Blockchain For Universal Basic Income

[singular_me]

oooh no... NOT AGAIN!!!

=============================
Basic Income + Blockchain

Introducing the world's first basic income digital currency.
Free to join and everyone is eligible.


The Grantcoin Foundation was established in 2015 to distribute Grantcoin according to the project's charitable goals. We are a U.S.-based 501(c)(3) public charity — and Grantcoin is the first cryptocurrency to be managed and distributed by such an organization. The Grantcoin Foundation uses 80% of tax-deductible donations to back the value of Grantcoin currency on markets where it trades.


Only 62 people own more than half the wealth in the world, and over 2 billion people are living on less than $2 a day. This is unjust and unsustainable — it’s time to do something to change the way money works. Grantcoin is a new currency that’s distributed into circulation as a Universal Basic Income. By growing the money supply equitably, we can systematically reduce poverty and inequality.


Powered by Blockchain Technology
Grantcoin is an electronic currency based on a revolutionary technology called blockchain. Bitcoin was the first blockchain-based currency and has developed open-source tools for building people-powered financial networks. A blockchain is a decentralized public ledger — people anywhere in the world contribute computing power to process transactions and keep the ledger up to date.

Grantcoin Launches Web-Based Wallets, Automated Basic Income Distribution to 2,500 People
By The Grantcoin FoundationJune 17, 2017

It’s Basic Income Week, and the founder of Grantcoin is speaking tomorrow at the North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress in New York. In celebration of this annual event and the rapidly growing basic income movement, the Grantcoin Foundation is excited to announce that we have achieved three major milestones:

1. We completed our fourth quarterly distribution of Grantcoin Basic Income (see blockchain record here), more than doubling the number of recipients since last quarter, to over 2,500 people. The Spring 2017 distribution, originally scheduled to occur in May, was delayed because of technical issues. The extra time enabled our developers to accomplish two other very important goals, as follows:

2. All Grantcoin Basic Income recipients now have a web-based wallet on Ekata.social. These wallets are where you will receive your Basic Income from now on (starting with the distribution that occurred today), and you can transfer Grantcoin into and out of them to/from external Grantcoin wallets. You can also use your web-based wallet to transfer Grantcoin to any other Ekata user by sending to their username.

3. The distribution process for Grantcoin Basic Income is now mostly automated, eliminating hundreds of hours of human labor and making it possible to scale up the Grantcoin user base to a theoretically unlimited number of recipients. Today, a Grantcoin team member funded a web-based wallet on Ekata and, with one click of a mouse, distributed basic income and referral bonuses to 2,511 people around the world. Next time, maybe it will be 10,000 people — or 100,000 or more — and the process will be just as efficient and easy.

The Grantcoin project was intended as a pilot program to create a proof of concept for blockchain-based Universal Basic Income. After four quarterly distributions of Grantcoin, worth a total of $20,000, to an exponentially growing number of recipients — now over 2,500 people in over 85 countries around the world — the Grantcoin team can confidently say that we have succeeded in our goals for Phase One of this project. We want to say thank you to everyone who believed in us, invested in our currency, donated to our charitable Foundation, and encouraged us to keep going with this project even when at times it has been a challenge.

Phase Two of the project will be announced soon. In the meantime, log in to Ekata and try out your new Grantcoin wallet, and let us know if you have any questions. We also invite you to buy some Grantcoin and make a donation to the Grantcoin Foundation. Thank you for your support!


http://www.grantcoin.org/

[madfranks]

Grantcoin is a new currency that’s distributed into circulation as a Universal Basic Income... We also invite you to buy some GrantcoinWhy do I have to buy it? I thought we all get it for free?

[Neuro]

A social benefits based currency? I don't think this will take off. Currencies usually has to be associated with some kind of effort... Like gold has to be dug out of the ground, refined and minted, or other commodity based currencies. Even fiat currencies has some correlation to work, in that you need to pay your taxes in fiat, and to be able to do that, most people need to work. This currency is just given out to everybody for free effortlessly, why anyone would exchange this for anything of value I don't understand.

