You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Universal Basic Income as Compensation for the Creation and Defense of Private Property Rights
I'm so confused on this to be honest! I LOVE Your example. I've always been against the universal basic income, But with your argument, I can't argue against it. I also hate the whole "Property" ownership too. But it's complicated on how we could do things without it.
Reading the book that inspired this post opened my eyes to looking at basic income in a new way as well. I wasn't against it prior to reading it, but after reading it, I realized how important it is to achieving true freedom, and how much we are owed it. No one should be forced to work for someone else due to the imposed restrictions created by enforced property rights. It's not right, and it also makes the labor market itself unfree. A free labor market requires that everyone have the proper ability to refuse to enter it, in order for it to be considered fully voluntary.
Another one of my articles you might like reading along these lines is this one: https://medium.com/basic-income/true-freedom-comes-with-basic-income-7ff1368e170
"No one should be forced to work for someone else." ?? Where do you think money from your UBI will come from? Some will be forced to work for othets by the government. At least in the free market you can choose where and how to work.
Remain skeptical, I think. I have been reading these posts, too. Its a costume party for socialism. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. It has always failed. We are seeing the tragic results of it in Venezuela these days. It has a history of mass murdering millions of people, because in the end it is authoritarianism cloaked as compassion.
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek both advocated basic income. Were they socialists? Despite both winning Nobel prizes in economics, were they free market capitalists who were just too stupid to recognize they were advocating socialism? Or is it more likely you don't understand what basic income is, how it works, and what socialism really is other than a placeholder word for stuff you don't like?
Basic income is money for markets. It can be used as starting capital and often is. Entrepreneurship is a common result of basic income where tried. It's also consumer buying power, so that businesses have customers.
Basic income has nothing to do with shared ownership of the means of production. It has nothing to do with centralization. It's actually further decentralization, because it takes power away from government and gives it back to people. Government doesn't get to decide what to do with tax dollars. Bureaucrats don't. Citizens do. Citizens use basic income to vote in markets as consumers.
I suggest reading about why Hayek supported UBI. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
I also suggest reading about why Friedman did as well. https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070
Then I suggest studying why basic income is so important to capitalism in response to automation. http://www.barrons.com/articles/a-universal-basic-income-for-when-the-robots-come-1499776152
It's ironic perhaps that my (and others) greatest concern with a UBI is that it will be used by governments to cut services they should be providing and just give citizens that money instead. I.e. it has the potential to be a bit too free-market.
Ironic, Hayek's support for a basic income was to prevent social justice manipulation by the state, not to preserve it. In other words to keep government influence out of the free market.
In fact Friedman's support for the idea is based on the same concept. A replacement for government managed programs for support delivered to the poor.
I don't trust government, and I believe human nature always comes out. I cannot conceive of any government program to deliver money directly to people (completely unconstitutional) being free from social justice manipulation, corruption, fraud and abuse, and people when given anything free don't value it and tend to misuse it. Markets also react to "free money" by increasing prices. Look at college tuition and medical services as clear, constant evidence of that very nature in the market.
So you are agreeing now that your initial comment is ironic? You initially said it was socialism and now you say that it has the support of free market proponents because it increases freedom. So which position are you taking now??
Nice try to twist things. No, I don't think my appraisal of UBI as socialist is ironic, or wrong. There are members of the libertarian community who have expressed support for it as an alternative to the current welfare system, claiming its less bad than the status quo. I disagree with them. You stated yourself that one of the flaws you see in the plan is that it might be used to eliminate other government services. These libertarians who voiced support did so on the assumption UBI would replace all other direct payments to the people and cut the size of government. Analysis I have read indicate otherwise. UBI would require, even if it did replace other direct payments,an almost 50% increase in taxes to cover the cost. Its ridiculous. (I can provide articles bearing these numbers out.)
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_19_04_02_henderson.pdf
And:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_19_04_05_whaples.pdf
I understand it just fine, thank you very much. It will fail. It will hand more power to the government and corrupt the market in doing so. There is no program of government "free money" that has remained free of abusive fraud, waste, and political manipulation. This can be no different. Take the economy, filter it through a government bureaucracy, and expect a free market to blossom. Unlikely at best.
It hasn't failed where it has been trialled before.
And the long list of such trials are?
See @scottsanten's blog. He's posted articles about a lot of them.
Social Security is UBI for citizens over age 65. Yes it is failing.
It could easily be paid for by reducing your ridiculous military budget.
I would cut that too, to zero. Social Security and Medicare already take up 60% of the federal budget (military is about 20%) and they only serve mostly older people. How much will it cost with everyone enrolled? Likely several Trillion a year, an impossibly high cost we cannot bear.
Look at @scottsantens articles. He's costed it. It's not all that much. And the critical point is, actually, that we can't afford not to. Capitalism will collapse without a moneyed up consumer class.
I like the way you think. Preach it.
If people are not free to chose how they spend their earned income, it takes the legs out from under the free market. Any program that begins with theft is beginning with the destruction of wealth and choice.
The difference with a UBI is that it's just a minimum floor that everyone gets. There's nothing stopping anyone from earning a billion dollars on top of that if they want. That's not socialism. It's capitalism. And it's going to be necessary to sustain capitalism as the consumer base shrinks due to technological unemployment.
Yes, its still socialism. Most socialist economies (and for that matter most capitalist economies) are mixed economies. They contain elements of both. It is my opinion that increasing the elements of socialism tends to depress and weaken an economy while increasing the free market principles of an economy makes it stronger and leads to economic expansion. History tends to bear this out. A program that weakens the value of the currency may still allow for wealth building technically, but it pushes the overall economy toward an environment where wealth building becomes increasingly difficult, and may lower the rewards of wealth disincentivizing entrepreneurship.
By the way, I've noticed that although I upvote each of your comments and replies whether I agree with them or not, you do not return the favor. Why is that?
Well that's not "socialism". Socialism is about the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, and equality of outcome. I'll grant that providing a UBI in a mixed economy is step in the direction towards equality of outcome, but it's still a far cry from that.
Regarding your claim that essentially redistribution depresses and weakens an economy, and that this is born out by history, this is patently false. Historical analysis of data, and expert modelling, show that higher inequality leads to lower not higher growth rates (I cover this in a blog post here - https://politicsforpeoplenotcorporations.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/the-jobs-and-growth-election-one-last-tilt-at-neoliberalism/). There's clearly a sweet spot somewhere in the centre, where either of the extremes (i.e. laissez faire and socialism) are detrimental. But to suggest that we are anywhere near the socialism extreme and that countering some of the economic regression that we've had in the last 40 years of neoliberalism will hamper economic growth is farcical.
Regarding voting, you might not want to know why I don't vote your posts. I'd suggest you worry about where your votes go, and I'll worry about where mine go.
And here you are attacking private property as theft. You pretend you are against the abolition of private property, but its exactly what you base your comments about UBI being "just" on. You're a socialist, and your plan is socialist, and it will be bad for the economy and for people's liberty. The sad thing is there will be much support for it because people think they can get something for nothing.
I'm not a socialist, and nor do I have any desire to abolish private property. This is just a strawman.
Your posted quote immediately following this thread: As Proudhon remarked - "Property is theft".
Which he did. How does that mean I want to abolish private property??
Lol he doesn't want to abolish private property, he wants to steal it. I guess that's better in his eyes..
That's right. We already have UBI here for citizens over 65, it's called Social Security and it's a scheming disaster.