5 ms·

Just because everything in the past was horrible doesn't mean we need to burn it all down Spoiler: this is where a solid libertarian argument for universal bas

Just because everything in the past was horrible doesn't mean we need to burn it all down Spoiler: this is where a solid libertarian argument for universal basic income begins. Since we know just about every distribution of property/wealth in the present day traces back to a use of force or fraud in the recorded past, but just about everybody has cause against someone, it would be impossible to equitably settle every case individually in order to create a clean slate on which to build a libertarian society. It would also be impossible to just declare "libertarianism, starting right now" and lock in the current known-inequitable distributions of wealth and property. Adding a universal basic income, given to everyone and funded by taxation of everyone, offers a way around this conundrum.

Kinnard 10y ago
Insightful. But still problematic.
wahern 10y ago
No it doesn't. There's no immutable law of nature that requires that the use of force against distant ancestors is at all relevant to contemporary judgments of equality, justice, and fairness. And there's no immutable law of nature that says a universal basic income would excuse any current or future disputes regarding equality, justice, and fairness. Indeed, UBI could even exacerbate feelings of unfairness in myriad, unpredictable ways. The fundamental issue is that concepts like equality, justice, and fairness are highly dynamic and often far removed from most objective measurements of well-being. That's not a critique against those concepts. Our need to feel treated "fairly" is innate. But the reality is extremely messy. The meaning of "fair" is constantly evolving, from the perspective of each individual, each community, and society-wide. And it rarely if ever means the same thing to any two people or groups, and hardly ever means the same thing to the same person across time or other context.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  "Fair", to a libertarian, has an objective definition. No force, no fraud, contract freely entered by all parties. If that definition is not met, then it's not fair.

Kinnard 10y ago

Insightful. But still problematic.

wahern 10y ago

No it doesn't. There's no immutable law of nature that requires that the use of force against distant ancestors is at all relevant to contemporary judgments of equality, justice, and fairness. And there's no immutable law of nature that says a universal basic income would excuse any current or future disputes regarding equality, justice, and fairness. Indeed, UBI could even exacerbate feelings of unfairness in myriad, unpredictable ways. The fundamental issue is that concepts like equality, justice, and fairness are highly dynamic and often far removed from most objective measurements of well-being. That's not a critique against those concepts. Our need to feel treated "fairly" is innate. But the reality is extremely messy. The meaning of "fair" is constantly evolving, from the perspective of each individual, each community, and society-wide. And it rarely if ever means the same thing to any two people or groups, and hardly ever means the same thing to the same person across time or other context.

ubernostrum 10y ago
"Fair", to a libertarian, has an objective definition. No force, no fraud, contract freely entered by all parties. If that definition is not met, then it's not fair.