A tale of distraction
I got this in my email
Friend, Did you see our previous email about our brand-new mug? We reserved one just for you, and we want you to be one of the first to get a Build the Wall mug. Claim your Build the Wall mug now by donating $20 or more before the midnight deadline.
This mug is the perfect way to show others where you stand and provide support for President Trump and his Republican Senate Majority in their fight to keep America safe and Build the Wall. Get yours now>>>
Don’t miss your chance to get one of these limited-edition mugs and show President Trump that you stand with him. Request your mug now!
We live in a wierd time, don’t we?
Whatever drives ideology seems to demand duality, at a minimum, to affect conflict
Since I’ve been looking into getting each of us paid, the mechanism appears more clearly. I’ll be watching a ‘debate’ here at LibertyCon between Mr. Yang & Mr. Miron, staged to be about UBI
The deception is in the framing. They will be debating the merits of a single state welfare distribution scheme in the United States, possibly any wealthy nation, not UBI
This way, anything that can be labeled socialism, becomes evil (shiny ism)
Mr. Miron’s ism will be provided arguments with Mr. Yang’s definition of UBI, which of course does not match the BIEN definition, or a reasonable application of the three words
The Universal is grandiose, as it certainly won’t include extraterrestrials, and they will limit inclusion to a single State, where universal, particularly when arguments for the thing are global, must be global for a fair argument about UBI as a concept
Basic is sufficiently vague. But their definition will be subjective, distracting from the objective basic income we are owed for our participation in the monetary system (the global human labor futures market)
Income, just means getting paid, but any form of welfare distribution has a standard litany of arguments against, so both Isms will distract from rightful income. One with “Not with my money,” and the other with, … ? some strained argument about society and humanity first (but not the foreigners)?
They will almost certainly not discuss the ethical basis of money creation (I’ll try to ask)
That’s my expectation, it’s the thing they’ve established as left and right, shiny ism against shiny ism, distracting from the Global Basic Income no Ism has provided argument against. This cements blind approval for whatever welfare scheme is approved as UBI by Wealth, presented by yes Ism, and similar blind disapproval for anything called UBI by no Ism
Seems assured to do nothing, or just enough to say they did, but not
Guess we’ll see
Thanks again for your kind indulgence