Details have to be worked out for sure and yeah inequality will always exist. However, it never stoped us in the past to look for improvements. The US is a social democracy today, sort of. It didn't turned in to it over night.
Look, I am not saying it will happen tomorrow or because I say so. Sometimes the time is right for a certain change, or it isn't. If the majority of americans don't want the UBI, then it most probably won't happen.
All I am saying is, we have the resources and wealth to make it happen. It's an ideological or political question entirely.
What do you call this then?
It's taken for granted that lobbyists influence legislation. But perhaps less obvious is that they often write the actual bills — even word for word.
In an example a week and a half ago, the House passed a measure that would roll back a portion of the 2010 financial reforms known as Dodd-Frank. And reports from The New York Times and Mother Jones revealed that language in the final legislation was nearly identical to language suggested by lobbyists.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...ists-literally-write-the-bill?t=1551715467569
Seriously, this is not the first time we discuss this and it feels like we really only end up discussing semantics, because the US is not an 18th century society, with a company like the East India Company rulling over the society with an iron fist. Believe what you want, but there are billions of dollars thrown at US politics, and often not in the interest of ordinary people, but for large corporations like the financial inudstry, pharma companies and weapon manufacturers. I would even say that with Trump in office, he is very close to an Oligarch in power.
Corruption and lobbyism has become a serious problem in politics these days. And those that have the money to perform it are for the most part wealthy families and large corporations.
I am not entirely against lobbyism, not all of them are evil, none of them are, they represent intersts. Any democracy needs groups that can bring their interests forward, be it from gun owners, to corporations or other groups. The issue here is, that it's out of balance and money is becoming more and more a decisive factor in who wins votes and political influence.
Just because we only know our current system, doesn't mean there are no ideas in how to improve it or that alternatives couldn't work - or din't exist. Like for example:
In governance, sortition (also known as selection by lot, allotment, or demarchy) is the selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates, a system intended to ensure that all competent and interested parties have an equal chance of holding public office.
And actually, it was used a couple of times in history even, like the Republic of Venice and you also use it in jurisdiction to select a jurry for example.
The brevia was used in the city states of Northern Italy during the 12th and 13th centuries and in Venice until the late 18th century.[13] Men, who were chosen randomly, swore an oath that they were not acting under bribes, and then they elected members of the council. Voter and candidate eligibility probably included property owners, councilors, guild members, and perhaps, at times, artisans. The Doge of Venice was determined through a complex process of nomination, voting and sortition.
I am not saying that we have to implement such a system now, that it would be feasible or that I know it would be an improvement. All I am saying is, alternatives exist and they might be better, we simply can't know. We also could use more direct democracy, rather easily even. We have the tools today, to make it possible. All I am arguing against, is this constant negativity of 'this is not possible cuz xyz!' or 'This will never happen cuz xyz'. Yes, of course it never is possible, till it happens. Again, we take certain achievements today as granted because we grew up with them. But you go one generation back and you see the same arguments, where the majority says, this will never happen!
Where did I say I want to force it? I think this is a missunderstanding here. If it ever happens, it will happen because people will vote for it.
Besides, you're already forced to 'pay' for any public service like education, infrastructure, security, defence, research and many more. If we decide to pay the UBI trough taxes, no one would take something from YOU away, unless that is if you're over a certain income level, like if you're 'rich'. I never understand why people get so worked up about this. The US had once income taxes of over 90%. And this is not even the only way in how to financy it. Cut the defence budged for example, which is way to large anyway. Estate taxes could be increased as well, most of it is owned by very wealthy people as well. A transaction tax on finances and financial transactions would generate as well billions.
And if you do all of this, you would still have enough left to 'donate' it to what ever you want.
