"Quote from the article " This is a classic ad hominem attack, consisting of innuendo and obfuscation, often focusing on irrelevant items, whose net effect is to direct attention away from the merits of an argument and instead to the character of the person making it. "

At least that's the way Mann phrases it (without providing citations as to what instance "this" he's referring to). His opponents would probably point at numerous criticisms of Mann's work, and of Mann's occasionally disgraceful behaviour, as reason to doubt Mann -- not his "character" in the abstract.

So when you say "No.", you mean "Yes.".

"everyone gets a basic income whether they want it or not. It's meant to be enough to live off"

So, from each according to ability, to each according to need (where "need" is defined to be a uniform quantity).

Thank you for your correction.

"Anybody know a quick and dirty way, a good formula,"

Why sure. We demonstrate the amazing power of DIVISION:

24 hours
-----------------
1.7 ms/100 years

= 5.0823529e+09 years

Solution there, it seems to me, is to inhabit unchangeable-spin planets.

I "couldn't" care less.

They could get some of it by selling valuable services that the market couldn't satisfy. Aw heck, even if you force-sell to the population at large, at least keep up the appearance that this is in exchange for specific goods or services of value provided to the population, as opposed to some sort of general entitlement by the state to your money. That mindset would come along with burdens upon the state to show minimality, necessity, etc., rather than mere majority whim.

I do believe the grandparent was fully aware, and speaking ironically.

"We like it that way,"

Wonder if you'd like 50% or 90% or whatever better, because it would pay for more stuff like your socialized healthcare and stuff and more stuff.

be thankful I don't take it all

"An evidence-based mindset on the state of the world would bring many benefits."

Perhaps evidence can be gathered to support that hypothesis.

It's funny that the slashdot teaser - and your response - both latch onto the "private" part of the picture, as though there was inherent reason to dread private enterprise when providing some important service, to presume government would do better.

bravo

We reject [this] false choice.