather than just sprinkling

“The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.” That is convenient wording that allows you to ignore per-capita statistics of mass shooting showing the

Driving a car is not a right, it is a specifically regulated "commercial" activity by law, which is why it requires registration and testing. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right, which

So by your logic if there is no UBI suddenly money ceases to exist completely and we can't have price discovery? You are quite the contrarian. That works good for ideology, not regarding the laws of economics

First of all that is not a quote of Friedman supporting UBI, that is him comparing them in a way that is selectively taken out of context in a manipulative way. Second, as I explained before Friedman is

No, Alaska is an example of a state with lots of natural resources and a small population. What happens when the resources run out or the price drops? Oops, I guess we now have thousands of dependent people

Universal basic income is just socialism/communism repackaged. More dystopian results wrapped in a thin viral shell of utopianism. The Earth is littered with the remains of the bodies of hundreds of millions

Chomsky Has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite. He always gets hailed as some kind of expert, but the only thing he is really an expert in is linguistics. The rest of his musings are largely

Your argument seems to hinge quite heavily on the premise that all these other social media giants are competition for Youtube. I am sure you do this because you have looked at the numbers and realized

Actually you argued there are other options therefor it is not a monopoly. My response was that all of those other options combined are a pittance compared to Youtube. You argued sites like Facebook and

"NO U" Isn't an argument. I supported my position with facts. Now you try.

They all serve different end user markets, you can argue till you are blue in the face but Youtube/Google is a monopoly by any definition. Just because other options exist doesn't mean they are competitors.

Well that is irrelevant because I never said "property is theft". You can have theft without property, it is called "intellectual property" and it protects the investment used to produce

They absolutely are a monopoly, they have no competitors who come even close to their scale. Neutrality as in not selectively enforcing rules for points of view they don't agree with rather than just enforcing

Either they need to stop pretending they are a neutral platform and make a clear TOS that is followed, or they need to actually be neutral. Anything else is effectively an abuse of their monopolistic position.

I drink about a tablespoon of black seed oil daily, and it has shown a demonstrable drop in my blood pressure.

Been a fan of yours for years... was saddened when you went inactive. So happy to see you reemerge here on Steem! Welcome, and keep exposing those land pirates!