You're really going to have to elaborate on your opinion...
Saying extreme claims like it's genocide without backing it up by any form of logical argument is kind of pointless.
Like, sure, I welcome a discussion, it's always interesting when someone has an opposing view, maybe I can learn something. But blanket statements with nothing to back them up isn't conducive to a positive or constructive conversation at all loooool
I'm not saying it is genocide, I am only saying it possibly could end up that way. How is the income provided by the government?
You still haven't explained why though...
Anyway, I think you're missing the point, firstly, Swift Demand isn't even government run whatsoever, everyone just gets 100 tokens a day, it's as simple as that.
But in regards to the topic of Universal Basic Income in general, I do believe it is the future. It's not realistic right now, but in 50-100 years time I see no reasonable alternative.
When we lose the majority of jobs to robots and automation how do you possibly propose we fill the gaps? There will not be enough jobs for the human race, this is where a UBI will be absolutely critical.
It's just being realistic, knowing that in the future robots and AI will do a far better job than humans for many, many tasks. In this scenario, we need to have systems like the UBI in place to ensure everyone has access to a liveable sum of money, even if they don't work.
And of course, if they do choose to work, they will still have significant financial incentive to do so, as explained in my article.
I was attempting to use Socratic questioning to get you to illustrate my point for me. What value does swift demand have that will allow it to be income, and not just Monopoly money? Other alts have practical uses or fix a problem inherent in btc. But if swift is implemented--why would it have value?
And, if there were UBI, and the government wasn't providing it with tax money (which would be equivalent to slavery), then who would provide it?
Well, its inherent value is derived from it's adoption really... it's up to the community to place some kind of value on the token.
If the project doesn't kick off well and isn't adopted, it's not going to be worth anything. But if the user-base expands exponentially and more and more businesses start accepting Swift Tokens as a payment method, the token would obtain an inherant value and would no longer be considered "monopoly money".
I'm not saying the project is perfect by any means, but I'm willing to give it a go and I still stick by my opinion that a UBI will be a necessity in the future.
The money saved from mass automation within the workplace will pay for a UBI. How that is effectively implemented I have no idea as I'm not a politician, I'm just some guy. A "robot-tax" would be one example but I'm sure there are many other ways of doing it.
Well, if crypto by and large succeeds, do you expect that taxation will become impossible? In which case, wouldn't UBI be impossible? My thought is that UBI and the goals of crypto are contradicting.
Also, crypto will solve any and all problems that come about through automation, because it will give people a decentralized protocol to acquire the best prices... which will drop to near 0 due to automation
...And our labor will become our purchasing skill, not our producing skill. No UBI necessary.
But I think maybe swift doesn't actually fit the definition of UBI that I have in mind... Would there be coercion involved in any way?
Hmmm I mean we are getting onto different issues here but even if crypto gets mainstream adoption, that doesn't mean you can't apply taxes.
Profits from crypto for example are taxable, hence why there's the whole controversy over rising crypto prices after the tax returns month etc.
I see what you mean though about decentralization reducing the prices of things substantially, fair point, some level of income will still be necessary though.
There's no coercion in Swift AFAIK, you just get given the tokens, it's as simple as that. It's up to the individual as to whether they want to bother or not.
I see it as an experimental system that may or may not work, but surely the fundamental ideology of a basic income for all is something to be admired?
Are you sure about that? After all, crypto is just computer code, which legally counts as speech, and therefore cannot be taxed unless sold for USD. If not sold for USD (in the case of widespread adoption), it would be untaxable. So, profits may be taxable, but if crypto we're widely adopted, there wouldn't be taxes, because USD wouldn't come into the equation at all.
I personally don't think UBI is an admirable idea, because it relies on the existence of a sovereign or central authority to dole out wages. This is centralized and therefore inherently contradicting to the point of BTC.