So I recently just finished another book, "What's Wrong With a Free Lunch?", which was about Phillippe Van Parijs' "real freedom" argument for UBI, and objections to it. And of course, most objections basically came down to everyone's heads exploding at how he dare suggest that people get a basic income without working for it. Many proposed alternative forms of UBI such as a "participation income" in which the income is tied to at minimum raising kids or volunteer work. But for the most part, people seemed to really be stuck in the old ideological outlook of tying work to income in some ways. I know I'm being a little overly simplistic here, but it did kind of irk me.
I mean, honestly, I just don't see the problem, outside of people being so indoctrinated into the old ideologies surrounding work that they have had their imagination robbed by them. I get it, most older, established ideologies are based in some ways on work. The right doesn't have an explicit requirement to work for the most part these days, as economically they are akin to "right libertarianism", but without much in the way of a UBI, you basically are forced to participate, and that's where that comes in. Their objection isn't so much people not working, it's expecting people to pay others for not working, believing people are entitled to the fruits of their labor and that any redistribution is wrong. The left tends to actually believe similar things in a sense, particularly the last part. THe labor theory of value requires that people be entitled to the value of what they produce, and their big argument against capitalism is that the owners of the means of production are parasites who steal surplus value from workers. While social programs are guaranteed to those who are sick and unable to work, if you're able bodied, you're required. And of course, you have more liberal and social democratic traditions, which have views based on reciprocity. Behind their generous safety nets is a moral requirement for those who are able to work to contribute, and many of them have their heads explode at the idea that someone dares not work and surfs Malibu or whatever. So they tend to have means tested welfare that separates the deserving from the undeserving. But none of these guys are really anti work in any capacity.
This book seems to mostly focus on critics from the more liberal/social democratic tradition. Most aren't arguing for socialism and siezing the means of production, nor are they arguing for right libertarianism and laissez faire. Most are welfarists, but typically have some sort of objection to a universal basic income with no work requirement at all.
Some of this is for pragmatic reasons. They might simply acknowledge that our society is not there yet and we need to compromise. But moral compromise seems dirty to me. Perhaps at the end of the day, to get stuff done, some compromise is necessary. But on a moral basis we should make our arguments as strongly and as clearly as possible, only ceding ground when people are elected and we need to get enough votes to pass something. Liberals seem to have a horrid tendency of pre-compromising before we even get to that negotiation table, almost talking down their supporters for daring being bold optimists, only to further compromise in office, to the point that when it comes to passing anything, they literally can't pass anything of value. This is the folly of the democrats and the Biden administration. And it sickens me and offends my moral sense. No, I'd rather argue for what I want and lose, than argue for what I do want, and end up selling out where my "win" means nothing to me. We need to stop compromising with "the way things are" and advocate for what we want. While we can debate the actual logistical pragmatism of policy, we shouldn't just give up before the fight started.
Ironically, some actually propose their own niche social values in opposing UBI. One argument that was made in the book was that if we have a UBI that gives everyone money as a right of citizenship, then this isn't compatible with our open immigration system. You know what? I recognize this argument, it's valid, and it's a huge reason I'm far more of an economic nationalist than most lefties. A lot of lefties, especially in the US, are pro immigration. They tend to specifically try to pander to immigrant communities for votes, often obnoxiously so, and this is part of their strategy to undermine the economic left. While some on the economic left are also open border, as well as socialist, this doesn't work for me either. The fact is, they're right, an anti work society is a society with relatively closed borders. because open borders and UBI would cause mass migration to the country in question, causing a massive free rider problem. If the grand bargain we have to make with the right to get UBI passed is closed borders and a strict immigration policy, I'm all for it. Build your freaking wall, as long as I can get my UBI, it's a waste of money and a racist eyesore, but I don't care. My motivations here are not based on xenophobia and racism, but on economic sustainability of my preferred programs. I would happily make that trade for those reasons.
But a lot of lefties won't. They will insist I sacrifice my own priorities on my anti work ambitions, but if I dare suggest they axe their pro immigration stance to accomodate my ideas they double down. I've had people calling me selfish and racist for proposing such a compromise before. A lot of liberals are perfectly fine with sacrificing other's values if they don't identify with them, but then when the shoe is on the other foot they act like I'm evil for it. Well, sorry, I'd rather have UBI than open borders. I know a lot of libs will hate me for that, and I've been told as much before, but that's my own stance on that dilemma.
Anyway, this brings me to the core reciprocity question. A lot of liberals believe that reciprocity is essential for the safety net exist. They believe in a government takes care of you, but only if you do your part and work if you're able to mentality. And when UBI is proposed, they constantly insist on watering it down. "Participation income", blah blah blah.
