Hello Woko Haram,
Pass the act first then. Until then, the issue is that cronyists can spend the money in other economies throughout the world.
It is in the interest of everyone except the corrupt to pass the
Anti-Corruption Act. But it will take some time. That depends on how many people agree strongly enough to join the effort, since this is something we the people must do for ourselves without waiting for government to make it happen. This should appeal to all free-thinking persons who have a healthy suspicion of government.
If that's your argument, then it sounds like you favor socialism. Bernie must be your favorite candidate. To each their own, but we are fundamentally at odds on economics.
I favor a hybrid economy which combines capitalism and socialism in the correct balance, because that is the logical conclusion of real-life testing of different economic models all over the world and across time.
The more government grows, the fewer liberties you keep. That is half of the problem with big government.
That is inevitable. There is no way to prevent government from growing in proportion to population growth and technological advancement. The government of 1776 needed no FAA, no FCC, for instance. Look to the distant future: We currently have 7.5 billion humans on the planet. How many personal liberties would you expect the people of a planet of a trillion humans to retain? Long ago, when the planet had only a few humans, personal liberties were ultimate. No restrictions whatsoever. Fast forward to today and personal liberties are severely restricted compared to original humans. That trend is bound to continue over time. You can't just pick a block of time and freeze the situation to your liking. To try to argue against change itself is futile.
The other half involves the economic issues I've mentioned.
And all of the issues must be accepted and managed, because there is no preventing progress.
There are numerous countries throughout the world that have a government more along the lines of what you're discussing, but their personal freedoms are considerably more restricted. If you want that, then maybe you should immigrate to one of them. The UK might be a good fit, or Canada.
That is a ridiculous non-argument which will solve nothing. One individual changes countries. What's that going to do? If that is your best argument then you're capitulating on the weal merit of your overall argument. I can understand. I believe your argument is bound to prove faulty. It is not possible to implement a strategy of cutting back government in a growing world.
I prefer the relatively smaller government here and the much more decentralized authority.
We don't have a small government and we never will. But if you're happy with what we've got, then you should have nothing to complain about.
Well, you seem to have no concern of freeloading. If you want to talk about economic downturns, a society that discourages ambition and does not encourage work is surely on the path to failure and collapse.
No, I am really not concerned with freeloading. And I will tell you why. Because I have faith in human potential for good. That's why. I may be an atheist, but that doesn't mean I don't have faith. My faith is in humanity to do good, that good will triumph over bad. It always has and it always will, in the long run. Sure, there are bad people and they do bad things. But there are more good people, and the good outweighs the bad over time. This is an easy faith for me to have because I look at everything we have and I can see it was all built by humanity working together toward the common good.
The difference between the view that people left to their own devices will do bad things and the belief that they will naturally tend to do good things is the difference between pessimism and optimism. Humans, when presented with a good situation, will mostly do good things, seek happiness and the rewards of accomplishment. This is due to natural selection. If humans tended to do bad things, mess up a good situation, then humanity would have been mostly comprised of thieves, and no advancement of civilization would have been possible because: for every thing built by one person, there would be two to steal it or destroy it. So nothing would get built, no advancement would remain. There would be no point. Hopelessness and despair would dominate, and humanity would have died out as a result. That didn't happen, because people are basically and inherently good and productive.
We live in a fantastic world of advancement and accomplishment. Look at all we've accomplished since being cavemen. Humans are productive and good. A UBI is not going to change that. If we provided every member of society the means to survive in basic comfort, most will seek pursuits to improve their own condition above that bare minimum, whether that be by work or business or mutual trading of volunteering efforts. The work does not have to be rewarded with pay to yield a sense of accomplishment. Have you never lifted a finger to do anything you were not paid to do? I certainly have. And I believe most people have. People like to help one another simply for the act of giving and doing something nice for others. People will undertake effort and work for their own reward and as a display of their love for others and for humanity. That is a natural human instinct and it is why humanity has advanced, not regressed.
That's where UBI comes in. Anyone who is capable of fulfilling government work should also be capable of finding private work. If he/she can't then he/she must not have been that economically worthwhile to begin with.
The problem with capitalism is that it eats itself. OK? I'll explain: Capitalism always seeks to improve profits for the holders of capital. ROI. It's all about the ROI. Toward that end, labor is continually targeted for cuts. Any means may be employed to reduce labor. Offshoring, automation, systems engineering, efficiency improvement, etc. As time goes by, fewer and fewer workers are employed. That is great for profits but it does not address the other side of the capitalism equation. Sure, it's great to reduce the cost of providing products and services, but somebody has to buy those products and services. The same workers that capitalism is cutting the income of, are the potential buyers of products and services.
As capitalism makes profiteering more efficient, it destroys it's own market. That's why capitalism always eats itself. Henry Ford understood this problem. If there is nobody who can afford to buy your products then there is no point in building them, and you won't make any money.
Socialism and wealth redistribution can help with that. Actually, it is necessary. Capitalism is destined to fizzle out without socialism to support it. Once most of the wealth has been transferred into a very small segment of society, and most of society essentially has no wealth, no buying power, and is rendered unable to buy anything. Then the capitalist market collapses. Wealth redistribution ensures that there will always be a market for capitalism. Equitable wealth redistribution ensures that the common masses always have buying power, and the opportunity to achieve great wealth and grand dream fulfillment. It is that hope of upward mobility which motivates ambitious people to strive and achieve great things which benefit society.
You're going to confuse leftists like this with such facts. 
