The second reading of Bill C-233, the “National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act”
On this weeks House of Commons agenda.
This is all part of the UN’s Agenda 2030.
The Rational Post @therationalpost
There’s a great deal of chatter going on about Universal Basic Income that needs clarification.
Universal Basic Income – like taxation – involves the forcible redistribution of property from one group to another. What we generally fail to see is the only reason this gets sanctioned is that we – via government and subservient corporate media – recategorize money as “not property”. Your home is your property (unless you stop paying the mortgage or property taxes), your chattel is your property, and your internal organs – so far – are recognized as your property with exclusive domain over them.
To illustrate, what if someone proposed the “Universal Basic Kidney” program. Under this program, it is proposed that if someone has two healthy kidneys, the owner of those kidneys would be – against their will – anesthetized and have one kidney removed to redistribute to another with unhealthy kidneys.
We know this is immoral and a crime. Why? Because we understand the individual has exclusive ownership over their kidneys. Why not money? Is money a person’s property or not? Money – provided it is honestly earned and not stolen – is one’s property. Of course it is as it’s a store of value one has created via their labour, via inheritance, or via a lottery. In fact, governments have no money and cannot give without taking from someone today or the future first.
Governments, their accomplices, enforcers, and dependents need to perpetuate the fallacy money is not property to have people hand their property over.
If another asks “Is Universal Basic Income a good idea?”, you ask them “Is the forcible redistribution of property a good idea?”. Watch what happens. Their entire program rests on the premise that money is not property. You could simply take that person’s wallet or purse and take their money out of it, but I wouldn’t recommend it. That would likely end badly. Obviously, the person will resist…proving the point.
When someone says, “Universal Basic Income is a human right!” this is the hallmark of a looter disguising theft as virtue who believe they are entitled to your property. However, they would never live their values by forcibly taking from others themselves. They outsource the violence they advocate to the State.
If you and I agree stealing from each other – in fact, we’d be prosecuted by the State for it – is immoral and wrong, how is it we delegate something we don’t have the right to do to a third party?
Collectivists never criticize others for wanting another’s money, only when one wants to keep their own.
We’d understand this, but the government replaced our education with public schools.
