7 ms·

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income

14 points by caramiadare 9y ago

k__ 9y ago
15% of the population having an IQ below 85 should be reason enough.
cgore 9y ago
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.
- rileymat2 9y ago
  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.
- mindslight 9y ago
  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.
  - jrs235 9y ago
    > 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.
    - mindslight 9y ago
      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.
      - jrs235 9y ago
        See POTUS.
        mindslight 9y ago
- _nalply 9y ago
  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.
cheeseomlit 9y ago
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.
- thatswrong0 9y ago
  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.
  - mindslight 9y ago
    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.
DanAndersen 9y ago
>Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be willing to sign up for that deal. But as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, there is a lot for libertarians to like about a basic income. 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.
- sp332 9y ago
  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.
- cam_l 9y ago
  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.
sp332 9y ago
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.

14 points by caramiadare 9y ago

k__ 9y ago

15% of the population having an IQ below 85 should be reason enough.

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.

rileymat2 9y ago
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.
mindslight 9y ago
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.
- jrs235 9y ago
  > 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.
  - mindslight 9y ago
    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.
    - jrs235 9y ago
      See POTUS.
      - mindslight 9y ago
_nalply 9y ago
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.

cheeseomlit 9y ago

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.

thatswrong0 9y ago
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.
- mindslight 9y ago
  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.

DanAndersen 9y ago

>Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be willing to sign up for that deal. But as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, there is a lot for libertarians to like about a basic income. 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.

sp332 9y ago
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.
cam_l 9y ago
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.

sp332 9y ago

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.