There’s a somewhat counter-intuitive idea bouncing around in libertarian circles nowadays – that of a “guaranteed minimum income.” It’s such a topic of conversation that Google’s fourth suggestion upon offered those three words is “libertarian.” Columns have appeared at Reason, at the Wall Street Journal at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, and other places, that advance the idea even among those to whom redistributive taxation is the embodiment of the state’s coerciveness. It’s an idea that has been floated in Switzerland and Finland, it echoes Milton Friedman’s idea for a negative income tax, and it’s envisioned as a substitute for the giant patchwork quilt of welfare programs.
Commonly referred to as Universal Basic Income (UBI), it would be a payment from the government to every citizen, unconditional, no strings attached. Done right, it would:
– Greatly reduce the massive bureaucracies that administer current welfare programs.
– Liberate people from mandates and restrictions associated with current welfare programs, and remove the peril of being evicted from their homes for committing victimless crimes.
– Greatly reduce the mechanisms and room for fraud, theft and corruption.
– Reduce rent-seeking behavior.
– Eliminate the “welfare trap” and other incentives not to work that punishes people who try to work their way out of poverty.
– Eliminate all the negative effects of minimum wages (and, yes, a proper UBI should do away with minimum wages and other employer-employee mandates).
– Act a compensating mechanism for “externalities” such as pollution.
Other than the last point, which is something that fits into a libertarian philosophy (your rights end when they infringe on mine, and if your pollution infringes on me, I’m within my rights to seek compensation), these are practical justifications, not philosophical. And, philosophically, the UBI violates libertarian principles. Oh, sure, some have contorted libertarianism into conformity with this idea by asserting that past violations of individuals’ property rights justify current violations, but these contortions don’t pass the sniff test. So, while I agree that a UBI, done right, would be a vast improvement over the current system, I have been loath to actually advocate it as a libertarian. The fear, as always, is that proffering a new statist idea undermines the commitment to principle that is the bedrock of libertarianism.
However, it is a fact that we live in a very non-libertarian society. It is also a fact that neither this nor any other first-world society eliminate transfer payments and public support for the poor. The chance of a conservative or libertarian utopia magically emerging are nil. Libertarians’ goals should be to move things in the right direction instead of expecting that our ideal society will somehow be miracled into existence. In other words, getting from A to B is as or more important than focusing on B. To that end, consider:
The Jim Crow era of the 20th century was a period where the liberties of blacks in the South were massively infringed by an intrusive State. The Civil Rights movement peaked with a bipartisan consensus in Congress to address that institutionalized racism (Jim Crow laws were just that: laws, and business owners who weren’t racist risked the wrath of government if they invited blacks to sit at whites-only lunch counters). Out of that consensus came the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, in addition to wiping discriminatory laws off the books, introduced the concept of public accommodation. Small-government types objected to the latter, correctly seeing it as a violation of liberty. However, as a corrective measure, it was the right course of action. It was a lesser violation of rights that addressed a greater violation of rights. Public accommodation has been taken too far nowadays, but hold that thought for a moment.
UBI can be seen in a similar fashion. Yes, it’s a violation of libertarian principles, but it’s less of one than the current redistributive mess. It’s a step in the right direction, a movement from A to B, a means to restore some liberties that have been abridged. And, it’s a good practical solution as well. Sure, there will be major squawking from some who dine on the gravy train and from the armies of bureaucrats, social justice warriors, community organizers, and professional agitators who make continual (and disingenuous) hay of the inequalities of society, but nothing anyone ever does nowadays comes without some such squawking. There will also be squawking from those who see this as an excuse for people not to work. As to that – again – compare it to the current state of things, not to the ideal. If the program is cheaper, more efficient, less wasteful and fairer, what if it does turn out that more will choose not to work (itself not a foregone conclusion, given that the UBI would remove many obstacles)? If the overall effect is a good one, worrying about individual behavior is little more than passing personal judgment on others.
There is peril, of course, in doing it wrong, and more peril down the road, as the metastasized public accommodation of today warns, but the possibility of going off course miles down the road is not a reason not to start a journey in the right direction. Eternal vigilance is part of the gig, and there will come a time when lesser violations of liberty should be addressed.
So, call me tentatively convinced. I’m reserving the right to evolve my position, and basing support on the “devil in the details.” Those details must include, at a minimum, elimination of the dozens (hundreds?) of welfare programs, the minimum wage, overtime rules, and all the other infringements on employment. I’ll throw my hat on the side of favoring a UBI as a stepping-stone, “A to B” solution to the nation’s welfare mess, and I’m comfortable that I can do so from a position of principle.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters