The Republican case for the Universal Basic IncomeFollow

I find this argument from John Danaher interesting. He asserts that Utilitarian, Libertarian and Progressive ideologies aren't served well by a Universal Basic Income, but that Republican ideologies are. Basically, if every adult has a guaranteed economic independence, than every adult is freer to live life without other people's ideologies, morals or rules imposed upon them. Choice and therefore freedom is exponentially expanded.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/danaher20131223

. Basically, if every adult has a guaranteed economic independence, than every adult is freer to live life without other people's ideologies, morals or rules imposed upon them. Choice and therefore freedom is exponentially expanded.

Noe of that is of interest to the Republican Party. Not really even in the abstract now, it's just maintenance of the rich white christian status quo in name and deed at this point.

Demea, just how bored were you?

At least it's good for your postcount.

Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the keyboard.

Probably not.

I meant to respond to this back when it was first posted, but I forgot, then got distracted by holiday stuff. But, since it's been bumped (and I'm bored), here's my take.

First off, I don't think that the labels used in the accompanying sources directly translate to US political parties, so it's misleading to translate it that way. They specifically use the labels "Liberalist" and "Republican" to distinguish between two specific approaches to liberty (not being interfered with versus not having a dominating force controlling you). Those are subtle differences in otherwise very very similar positions, and not at all to be confused with modern US political differences between conservatives and liberals (much less Republicans and Democrats).

Secondly, there's a huge caveat that's being ignored here. The Republican position (as defined in the source articles) makes a case for UBI *if* it can be assured that such a thing does not involve a domineering power and danger of such a thing being used as a means of control. Which really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I've argued myself in the past that if we lived in some kind of future Star Trek world where scarcity was more or less eliminated (abundant/cheap power combined with replication technology in that case), then we absolutely could provide everyone with some basic level of living and allow their work to simply add to that as they wish. This is fine because absent scarcity, one person getting a free ride doesn't represent a "cost" to anyone else.


But in the real world in which we live, one person getting a free ride does come at a cost to others. We need a large percentage of our population to be productive workers in order to maintain ourselves. Thus, a UBI would always require some sort of domineering force to take from those producing to provide for those who are not. It's unlikely that a sufficient number of people would continue working under a UBI system to provide for all, and almost certainly what would happen would be the same sort of thing we've seen every time something like this has been attempted: Forced labor and harsh penalties for those who don't work. So no free rides and less freedom. Ergo. Not a good solution.

UBI doesn't mean no income stratification. People would continue to work, although those with minimal talents would be disincentivised .

Someone making money hand over foot also comes at a cost to other (beyond the cost of simply paying the 'price' of the good or service).

So, what's your point?

It's funny reading Gbaji's response. He acts as if we don't already provide a UBI through social safety nets.

What we do in the US is nothing remotely like a UBI. UBI means that everyone receives X goods and services deemed necessary to live a basic life. So you get a free place to live, free food, free clothing, free transportation, education, health care, etc. Everything you "need" to live. If you choose to work, you get a salary in addition to that UBI. You don't lose benefits if you work (which is how most social safety nets work). You get the same stuff, only you can augment it with additional things if you work.

While the system appears to be ideal because it eliminates the initial disincentive for work (losing benefits equal to pay) in a traditional safety net system, it also requires much lower pay per hour of work (to make up for the fact that a large portion of all pay is being consumed providing all that free stuff for everyone). So the benefits to working are decreased relative to the benefits for not working. There are additional problems with regards to markets for the "luxury" goods in this type of system, which may also price things out of reach for most to achieve.

It's a bad idea all the way around, unless your objective is to eliminate private property. Then it's a great idea.

Wait until it explodes, and then complain someone is trying to steal your freedom when someone mentions it.

There's nothing to address. All developed nations provide various welfare programs that guarantee a basic level of income. Since we're all doing it and people still work your argument is demonstrably false. We're already doing it, and it works just fine, in fact we should do it more. The very society you live in has proven you wrong just by having the programs you speak out against so passionately...it's obvious.