The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income(libertarianism.org)
libertarianism.org
The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income
18 comments
The way I always heard it put (by thoughtful libertarians anyway) was that ubi reduces the need for welfare, not that it requires the abolition of it. Agree with what you say otherwise, but I think actually the issue is that radical / neoliberal conservatives are trying to rebrand as the more palatable 'libertarian'.
There will always be a need for welfare, ubi changes poverty from a supply side issue to a demand side issue.
There will always be a need for welfare, ubi changes poverty from a supply side issue to a demand side issue.
If a single mother is spending all her money on lottery tickets, the amount of money she has is not the problem. As for billionaires, the policies should be made up on the tax side, not the distribution side. We already have a system for auditing and enforcing tax laws, and that lets us keep the distribution part very simple, and cheap.
I don't really know how the current system treats people with high hospital bills, but I think guaranteeing an income from which they could pay a consistent amount every month for the foreseeable future would probably let them come to some arrangement with the hospital.
I don't really know how the current system treats people with high hospital bills, but I think guaranteeing an income from which they could pay a consistent amount every month for the foreseeable future would probably let them come to some arrangement with the hospital.
I get the sense that these self-styled "bleeding heart libertarians" can just drop the "libertarian" piece and it'd be a bit more honest. these are not libertarian arguments (they basically amount to "well it's not as bad as the current welfare system") and basic income goes against fundamental libertarian principles.
You can steer society more towards your philosophy by compromising. Or you can stamp your feet and try the all or nothing approach.
Without a supermajority control of the legislative branch, the latter is pretty much useless.
Without a supermajority control of the legislative branch, the latter is pretty much useless.
The problem is that compromise essentially happens based around what's profitable for entrenched interests. So every political movement is rooted in the inherent desire of people to be left alone, but mostly succeeds at applying its philosophy where it can enable enslavement.
15% of the population having an IQ below 85 should be reason enough.
I don't think the last objection was stated very well. If fewer people are in desperate poverty, that will create more economic growth, not less.
Basic Income is literally taking money from people by force of law (and therefore, threat of violence) and giving it to other people, against the first person's will. It is communism and completely antithetical to any reasonable definition of libertarianism. An argument that it's less bad than other forms of government-sponsored theft isn't exactly a solid libertarian argument.
Your money has been taken away. Choose one of:
- By random violence by burglary in your own home. The state is so weak that citizens aren't protected. You are lucky to be alive.
- By regulated «violence», i. e. taxes. The state collects taxes to provide stability, security and equality.
- By random violence by burglary in your own home. The state is so weak that citizens aren't protected. You are lucky to be alive.
- By regulated «violence», i. e. taxes. The state collects taxes to provide stability, security and equality.
But if you are willing to maneuver your way in a pluralistic society, you may as well negotiate for things that are closer to your philosophy.
And yet continual rent for a place to sleep (whether paid to banks and cities, or abstracted to private landlords) is also literally taking money from people by force of law.
I'm personally against BI in that pouring more gasoline on the inflationary fire is not going to put it out, but deflationary economics have never been popular - trying to get people to stop partying while they're having a good time is impossible, but so is bringing up the topic when they're hungover!
So long as the overriding monetary environment remains a biased towards centralized extraction, there most certainly is a libertarian argument in that those who wish to distance themselves from that technology should be able to, rather than being forced to cope within it.
I'm personally against BI in that pouring more gasoline on the inflationary fire is not going to put it out, but deflationary economics have never been popular - trying to get people to stop partying while they're having a good time is impossible, but so is bringing up the topic when they're hungover!
So long as the overriding monetary environment remains a biased towards centralized extraction, there most certainly is a libertarian argument in that those who wish to distance themselves from that technology should be able to, rather than being forced to cope within it.
> And yet continual rent for a place to sleep (whether paid to banks and cities, or abstracted to private landlords) is also literally taking money from people by force of law.
I concur. And we, IMO, ought to have a CIVIL way of determining land rights lest we go back to tribalism and might makes right determinations (individual violence).
>So long as the overriding monetary environment remains a biased towards centralized extraction
And how do we pay for the resources needed to civilly determine and enforce the outcomes of claims to land? Whatever government oversees the process, local, county, state, or federal will need a way to extract something of value from those governed which is why we have fiat currency and why taxes must be paid in the form of currency controlled and dictated by said governments.
>I'm personally against BI in that pouring more gasoline on the inflationary fire is not going to put it out, but deflationary economics have never been popular
I agree with you. Rather than collect taxes to force value extraction the government could just inflate the money supply by paying those that operate it with newly created dollars. No taxation needed. I think this is a worse solution as it's easy for loose money policies to snowball. People at least feel the pinch and pain of taxes to help restrain and reign in the cost(s) of government.
>there most certainly is a libertarian argument in that those who wish to distance themselves from that technology should be able to, rather than being forced to cope within it.
I believe people should be allowed to conduct business using whatever currency they wish except for paying taxes. They'll need to obtain or convert their currency into the fiat currency of choice.
I heard there's a Libertarian paradise East of Ethiopia and Kenya for those purists that can't accept compromise.
I concur. And we, IMO, ought to have a CIVIL way of determining land rights lest we go back to tribalism and might makes right determinations (individual violence).
>So long as the overriding monetary environment remains a biased towards centralized extraction
And how do we pay for the resources needed to civilly determine and enforce the outcomes of claims to land? Whatever government oversees the process, local, county, state, or federal will need a way to extract something of value from those governed which is why we have fiat currency and why taxes must be paid in the form of currency controlled and dictated by said governments.
