4 ms·

libertarians seem to embrace universal basic income, which is puzzling. instead, UBI should be viewed as an absolute affront to liberty and freedom, as it's des

libertarians seem to embrace universal basic income, which is puzzling. instead, UBI should be viewed as an absolute affront to liberty and freedom, as it's designed to shackle everyone, rich and poor, to government largess (libertarian plank issue, not a personal opinion). further, it's an insidious wealth concentration mechanism aimed at removing both the motivation and means for upward mobility. the better policy is to equalize capital and labor power in the economy. we've had 50 years of granting capital great favor, and those experiments have only led to corruption, unfairness, and growing poverty and homelessness.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
Perhaps this makes it less puzzling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism Basically the idea is that UBI follows naturally from the fundamental right to the commons. To make the commons private property it’s only fair that the owner compensate the excluded commoners for the privilege.
- clairity 7y ago
  that there is a strain of libertarianism that isn't 100% pro private property rights is interesting. but i'm not sure UBI serves the purpose of redistributing the common interest in property, even in part, because that seems to depend on how the money is taxed.
  - CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
    That wikipedia page makes a passing reference to Henry George who argued for a single tax. That is, the only tax should be the land value tax and no income taxes would be needed, or justified. I guess an other framing would be that property owners rent property from the commons, at market value. So it’s not really a tax either, more or a rent.
lawrenceyan 7y ago
> it's an insidious wealth concentration mechanism aimed at removing both the motivation and means for upward mobility. Wealth concentration mechanism? This seems like the exact opposite of wealth concentration to me. You're distributing money here. The removal of upward mobility? Again, I fail to see how providing a basic income removes upward mobility. It's quite literally the exact opposite. One of the most difficult parts of getting yourself out of poverty and moving upward in class socioeconomically, is the seed level funding required to bootstrap yourself through your non-earning period to earning period. Usually in most cases, that's the time required to get an education when you're hemorrhaging money on both sides (i.e. having to pay tuition on one end while simultaneously having less time to work in favor of being able to have time to study/take the classes you're paying for on the other).
- clairity 7y ago
  you've bought into the conceit of the whole thing. who doesn't want "free money"? but it's literally wealth redistribution, and which libertarian wants that? that "seed money" simply puts the poor in a deeper hole relative to the rest of the economy, as inflation stabilizes prices aronnd the new floor. moreso, wealthy folks have just staved off larger socioeconomic changes for what amounts to pennies. then think of an alternative world where labor and capital are equal partners in the optimal allocation of resources (the central promise of capitalism). labor is no longer in the dark about opportunity costs and accrued benefits and their fair share of it. consumers negotiate with corporations on equal footing so we get the fairest prices. as a free person, you no longer need a handout because you can negotiate fair wages and fair prices.
  - lawrenceyan 7y ago
    > but it's literally wealth redistribution, and which libertarian wants that? To clarify, in your original comment you said that it was a wealth concentration mechanism. Are you now saying that it is in fact a wealth distribution mechanism?
ausbah 7y ago
Libertarians like UBI because while they don't like large government giving out entitlements, but they know they've lost the battle in trying to repeal entitlements - so if they're going to be stuck with the system they'd prefer one where people can do what they want with a money and a exponentially smaller government bureaucracy administering the handouts. It's not really shackling if you can do what you want with they money. I think there might be some merit to your idea of UBI just keeping the existing elites at the top, if the foretold future automation taking away all the jobs does come to pass. In the meantime however, I think it's wrong to say that people will just stop working and trying to advance upwards. Most people aren't going to be happy with just a bare minimum income, they like the stuff a high income gets them. Plus work is still something many people derive meaning from, at all incomes. Work and upward mobility won't just go away with a comprehensive social safety net.
- clairity 7y ago
  i agree that people will find ways to work. gettting paid fairly is the concern, and i'm arguing that UBI hurts that by (clever) design. automation is an argument (and a threat) made by capital holders explicitly to depress wages, and distract from the shenanigans that already hugely imbalance the labor market in their favor. it's not some inevitability. our economy can evolve in an infinite number of ways, WALL-E be damned.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

Perhaps this makes it less puzzling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism Basically the idea is that UBI follows naturally from the fundamental right to the commons. To make the commons private property it’s only fair that the owner compensate the excluded commoners for the privilege.

clairity 7y ago
that there is a strain of libertarianism that isn't 100% pro private property rights is interesting. but i'm not sure UBI serves the purpose of redistributing the common interest in property, even in part, because that seems to depend on how the money is taxed.
- CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
  That wikipedia page makes a passing reference to Henry George who argued for a single tax. That is, the only tax should be the land value tax and no income taxes would be needed, or justified. I guess an other framing would be that property owners rent property from the commons, at market value. So it’s not really a tax either, more or a rent.

lawrenceyan 7y ago

> it's an insidious wealth concentration mechanism aimed at removing both the motivation and means for upward mobility. Wealth concentration mechanism? This seems like the exact opposite of wealth concentration to me. You're distributing money here. The removal of upward mobility? Again, I fail to see how providing a basic income removes upward mobility. It's quite literally the exact opposite. One of the most difficult parts of getting yourself out of poverty and moving upward in class socioeconomically, is the seed level funding required to bootstrap yourself through your non-earning period to earning period. Usually in most cases, that's the time required to get an education when you're hemorrhaging money on both sides (i.e. having to pay tuition on one end while simultaneously having less time to work in favor of being able to have time to study/take the classes you're paying for on the other).

clairity 7y ago
you've bought into the conceit of the whole thing. who doesn't want "free money"? but it's literally wealth redistribution, and which libertarian wants that? that "seed money" simply puts the poor in a deeper hole relative to the rest of the economy, as inflation stabilizes prices aronnd the new floor. moreso, wealthy folks have just staved off larger socioeconomic changes for what amounts to pennies. then think of an alternative world where labor and capital are equal partners in the optimal allocation of resources (the central promise of capitalism). labor is no longer in the dark about opportunity costs and accrued benefits and their fair share of it. consumers negotiate with corporations on equal footing so we get the fairest prices. as a free person, you no longer need a handout because you can negotiate fair wages and fair prices.
- lawrenceyan 7y ago
  > but it's literally wealth redistribution, and which libertarian wants that? To clarify, in your original comment you said that it was a wealth concentration mechanism. Are you now saying that it is in fact a wealth distribution mechanism?

ausbah 7y ago

Libertarians like UBI because while they don't like large government giving out entitlements, but they know they've lost the battle in trying to repeal entitlements - so if they're going to be stuck with the system they'd prefer one where people can do what they want with a money and a exponentially smaller government bureaucracy administering the handouts. It's not really shackling if you can do what you want with they money. I think there might be some merit to your idea of UBI just keeping the existing elites at the top, if the foretold future automation taking away all the jobs does come to pass. In the meantime however, I think it's wrong to say that people will just stop working and trying to advance upwards. Most people aren't going to be happy with just a bare minimum income, they like the stuff a high income gets them. Plus work is still something many people derive meaning from, at all incomes. Work and upward mobility won't just go away with a comprehensive social safety net.

clairity 7y ago
i agree that people will find ways to work. gettting paid fairly is the concern, and i'm arguing that UBI hurts that by (clever) design. automation is an argument (and a threat) made by capital holders explicitly to depress wages, and distract from the shenanigans that already hugely imbalance the labor market in their favor. it's not some inevitability. our economy can evolve in an infinite number of ways, WALL-E be damned.