[Ares]

A social benefits based currency? I don't think this will take off. Currencies usually has to be associated with some kind of effort... Like gold has to be dug out of the ground, refined and minted, or other commodity based currencies. Even fiat currencies has some correlation to work, in that you need to pay your taxes in fiat, and to be able to do that, most people need to work. This currency is just given out to everybody for free effortlessly, why anyone would exchange this for anything of value I don't understand.

Because it won't. That's the driving question that she has never been able to answer. Why would anyone work for free?

[Ares]

A social benefits based currency? I don't think this will take off. Currencies usually has to be associated with some kind of effort... Like gold has to be dug out of the ground, refined and minted, or other commodity based currencies. Even fiat currencies has some correlation to work, in that you need to pay your taxes in fiat, and to be able to do that, most people need to work. This currency is just given out to everybody for free effortlessly, why anyone would exchange this for anything of value I don't understand.

Because it won't. That's the driving question that she has never been able to answer. Why would anyone work for free? Why would an electrical lineman risk his life for "free" inspecting high voltage lines?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBJyyEAw-6g

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBJyyEAw-6g

Go ahead Singular, explain to people like this gentleman why he should do this for free.

I'll wait.....

[crimethink]

Because it won't. That's the driving question that she has never been able to answer. Why would anyone work for free?

A universal basic income is not a new idea. Social Credit has advocated it for nearly a century.

And properly implemented, it wouldn't be, "why would anyone work for free?" It would be a basic, bare minimum stipend for those who cannot work or who choose not to engage in money-making activities (artists, volunteers, etc., and, yes, the lazy)

Anyone who wanted to amass cash could, indeed, work to their ability and stamina and desire, and have much more than the basic minimum.

We live in the richest civilization ever in the history of the world. There is zero reason that everyone cannot have a bare minimum living standard, except for the fact that only "one dollar more" (Rockefeller) is "enough" for the wealthy. The promise of technology was that humans could shift their labors from back-breaking work to machine-assisted work to, eventually, a great majority of leisure. We have reached that technological level, but, we have not yet reached a social mindset where ancient serfdom is not still the mentality of those who hold the reins of power.

[crimethink]

Why would an electrical lineman risk his life for "free" inspecting high voltage lines?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBJyyEAw-6g

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBJyyEAw-6g

Go ahead Singular, explain to people like this gentleman why he should do this for free.

I'll wait.....

("work for free" canard dealt with previously)

More importantly, please explain why this brave man is not more rewarded than Bill Gates or Donald Trump? What is wrong with a System where one mistake means death for less than $100,000/year, but sitting in an air conditioned office with the "greatest personal threat" being late for a board meeting "earns" (sic) billions?

[Horn]

Some loon will do that for a plethera of dogecoins, Ares and Franks r working hard towards that day.

Thank everyone at gsus for this thread...

[singular_me]

I did tell you many times, it is rational because there at some point there wont be any job left... unless one joins the ranks of madmax/mormons

a money-free society MUST be voluntary otherwise it is enforced and thus collectivism, the difference is in the details

Basic income is NOT the answer. Did you miss my post about Hayek in favor of some basic income to save capitalism?



Because it won't. That's the driving question that she has never been able to answer. Why would anyone work for free?

[Ares]

("work for free" canard dealt with previously)

More importantly, please explain why this brave man is not more rewarded than Bill Gates or Donald Trump? What is wrong with a System where one mistake means death for less than $100,000/year, but sitting in an air conditioned office with the "greatest personal threat" being late for a board meeting "earns" (sic) billions?

I agree that people who risk their lives should be compensated more than what they earn. But in the same token CEO's can either sink or float an entire company. The problem is that the ones who sink a company (Marissa Mayer as an example) should not have been awarded a golden parachute. CEOs are no longer awarded based on performance, instead they are given money just for simply having the title of CEO.

