So, without getting too personal, I have a few friends in a tight spot right now. Their living situation got turned upside down really fast, and they are potentially looking at the prospect of homelessness. To put it succinctly, it turned out that the relationship one of them was in ended up being a lot more toxic and abusive than I thought it was, and now they're more or less a step away from being out on the street.
And as this situation hits the fan, I can't help but feel that a universal basic income would be a positive thing that would prevent this sort of behavior. After all, many people in abusive relationships end up staying to avoid homelessness. In our system, you need relationships with others to get one's needs met. For many, this means explicitly being tied to the work force, where one exchanges labor for currency in the form of a job. For many others, this can mean dependence on others who control finances. The reason jobs get the good rap they get about how they provide independence and freedom is that the alternative to them either means dependence on government, which the right views as a gateway to tyranny, or dependence on others, which can mean to them being tyrannical. basically, anyone who you depend on for your paycheck has the potential to be tyrannical.
Now, I don't really buy the government argument here. You need a government just to have a stable society in which trade and capitalism are even possible. The government providing checks to people is inherently no more tyrannical than having a government in the first place. What matters are the latitude that government has over peoples' lives in giving people money. And that's where my approach to welfare via UBI is different than most forms of welfare. Welfare is generally regarded as a kindness. The government gives you money temporarily, and imposes restrictions on you paternalistically to try to force you to get a job. There are job requirements, time limits, asset/income limits, drug testing, and aid normally takes the form of something other than cash. But by giving people a UBI of say, $1200-1300 a month, which is about the right amount right now, and you treat it as a RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP rather than a kindness or form of temporary charity, then that's how you do do welfare right. Because that form of welfare isn't designed around domination of others, but non domination. The government is not allowed to, in any way, use the money to control your behavior. Unconditionality is KEY. You NEED unconditionality for it to actually work and be liberating. Any potential restricting characteristic rather than say, citizenship or age (ie, limited checks for those under 18) has the potential to be used against people. This is why I insist on having the simplest UBI with the fewest restrictions possible, and am so particular for how to properly implement it. I want to stop the government from potentially restricting who gets the money in order to control behavior. But assuming we do that, then the threat of controlling someone's behavior becomes significantly less of a problem.
And this extends to other spheres of influence too. Keep in mind, my brand of social libertarianism is based on ideologies like Karl Widerquist's "indepentarianism". I support the right to say no, not just to any job, but all jobs. Because if you're stuck in a job, that's like an abusive relationship you can't leave. And even if you do, the institution is so unsound that the problems will replicate themselves at any other job, forcing people to work to survive. The only way to avoid this is by giving people the ability to say no altogether.
And this also applies to relationships. If someone doesn't control the finances for the entire household, and people have literal F U money that allows them to survive without dependence on another, then a lot of abusive relationships would end a lot sooner. Amouranth, you know, the famous streamer on twitch, had this problem with her husband. She was forced to stream and he controlled the finances and threatened to burn everything down if she defied him. If she had a UBI accessible only to her, and not her husband, then she could kick this person to the curb and leave. As it turns out, many people only stay in some marriages and relationships because of money and the threat of homelessness, and basic income was actually criticized back in the 1970s when it was tested because it led to an increase in divorce rates. Because people could actually leave those relationships.
And that brings me back to my friends. They were financially dependent on the person who was abusive. And now that things have come to a head, they're threatening to throw them out entirely. And I just keep thinking, gee, if only we had a basic income, these guys could pave their own way better, rather than be forced to work in a market that doesn't work for them (they have tried to get jobs only to fail over the past year or so), or be dependent on someone who is abusive.
Like really, this sucks. I mean, this goes back to the Nordic theory of love. Families are made up of strong individuals who are independent and can love each other freely and voluntarily. Being dependent on others for relationships can often be bad. And while I wish the nordics would take this idea a step further into full on indepentarianism and social libertarianism, they are onto something there. If you want healthy relationships, it starts with everyone being financially independent and not indebted or forced to rely on others financially. And this can only properly be accomplished in my opinion with UBI.
UBI isn't just the freedom to say no to jobs, but the freedom to say no to bad relationships. It's not jobs themselves that give people dignity. It's the income that jobs provide. By having an income, you're treated as an independent free agent who can live their live as they want, not forced to be reliant on others. And while the right will scream about dependency on government, I think my objections to that are sufficient to poke holes in the idea, and I think these guys also ignore that dependency on employers is not really the ideal way to live either, as work relationships can be just as abusive as everything else. The fact is, we need freedom from employment, freedom from others, AND freedom from government. UBI provides the first two, and a strong set of checks and balances provides the third. And honestly, as a social libertarian, I have to believe in all three here. Even if this means balancing each of these things against each other. Personal relationships and government provide a check on employers. Government and employers in the form of income can provide a check on personal relationships. And Personal relationships and employment can provide whatever check needs to be had on the idea of government giving people money. Not to mention the checks and balances of government itself. The fact is everyone deserves freedom, not just in a negative sense, but also a positive sense. People need both freedom from AND freedom to. And a UBI provides that, giving people the ultimate insurance against domination by others, while also providing the positive freedom for people to self actualize and live as they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment