Basic Guaranteed Income: A Simple Rebuttal

Despite agreeing with the pragmatic argument of eliminating all government entitlement programs in lieu of a basic income system provided for every citizen, the fatal flaw of this theoretical policy would come from the incumbent system waging a devastating propaganda campaign against it.

Imagine for a moment that you are a brand new state employed social worker. You just started your job and hear one day that someone is proposing to eliminate the existing entitlement programs, and necessarily many of the positions surrounding the application and maintenance of those entitlement programs. Only necessary functions will maintain their positions, like accounting and key administrative officials. For everyone else, their function would become essentially redundant since new 'guaranteed basic income' system draws the line on subjective decisions about entitlements on a case by case basis.

Not only would you likely be outraged, but your teammates, labor union leaders, and every family member affected by this decision be most likely outraged as well.

From a politicians perspective, these 'outraged' people become one of two things: a political threat or a potential constituent.

If I advocated for this stance as an existing politician, my seat would be targeted by streams of propaganda, likely accusing me of wanting children to starve, mothers to abuse their children, and possibly of secretly eating babies, puppies and kittens.

If I was considering becoming a politician (or if I was advising a candidate), I would make it a point to latch on to this constituency and fight tooth and nail right along side them to maintain the status quo. No amount of propaganda and smear tactics would be below the belt. Hell, I may even accuse some especially vulnerable supporter of the bill of secretly eating babies, puppies and kittens.

Furthermore, it would be remarkably easy to simply spread the rumor that "they" want to take away your welfare. Who 'they' are is a variable component based on who the local political enemy is. This would be especially effective if that perceived political enemy actually supported a changeover to the guaranteed income equality system, but not entirely necessary. Perception and rumors are effective when most people are completely unaware of how the political system of laws and rights work in practice. Emotions trump all when logic and reason is in short supply.

News and social media would flare up with reports of political leaders seeking to eliminate welfare and entitlement programs entirely. They may caveat that statement with the reasoning why and what it will mean, but the majority of the news report will enrage the audience beyond the point of listening by then.

This may be a very cynical viewpoint, but from my first-hand experience of how government inertia behaves, I would be willing to bet on Augur that it would play out this way and fail miserably if bill actually made it to a vote in Congress (which would be required for the elimination of that many programs and Departments).

Simply put, the camel's nose is damn near outside of the tent because the rest of it's body has been crammed in the tent for years. It doesn't matter what makes sense or what possibilities could come from this policy, because the incumbent system has so much entrenched power and psychological attachment with its beneficiaries. With the proper application of tactics and resources, any opposition to existing entitlement programs (real or imagined) can be destroyed ideologically within weeks or even days.

In addition to that, consider this thought -- what career politician would willingly give up this psychological attachment with their potential voters? You're all but guaranteed to be elected if you keep the entitlement funds flowing and "Get Out The Vote" buses running a few days every election cycle. It's so simple, liars and incompetents pull it off all the time.

It's how the game is played.