Get rid of the money for nothing federal reserve, and companies no longer have easy access to liquid cash and you'll see behavior like that completely disappear.

[Ares]

I did tell you many times, it is rational because there at some point there wont be any job left... unless one joins the ranks of madmax/mormons

a money-free society MUST be voluntary otherwise it is enforced and thus collectivism, the difference is in the details

Basic income is NOT the answer. Did you miss my post about Hayek in favor of some basic income to save capitalism?

That's my point, with any system devised by man what was once voluntary is now mandatory.

[singular_me]

capitalistic form of freedom is mandatory by man's law: money (coercion, work, spend or/and be left behind)

money-free society is a natural law (voluntarist cooperativism) , does not depend on other people but the understanding of the law

I am not against money as long as it is not hoarded for the purpose of power. a zero sum game economy for me is fine

more over I read a few days ago that Rothschild has finally invested into Bitcoin.



That's my point, with any system devised by man what was once voluntary is now mandatory.

[crimethink]

I agree that people who risk their lives should be compensated more than what they earn. But in the same token CEO's can either sink or float an entire company. The problem is that the ones who sink a company (Marissa Mayer as an example) should not have been awarded a golden parachute. CEOs are no longer awarded based on performance, instead they are given money just for simply having the title of CEO.

Get rid of the money for nothing federal reserve, and companies no longer have easy access to liquid cash and you'll see behavior like that completely disappear.

But I'm not talking about individuals like Mayer, who got the job because she is a tribalist.

I'm talking about all the filthy rich executives who made 100s of times what the lowly workers do. Whatever happened to the Captain gets double portion of the booty?

No one "earns" a million dollars a year+. They finagle it, con someone out of it, "legally" steal it, but "earn" it, with real work? LOL



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ae/ae/98/aeae9802c365c9120702d7907e0e96b7.jpg

http://www.kirkwilcox.com/images/tesla_hilton.jpeg

[Neuro]

That's my point, with any system devised by man what was once voluntary is now mandatory.

Her voluntarism IS mandatory.



a money-free society MUST be voluntary

[Neuro]

But I'm not talking about individuals like Mayer, who got the job because she is a tribalist.

I'm talking about all the filthy rich executives who made 100s of times what the lowly workers do. Whatever happened to the Captain gets double portion of the booty?

No one "earns" a million dollars a year+. They finagle it, con someone out of it, "legally" steal it, but "earn" it, with real work? LOL



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ae/ae/98/aeae9802c365c9120702d7907e0e96b7.jpg

http://www.kirkwilcox.com/images/tesla_hilton.jpeg

Tesla didn't care about making money, so his outcome was predictable. Edison built a business empire on inventions, some his own and others not, a bit similar to Steve Jobs actually (who made most of his money on cartoons actually).

Paris Hilton inherited her money from an ancestor that worked hard to build a chain of luxury hotels, it is not fair for sure, but what is the alternative? The abolishment of private property?

I think the times we are living in now are extreme in that capital and government has essentially become one, where capital pays the politicians handsomely to make the rules, that benefits the former against the rest of the people.

Clinton, Bush, Obama all got these amazing multimillion dollar speaking arrangements after they were out of office, it couldn't be any more obvious! This is payment for taking care of others business interests while in office. It is not reasonable to get payed $1,000,000 for an hours speech if you are a retired president, there is nothing you can say that is as groundbreaking and revolutionary that it would be worth that. Indeed this is nothing but corruption, and if the justice system was just and worked as it is supposed to do, either of these Crapitalists would be immediately arrested, the ex-president charged with high treason against his people, and shot at dawn, and the payer charged with bribery, jailed for life and all his family's assets forfeited.

I actually think that some extraordinary people are worth salaries exceeding $1,000,000 a year, but the numbers of people actually earning that much, would be very limited if anti-corruption laws were enforced.

Thieves!
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZ7bsmX6_VQgYvlr8JtMWcl44ph4ueJ vIXGjypvxGpaFpZ0RY

[crimethink]

capitalistic form of freedom is mandatory by man's law: money (coercion, work, spend or/and be left behind)

money-free society is a natural law (voluntarist cooperativism) , does not depend on other people but the understanding of the law

A "money-free society" would be true communism. That's a value-neutral statement, neither an endorsement nor condemnation, and definitely not support for Jewish Marxism.

However, a medium of exchange, whether it's paper money, metal money, grain, seashells, beads, or whatever mutually-agreed-upon trinkets, has been and will be a fact until God Himself creates a New Heaven and a New Earth. A "money-free society" is forever limited to a small commune of very like-minded individuals. It can not work on a large scale, and has never worked on a large scale. Hence, it is not a "natural law."

Money is not evil. The love of money is evil, and the root thereof. The manipulation of money and, especially, the creation of phantasm "money" from nothing via neo-sorcery, is the basis of and motive for most of the world's preventable ills.

[crimethink]

Tesla didn't care about making money, so his outcome was predictable. Edison built a business empire on inventions, some his own and others not, a bit similar to Steve Jobs actually (who made most of his money on cartoons actually).

Paris Hilton inherited her money from an ancestor that worked hard to build a chain of luxury hotels, it is not fair for sure, but what is the alternative? The abolishment of private property?


That is an extreme which does not follow from the argument. People have been trained by Capitalism to go to that extreme, of course.

The guarantee of personal private property is a foundation of freedom. But I am not talking about millions and billions of dollars, or square miles/kilometers of land, or chains of rental property. I'm talking about personal private property used and usable by an individual and his family. A personal home or homestead (reasonably-sized, personally-worked farm) should be fully-exempt from taxes in perpetuity, as well as debt collection. Everything beyond that is business investment.


Points 11 - 14 of the Program of the NSDAP:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.


Those blinded by Jewish Capitalism will call that "Communism," of course. But, in reality, it's rooted in the ethos of Europe, the same ethos that gave rise to legends like Robin Hood.




I actually think that some extraordinary people are worth salaries exceeding $1,000,000 a year, but the numbers of people actually earning that much, would be very limited if anti-corruption laws were enforced.

Could you please name one? The only theoretical person I could envision would be someone who provided the world, without demand for tribute ("intellectual property"), for example, a true cure for cancer or other major disease, or who provided the means to harness Zero Point Energy. A Nikola Tesla of our time.

[Neuro]

The ancestors of Paris Hilton that through entrepreneurship built and managed the Hilton hotel chain was not entitled to their creation as private property? Because it somehow became to valuable? What is the value limit you would put on private property before it becomes public property?

However if anti-corruption laws were effectively enforced, most likely the Hilton chain would not become what it is, because you wouldn't have a clientele of ill gotten gains and kleptocracy to afford to stay in it.

Further most likely the Hilton family would have lost the property rights with asset forfeiture from bribery long before Paris Hilton was born. Or it wouldn't have grown to the current size if they instead had decided to stay within the laws of the lands they occupy.

[singular_me]

the understanding of the Law is... voluntarism is a consequence :)

what causes poverty is hoarding money. every time one end accumulates the other end gets impoverished... thats the law of balance that God put in place for us to respect creation

the understanding of the law would also be in favor of an economic zero sum game, should societies still want to use money. And I am not opposed to that.


Her voluntarism IS mandatory.


then suffer the jobless society and universal basic income, what else can I say? Saying that a money free society is communism is, in this environment and reality, a stance against the progression of knowledge. Monetarism is a carrot and a stick, that is how ((they)) got us. Working out of passion will respect the Law of Creation. Or is God a communist?

Money has divided societies to no end. So I am not going to advocate for more of the same. Materialism is an identity crisis above all. Nobody takes his savings into his grave... so capitalism is fraudulent



A "money-free society" would be true communism. That's a value-neutral statement, neither an endorsement nor condemnation, and definitely not support for Jewish Marxism.

[crimethink]

The ancestors of Paris Hilton that through entrepreneurship built and managed the Hilton hotel chain was not entitled to their creation as private property? Because it somehow became to valuable? What is the value limit you would put on private property before it becomes public property?


That's a false dichotomy. There must be fully-exempt/protected personal property, but then the remainder is a continuum, up to and including expropriation (as expressed in the NSDAP Program). The vast middle would be property entrusted to private individuals, with control of and benefit from depending upon how wisely and responsibly used (see more below).

The limit of the rich man is expressed in what Rockefeller said: how much is enough? "One dollar more."

The man without God is unable to place limits to material wealth.

How many homes is enough? One for each day of the week? One for each day of the year? 20 bedrooms for a family of 4-6? Six square miles of farmland? 20?

We then get into...




However if anti-corruption laws were effectively enforced, most likely the Hilton chain would not become what it is, because you wouldn't have a clientele of ill gotten gains and kleptocracy to afford to stay in it.

Further most likely the Hilton family would have lost the property rights with asset forfeiture from bribery long before Paris Hilton was born. Or it wouldn't have grown to the current size if they instead had decided to stay within the laws of the lands they occupy.

Which demonstrates my point: one does not "earn" huge sums of wealth. It is collected or forcibly/coercively taken.

If the self-serving rich did not have a monopoly on power, economic disparity would be largely self-correcting. This power includes all of the apparatus of government which even so-called "free market" types embrace with a bear hug: limited liability statutes, professional licensure statutes, "intellectual property" statutes, corporate bankruptcy statutes, and similar.

"Free market" types accept these governmental "protection of private property" instruments, yet condemn National Socialist principles of using government to prevent and remedy "legalized" theft from the Volk. This is why I have such contempt for most of these "free market" types - pure hypocrisy ("free market," for us; monopoly, oligarchy, and special privileges you must revere, for you). I have no qualms about using government to protect the Volk, provided the government remains solely in the hands of, and in service to the Nation (a bio-cultural entity, not a mere population, and definitely not a regime). Some of us have pointed out that a form of government is not the deciding factor, but who controls the government is the deciding factor.

[crimethink]

then suffer the jobless society and universal basic income, what else can I say?


That's not the only alternative scenario. I dare say mine is more likely: mass extermination of the "excess human resources."

Especially those with the intelligence and personal constitution to effectively resist worldwide total government (e.g., the White race).

The mentality of entitlement among the rich will not allow them to "hand out" money to those they have taken advantage of. Murder is far more acceptable to them than "hand outs." These "hand outs" have been allowed to go on on a limited scale by the Capitalist elite solely because they are a weapon against the White middle and working lower classes. Once the White race is effectively dead, the "welfare state" will be abruptly ended, and hundreds of millions will die worldwide.




Saying that a money free society is communism is, in this environment and reality, a stance against the progression of knowledge.


Wisdom =/= "knowledge, and vice-versa.

Communism is not an evil term or even a concept. The means by which Jews and their lackeys advocated its "achievement" are what is evil.

A money-free society would be a property-free society. In other words, Communism.




Monetarism is a carrot and a stick, that is how ((they)) got us.


What is "monetarism"?

Capitalism? Something else? A plastic term that means whatever one needs it to mean at the moment?




Working out of passion will respect the Law of Creation. Or is God a communist?


Is God a Communist? I thought you claimed to know the Bible? Jesus made clear that all property of Christians is the property of the Body of Christ (i.e., all believers). There is no New Testament basis for "10% tithe." Jesus said all of it (Matthew 19:21). None of us meet that ideal, sadly, but yes, that could be called "Communist."




Money has divided societies to no end.


Money does nothing but represent something else. It does not "work." It does not "cause" anything.

In reality, the love of money causes division and war. It could very well be the love of one's neighbor's wife, or one's abode, as well (James 4:2).

Again, money does nothing.

And, because money does nothing, it demonstrates your theory and suggested "solution" fail utterly. You want to eliminate the object of adoration, but not eliminate the moral defect - lust for money. Of course, you cannot do this. It's the same mentality that thinks eliminating guns will eliminate murder and armed robbery. The problem is in the heart of man, not in his hand.