Now, I admit, Van Parijs' ideology on UBI is a little differently than mine as I explicitly support Widerquist's "indepentarian" framework, but I am sympathetic to "real libertarianism" too. But this is where I feel like "real libertarianism" fell apart. I don't believe he offered a strong rebuttal to the recprocity objection. For me, it's about freedom. A freedom from coercion. if you means test or work test UBI, you make the policy worse. You impose more government control over who gets it and when. You exclude people who should get it. You make people fill out forms and jump through hoops to prove their worthiness. You take away their freedom to participate in the market as they want to. Indepentarianism is based on the freedom to say no, the freedom to be left alone. UBI is a compensation for society existing, and coercing people into participation via their propertylessness. UBI is essentially like a form of reparations in this sense. It's a right as a citizen, and it gives everyone the right to participate.
Some of the fears involving a lack of reciprocity are logical, in the sense that at the end of the day, someone has to make the sausage, someone has to do the work. Yes, they do. But if a UBI is implemented properly, it would be high enough to ensure a basic existence, but low enough to ensure most people would want to work. As long as enough incentive exists to reward people with higher living standards if they work, who cares if everyone gets a minimum? Honestly, I think any practical objections to a UBI on the grounds of reciprocity can be dealt with, if they are not already debunked by the social science on the topic. And even if GDP is a bit lower than it would be without a UBI, as Van Parijs himself pointed out, maybe the freedom that comes with UBI is more important than having a "hyper productive, overworked society". By my calculations we're talking like $60k per capita GDP than $70k. Big deal. You can still live well. We don't need an extra $10k GDP per capita at this point. We need freedom.
As for why people should get money in the first place when others put the effort in? Well, theories of value are subjective. Marxists will claim that capitalists steal surplus value in the first place. And even marxist labor theory of value seems to fall apart under criticism. When you have 50 people working in tandem to produce a product, who deserves what exactly? it's subjective and debatable. And when you start automating jobs, it becomes even more questionable. The fact is, as much as we like to claim people get exactly what they're entitled to in society in correlation with their efforts, this isn't really true, it's never been true, and it's impractical to figure out anyway. While the market gives a nice approach that is largely in line with freedom, it's missing one piece, UBI. Because markets without a UBi are coercive and one sided.
Honestly, I have nothing against free riders to a large extent. my only issue with immigrant free riders is one of sustainability. But as far as people born in a certain country, if they grow up not wanting to work, and want to get by on a near poverty level UBI, let them. And in the future, if we as a society decide to work less, automate more, and make UBI higher like Van Parijs want, let us. I have no issue with that. None at all whatsoever.
People are just brainwashed to hate on people who dont suffer for their bread, because we have a society where we're all expected to suffer for theit bread, so we contort ourselves into knots talking about the virtues of work and why it's so necessary, but in reality, I just see all of this as massive indoctrination.
And I hate having to give these guys an inch on the moral discussion for a UBI. No. I don't believe that people should be forced to participate to get money. I think doing so undermines the simplicity, elegance, and libertarian value of UBI. it cheapens it. Turns it into more welfare. Which might be fine for a lot of liberals and socdems, but I'm more libertarian than that.
Some people said that minus the freedom argument, that UBI just offers nothing you cant accomplish with other, more targetted policies. Maybe you're right. But those targetted policies have costs just for existing. They lose their simplicity. They lead to bureaucracy. They lead to loss of freedom. Maybe on paper you can achieve similar benefits, but simply dealing with the hurdles of welfare is a cost, and simply getting money for nothing is a benefit for UBI.
This is why I lead so hard into the freedom argument for it. I could make any other argument I want. That it could lead to better outcomes, more employment, fewer welfare traps, less poverty, but for me, UBI is unique BECAUSE it provides a level of freedom and security no other safety net can. To me, it doesnt matter how you do "welfare", I mean we've even looked at "social credit" type systems in the UK and the like on this blog. They suck. In part because they're still welfare.
Honestly, the reciprocity people need to just chill out and stop being so controlling already. Whenever I read their arguments, and see them arguing with UBI supporters on reciprocity grounds, and proposing compromises, I just see them wanting to get their authoritarian hooks into a good program and ruin it. They want to control people. They want to be the puppet masters. Dance, puppets, dance. They can't just let people be and leave them alone. They have to make them work their their bread. To put in their suffering for their right to exist. And they tend to dress up their reasoning in obnoxiously self righteous ways, as if they never outgrew that old time protestant work ethic. They need to just get over it already. That's my stance.
No comments:
Post a Comment