>I'm personally against BI in that pouring more gasoline on the inflationary fire is not going to put it out, but deflationary economics have never been popular
I agree with you. Rather than collect taxes to force value extraction the government could just inflate the money supply by paying those that operate it with newly created dollars. No taxation needed. I think this is a worse solution as it's easy for loose money policies to snowball. People at least feel the pinch and pain of taxes to help restrain and reign in the cost(s) of government.
>there most certainly is a libertarian argument in that those who wish to distance themselves from that technology should be able to, rather than being forced to cope within it.
I believe people should be allowed to conduct business using whatever currency they wish except for paying taxes. They'll need to obtain or convert their currency into the fiat currency of choice.
I heard there's a Libertarian paradise East of Ethiopia and Kenya for those purists that can't accept compromise.
I don't see how purporting to agree while then stating the direct opposite or talking past someone with a bunch of strawman would ever be productive.
See POTUS.
I meant for productive conversation.
Sure, a person can employ a combative communication style to get ahead in the monkeysphere. But still, the road to being a shithead president doesn't start off with being a shithead forum commenter.
Sure, a person can employ a combative communication style to get ahead in the monkeysphere. But still, the road to being a shithead president doesn't start off with being a shithead forum commenter.
Fair enough.
I failed to understand your stance from your reply to cgore. I took your response to be "agreeing while pulling back a bit on cgore's position.
I am interested in your thoughts on how to address "taking money from people by force of law (gunpoint)" You pointed out the parallel between cgore's point the BI is no different than rent on land.
It appears you're against inflationary policies and pouring gas (BI) onto the situation adds to it (unless money is taken out of supply via taxes, however the symptom of inflation is still likely to appear: an overall increase in prices.). Inflation of prices is a symptom of inflation of the money supply. But an overall increase in prices does not necessarily mean there is inflation (of the money supply).
I am also interested in your thoughts on how should we pay for the civilized framework (government) that sorts out disputes?
I failed to understand your stance from your reply to cgore. I took your response to be "agreeing while pulling back a bit on cgore's position.
I am interested in your thoughts on how to address "taking money from people by force of law (gunpoint)" You pointed out the parallel between cgore's point the BI is no different than rent on land.
It appears you're against inflationary policies and pouring gas (BI) onto the situation adds to it (unless money is taken out of supply via taxes, however the symptom of inflation is still likely to appear: an overall increase in prices.). Inflation of prices is a symptom of inflation of the money supply. But an overall increase in prices does not necessarily mean there is inflation (of the money supply).
I am also interested in your thoughts on how should we pay for the civilized framework (government) that sorts out disputes?
It's disagreement, but based on emphasis not axioms.
Singularly focusing on the tax aspect while ignoring the rest of the government-created conditions produces a biased conclusion. Basic Income seems to have gained appeal because of people's need to meet rent. But said rent is itself almost entirely due to government created conditions - the natural cost of building and keeping up dwellings is a small part of their budget.
Similarly while I do agree that taxes are inherently theft, applying this condemnation to any specific topic will just gain legs or not based on who stands to benefit. Condemning any new proposed program based on spending (rather than considering it in the context of rearrangement) is fallacious, and more befitting conservatism rather than libertarianism. I would be in favor of generally disbanding USG. But I'll be damned if such a push is going to result in cuts to eg NPS, NSF, NIH, EPA, NASA, and even USPS, while leaving eg NSA, FBI, ATF, DEA, and Raytheon intact.
FWIW, This is my specific critique of BI: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12782244
Regarding taxes and jurisdiction, there really is little point in going back and forth between wildly differing perspectives, and I've stopped asserting that I have the answer. I will say that I've come to view libertarianism heuristically (as opposed to axiomatically), and things like the federal government collecting lots of money just to dole it back out to the states with strings attached can still be pointed at as decidedly broken.
Singularly focusing on the tax aspect while ignoring the rest of the government-created conditions produces a biased conclusion. Basic Income seems to have gained appeal because of people's need to meet rent. But said rent is itself almost entirely due to government created conditions - the natural cost of building and keeping up dwellings is a small part of their budget.
Similarly while I do agree that taxes are inherently theft, applying this condemnation to any specific topic will just gain legs or not based on who stands to benefit. Condemning any new proposed program based on spending (rather than considering it in the context of rearrangement) is fallacious, and more befitting conservatism rather than libertarianism. I would be in favor of generally disbanding USG. But I'll be damned if such a push is going to result in cuts to eg NPS, NSF, NIH, EPA, NASA, and even USPS, while leaving eg NSA, FBI, ATF, DEA, and Raytheon intact.
FWIW, This is my specific critique of BI: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12782244
Regarding taxes and jurisdiction, there really is little point in going back and forth between wildly differing perspectives, and I've stopped asserting that I have the answer. I will say that I've come to view libertarianism heuristically (as opposed to axiomatically), and things like the federal government collecting lots of money just to dole it back out to the states with strings attached can still be pointed at as decidedly broken.
Is there any conceivable political world in which UBI is set up as a replacement for the current costly welfare system, and stays that way for more than two weeks?
Imagine the headlines:
- This poor single mother spent her UBI on lottery tickets, now her four kids are starving!
- He got hit by a car. Now this man has to choose between hospital bills and food!
- You won't believe which filthy-rich billionaire is pocketing his UBI check instead of donating it to charity!
It's hard to envision an outcome in which the public isn't immediately clamoring for adjustments, deductions, and exceptions to try to tweak the UBI system to be more fair.
I'm sympathetic to the concept of UBI, especially the method of reducing waste as described in the article. But I can't help but feel that these "UBI will replace the welfare system" articles are inherently dishonest by promising an unstable house-of-cards outcome to a political bloc just to get their support for something that they wouldn't support otherwise.