Materialism is an identity crisis above all. Nobody takes his savings into his grave... so capitalism is fraudulent

This is true. But fallen man is a materialist. His tendency is to sin, to fall short of the ideal God created for him, and he never lives up to what he was created as: the Image of God.

There are two ways to change the fundamental nature of fallen man: you can exterminate him, or, you can seek supernatural change. Jesus Christ offers the latter.

You cannot "educate" fallen man into godhood.

[Neuro]

That's a false dichotomy. There must be fully-exempt/protected personal property, but then the remainder is a continuum, up to and including expropriation (as expressed in the NSDAP Program). The vast middle would be property entrusted to private individuals, with control of and benefit from depending upon how wisely and responsibly used (see more below).

The limit of the rich man is expressed in what Rockefeller said: how much is enough? "One dollar more."

The man without God is unable to place limits to material wealth.

How many homes is enough? One for each day of the week? One for each day of the year? 20 bedrooms for a family of 4-6? Six square miles of farmland? 20?

We then get into...




Which demonstrates my point: one does not "earn" huge sums of wealth. It is collected or forcibly/coercively taken.

If the self-serving rich did not have a monopoly on power, economic disparity would be largely self-correcting. This power includes all of the apparatus of government which even so-called "free market" types embrace with a bear hug: limited liability statutes, professional licensure statutes, "intellectual property" statutes, corporate bankruptcy statutes, and similar.

"Free market" types accept these governmental "protection of private property" instruments, yet condemn National Socialist principles of using government to prevent and remedy "legalized" theft from the Volk. This is why I have such contempt for most of these "free market" types - pure hypocrisy ("free market," for us; monopoly, oligarchy, and special privileges you must revere, for you). I have no qualms about using government to protect the Volk, provided the government remains solely in the hands of, and in service to the Nation (a bio-cultural entity, not a mere population, and definitely not a regime). Some of us have pointed out that a form of government is not the deciding factor, but who controls the government is the deciding factor.
Most wealth isn't earned I agree. But there are a few entrepreneurs in my opinion, which have contributed to the world with their ideas to the extent that they deserve their wealth. The Swedish founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad, comes to mind. He never forced anyone to buy his furniture (even though it is akin to slavery putting some of them together), never relied on government contracts, never used forced labor, payed decent wages, and no excessive profiteering

And he was the member of the Swedish National Socialist party during WWII until the mid-50's.

What is excessive wealth? I don't think there is a number to put on it, but I think any wealth that is earned through corruption, usury, coercion, theft, market manipulation, should be up for confiscation (and probably that includes most private held fortunes). You actually don't even need to change many laws for this to happen, just uphold and enforce the existing ones.

A moral person that have amassed great wealth through ingenuity and hard work would most likely be a good guardian of that wealth too, and in that case it would be hard to argue that the wealth is excessive, no matter how large it is.

[Horn]

capitalistic form of freedom is mandatory by man's law: money (coercion, work, spend or/and be left behind)

money-free society is a natural law (voluntarist cooperativism) , does not depend on other people but the understanding of the law

I am not against money as long as it is not hoarded for the purpose of power. a zero sum game economy for me is fine

more over I read a few days ago that Rothschild has finally invested into Bitcoin.

Natural Law is that when you read Rothchild is investing in something, that typically means they are already prepared to de-invest something.

What has hopefully been learned by the U.S. example, is that when laws are put in place to remove Monopolies the rules are Monopolized for benefit of the Bank.

[madfranks]

A universal basic income is not a new idea. Social Credit has advocated it for nearly a century.

And properly implemented, it wouldn't be, "why would anyone work for free?" It would be a basic, bare minimum stipend for those who cannot work or who choose not to engage in money-making activities (artists, volunteers, etc., and, yes, the lazy)

Anyone who wanted to amass cash could, indeed, work to their ability and stamina and desire, and have much more than the basic minimum.

