And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up.
Ah yes, I'm sure the reaction of traders within hours of the referendum accurately reflects the full realities of the markets after the UK leaves the EU, which won't happen for at least 2 years because it's a complicated process.
If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them. The impact on the rest of the EU would be small compared with the impact on the UK. Then in five years, they could offer to reluctantly let the UK back in with an exchange rate of two pounds to the Euro, but only if they actually started acting like real members of the EU. Some of the EU member nations might well decide to do that just out of spite.
That's actually a great idea, and it's probably something being seriously considered in the halls of EU's power. Need to teach a lesson to all those pesky voters what happens when you go against the wishes of globalist interests. There's already talk of some people in other countries calling for referendums, so the UK needs to be made an example of.
The outrageous damages would be viewed by a judge as outright silliness and dismissed
As they would be in the US, if you actually bothered to show up in court.
This sort of thing would also likely get the serial litigant declared to be a Vexatious Litigant
That happens in the US too, but it's a bit more complicated since the legal system is a lot more fragmented.
Money is irrelevant to the equation. In fact if you try to route a UBI through money, it's doomed to fail. All you'll do is inflate prices to where stuff becomes unaffordable despite everyone getting a UBI, just like the widespread availability of student loans has inflated the price of college tuitions to where you can't afford if despite the loans.
UBI is not comparable to student loans. Tuition inflation happens because students are not paying with some finite amount of income, they are paying with a virtually unlimited amount of credit, because student loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. There is no downward pressure on the price, because credit is treated as an unlimited resource (in practice it is of course limited -- the limit is lifelong indentured servitude).
When you increase people's ability to pay (demand-side economic fix), prices just rise to compensate. It's like trying to climb out of quicksand by pulling one foot up, then putting your weight on that foot to pull your other foot up. Then someone says "let me help you" and pulls one foot up even further. The net effect is no change in your position, except you and the person trying to help did a lot more work for the exact same results.
You're making a vague, qualitative statement about a quantitative question, the Deepak Chopra of economic arguments. The question isn't whether UBI would increase prices, the question is how much and of what. If what you say was true, there'd ultimately basically be no point in any welfare program from food stamps to medicare. UBI is wealth distribution. Translating dollars into "percent ownership of total existing wealth", what UBI does is take some percent from everyone above a certain threshold of wealth and gives it to everyone below that threshold. Would that cause some amount of price increases in some goods? Yeah, of course. But prices are still dictated by the market. Since we don't currently have people starving in the streets in developed nations (quite the opposite, in fact), one can safely assume that the consumption of, for example, staple foods like bread and milk would not change with UBI, at least not much. There's only so much milk you can drink. Whatever price increases happened would be 1) as a result of overall decreased productivity due to people choosing not to work (which is an unknown quantity, but there are arguments why it would be a manageable amount), and 2) to price out UBI dependents out of goods that are currently near the threshold of what the poorest people can afford. Neither of these are anywhere near as catastrophic as what you claim.
A lot of people seem to miss the "basic" part of "universal basic income." This isn't an amount of money that's supposed to be enough to live like Kanye West. It's supposed to be enough to not be homeless and not starve.
Am I certain that UBI is a good idea and won't result in catastrophe? Hell no I'm not. What I am certain of, however, is that if your handwavy little argument was enough to prove UBI so obviously unworkable, there wouldn't be any real-life, grownup economists willing to consider it, but there are.
the left just coddles people that should be removed from society
Could you be more specific? What does that coddling look like?
My comment was intended to point out a simple fact: an obligation, be it externally or internally imposed, to print the words of others will naturally come at the cost of other basic human rights. I never intended to suggest that meant printing the words of others was a bad thing, since I do agree that the right should extend beyond what the government permits. Even so, because of those costs, I also believe that the extent to which the right is extended should be left to the individual to decide. Otherwise, as we agree, it would result in the trampling of rights.
No, actually, we don't agree on that. At least not based on that argument alone. Analogy: I think it's morally wrong to refer to your girlfriend as a dumb bitch in public and private. There should not be any government regulation against it (short of high-threshold abuse), but there should most certainly be a social and internalized cost to it. Do you feel guilty if you flick your booger on the floor? Do you think that feeling of guilt tramples on your rights? Would you look down on someone who farts in the elevator? How about someone who refuses to teach their children any sex ed? Is it OK to be repulsed when someone has bad breath or dorito dust on their shirt? The old adage about your right to swing your fist ending where my nose begins is much too crude to capture the nuances of morality, ethics, and social norms outside of the law.
Remember, the law, basically, means one thing -- a rule which can and will be violently enforced. You won't be locked in a cage at gunpoint for farting in an elevator. Nor will you be locked in a cage at gunpoint for censoring speech on your massive online discussion platform. That's the only thing you and I definitely agree on.
Alexander Graham Bell is alive and well in New York, and still waiting for a dial tone.