We live in the richest civilization ever in the history of the world. There is zero reason that everyone cannot have a bare minimum living standard, except for the fact that only "one dollar more" (Rockefeller) is "enough" for the wealthy. The promise of technology was that humans could shift their labors from back-breaking work to machine-assisted work to, eventually, a great majority of leisure. We have reached that technological level, but, we have not yet reached a social mindset where ancient serfdom is not still the mentality of those who hold the reins of power.

I don't think your statement (bolded) is Biblical. Assuming an honest society and honest government, who would pay for this? Forcibly taking the wealth of one to give to another is theft, no matter how you look at it. It may be socially trendy right now to want to tax the rich to benefit the poor, but again, in an honest world where you would be forcibly taking the honestly earned wealth from one to provide "bare minimum" money to others, how would such a program be funded?

Lev 19:15 - Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty

[Dachsie]

Universal Basic Income is meant to make everyone totally dependent on their controllers.

It is socialism and it is evil.

"...socialism is a sincere, benevolent, idealist theory, but it doesn’t work without force. Under socialism the government takes from each according to their ability and gives to others according to their need. Everyone is controlled by the government; the government is controlled by politicians, and politicians are bought and sold by wealthy men and corporations. That is why Andrew Carnegie, and other men of great wealth, favor socialism." This is a quote from Brotherhood of Darkness, book by Dr. Stan Monteith

Here is my favorite quote about socialism.


"under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner."

THE INTELLIGENT WOMAN'S GUIDE TO SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM (1928), Fabian Socialist author George Bernard Shaw

[crimethink]

I don't think your statement (bolded) is Biblical. Assuming an honest society and honest government, who would pay for this? Forcibly taking the wealth of one to give to another is theft, no matter how you look at it. It may be socially trendy right now to want to tax the rich to benefit the poor, but again, in an honest world where you would be forcibly taking the honestly earned wealth from one to provide "bare minimum" money to others, how would such a program be funded?

It's called taxation, and has been Biblical back to the Books of Moses.

Corporations are not only not Biblical, but anti-Biblical - the creation of artificial "persons," idols to be worshiped. Corporations must be put back in service to the Nation, and not vice-versa. Taxation is one tool for that; severe penalties, including corporate death, others. "Limited Liability" statutes must be reined in, and, any of the rich who want lower taxes would be welcome to simply revert to a full personal liability legal status. I doubt many would take that.

"Taxation is theft" is a meme developed by the Kosher cults of money, for example, the ((("Austrian"))) (sic) school. I have no problem with the Hitler Administration's funding of the NSV or KdF projects, and neither should you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People%27s_Welfare

Since there is no such thing as "honest earning" of millions of dollars in this society, there is no moral argument about taxation to create a Social Credit stipend to all. I see that Jeff Bozos was just declared the world's richest man. He "honestly earned" that? How?



9179

[crimethink]

Universal Basic Income is meant to make everyone totally dependent on their controllers.


Would you feel better if the universal basic income or Social Credit stipend were administered by the Catholic Church, which teaches that everyone must be dependent upon it to avoid Hell?

http://www.catholicworker.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism


Catholics and other Christians realized the anti-God, anti-human Jewish Marxist movement was the enemy of humanity, and, rather than embrace the evil that was and is Jewish Capitalism, they developed a Godly alternative. National Socialism is a direct child of European Christian Socialism.

(the first "National Socialist" - Catholic-favorable - party was actually in the Ostmark - Austria - in the 19th Century)





It is socialism and it is evil.


Nope.

It's a new social design that naturally results from the advance of technology. As technology progressed, humans were supposed to universally benefit from less work and more leisure. Instead, under the Capitalist-Serfdom model, the few control the technologies, and all the little fuckers (us) get crumbs despite the mountains of cash amassed from the employment of those technologies.

A brilliant defense and explanation of National Socialism by Dr. Joseph Goebbels:

https://archive.org/details/NaziSozi


Until this problem is solved, there are no legitimate arguments in favor of Capitalism:

9178