So, I wasn't going to do this one, but this is chapter 3 of the book I'm reading. I won't be going too into detail on it as I'm going to spend more time railing against "egalitarianism" as its presented here than discussing the subject matter, but it is still a reaction, so yeah.
Basically, Tosi outlines the common criticisms and concerns that egalitarians have against basic income, and it kind of turns me off from egalitarianism. He mentions how while UBI would likely lead to increased egalitarianism and make the worst off of society much better off, a lot of egalitarians have issues with UBI because it violates their special little principles of what egalitarianism means. He mentioned stuff like how utilitarian egalitarians won't like UBI because utilitarians will value people working if it leads to the most utilitarian outcomes. He mentioned how "luck egalitarians" wont like it because it treats disabled people (ie the deserving poor) as equal as people who refuse to work. And it mentions some egalitarians not liking it because they see an important part of egalitarianism being the social status that comes with employment, and how UBI would create a "two tiered" society that between the employed and not employed.
Everything about this is just...no.
To be fair, the author does try to justify UBI within his idea of "relational sufficientarianism", which basically amounts to the idea that UBI would give people the ability to be treated well in society and have decent enough relations with each other where everyone is treated with some level of respect. I agree with this. And this is why for me, liberty is more important than equality, because for me, liberty must precede equality.
I mean, heres the thing with social hierarchies, without force, do they matter? Hierarchies are only truly hierarchies when one group can exert power over another group. A boss has power to impose their will on a worker or a servant. A white majority has its ability to impose its will on a racial minority like under Jim Crow. And in some sense, the problem of economic inequality is one of power. The problem with vast inequality is that eventually the propertyless are forced to serve those with property.
I know the issues of social relations and employment are important for a lot of egalitarians, but I can't think of anything making me more equal than giving me the power to dictate the terms of my own life. What makes a worker equal to a capitalist isnt who owns the means of production so much, it's the worker being able to refuse to work for the capitalist. A society of truly free people, are people who have their needs taken care of, and who are able to resist the demands of another group.
Also, I'm going to be honest, in terms of inequality, I do think that some material inequality is good. All people should be treated as equals legally, but materially, some level of inequality is necessary to create a rewards system that causes people to work voluntarily. Despite being "anti work", I do acknowledge that work is often a social good and that it is a positive thing to incentivize people to do it. More work done means more stuff, means bigger pie. I just dont believe people should be FORCED to work.
The problem with a lot of "egalitarians" is that they tend to be so focused on making everyone equal, that they completely miss the liberty side of the equation, and miss the positive benefits of capitalism like work incentives. Capitalism works in part because it taps into people working for their own self interest. It's the double edged sword that makes it so good, but also so bad. It's good because self interest is an important motivator, but at the same time, sometimes self interest doesnt align with societal interests, and in cases where one group is dependent on the other, the one that is weaker in power relations is forced to serve the stronger, which is bad.
But, a lot of egalitarians, the liberals, the socdems, and especially the socialists, they value equality over liberty, and simply want to replace one existing system of social relations with another. And in this new system, many of these power dynamics still exist, they just changed. Socialists think if workers owned the means of production, it would end exploitation, when in reality, no, it just changes who does the exploiting, as new social hierarchies would form within places of employment. Look at valve, where there's on paper no bosses, but everyone who left and wrote a bad review about them talks about the informal hierarchies that exist.
Even worse, because a lot of leftists demonize self interest and individualism and capitalist values, they end up finding themselves being more tyrannical than the capitalists did. I maintain a huge reason communism failed was at the end of the day, they removed the self interest component, imposed a system in which people would work for the greater good, and in the lack of any positive reinforcement structure, FORCED people to serve that public good. There was no way to opt out or say no. Refusing to work was illegal. You were down right forced to to a greater degree than capitalists have to offer.
This is one of the reasons why when I see egalitarians emphasize jobs so much, I feel they miss the point. I mean, look at what the early complaints were in this piece about UBI...basically, a lot of it came down to "but then people wouldnt be forced into a job, and jobs are good." For them, because jobs are "more than just a paycheck" and have some level of "dignity" attached to them, as Joe Biden would say, work is essential to equality. Because work is essential not just in terms of the pay check, but also the social status. But truly I tell you, as long as you have a system where people are forced to act a certain way, then you have a hierarchy of some kind. It can be a former hierarchy like in capitalism, or a less formal one, which occurs in socialism. But it is there.
So in some ways I agree with this relational sufficientarianism stuff. But I do think that the important thing is that UBI gives people freedom as the power to say no. If people are free, then hierarchies dont matter, because heirarchies cant impose their will on others. This is also why right libertarianism isnt really libertarianism to me. Because the property rights system forces people to serve others. It might claim freedom on the surface, but until people have an actual material ability to resist coercion, then coercion will exist, and hierarchies will exist.
If the people with jobs look down on those without jobs, but the people with jobs cant do anything about it, does hierarchy really matter? What are they going to do to us? Force us to work?
This is why UBI is important, and why it's important the policy is framed as an unconditional grant that comes as a right of citizenship. When you add conditions, you make people less free. WHen you add bureaucracy, you make people less free. When you provide in kind aid that takes away peoples' choices, you make them less free. UBI is what allows us to resist hierarchies, and what takes away their power.
There will always be some level of inequality. What matters is that the level of inequality is not too much where everyone can meet their needs, and people are free from coercion.
I would argue inequality should be justified if anything. Why does inequality exist? For me, again, it's because we need it to reward effort and merit and incentivize people to work. That is the positive benefit of capitalism, and I say let that stand, just modify the incentive structure to allow people to survive without being coerced.
Now, that does provide an interesting conundrum though. In Widerquist's ideology, I would probably argue that the important thing is the liberating idea of UBI, the ability to have freedom as the power to say no. Granted we assume have that, should inequality be further addressed?
Then take, for example, Van Parij's "real libertarianism", which explicitly states the highest possible basic income is the goal. But if this highest level exceeds the level needed to free people, which system should we go with?
I think it depends on why inequality exists and why it's a good thing. Is it even a good thing? I mean, I kinda go with the indepentarian standard to get our foot in the door in a society that's still very much dependent on work. And I support some level of inequality because it is good for society as it recognizes merit and rewards work ethic, which is still relevant. But if we have no need for work ethic in the future? Or a reduced work ethic? I think the second standard van parijs uses might be better. Why should massive inequality exist when we could instead make citizens live better than they do? What justifies some having so much while others having little? Again, in our current society, inequality has a functional purpose. But in the future this kind of relationship might be seen as unjust and arbitrary. Well, if it's unjust and arbitrary, I would support increasing the UBI. heck, van parijs' standard of the highest sustainable amount, IMO, would imply that some level of inequality is good for society as well, because if inequality is what produces the wealth that allows for us to have a UBI in the first place, and he merely wants the highest sustainable amount, then the issue is kind of self correcting. If the lack of inequality reduces work ethic, then the pie gets smaller and the UBI goes down.The van parijs standard also acknowledges that if UBI cant produce a complete freedom to say no, it still moves us in that direction to the greatest extent possible.
So yeah, that's why I think UBI is a good thing, and why I think freedom and equality are somewhat interrelated, and that liberty is the more important of the two. INequality matters a lot less among truly free people. And if UBI gives people the ability to resist hierarchies, then in a sense, it takes away those hierarchies power and makes them inert.
Rather than focusing obsessively with reducing inequality without caring about the freedom aspect, egalitarians should accept a more left wing libertarian outlook on society, in which by giving people freedom, they also give people more relative equality.
I also want to add onto one more thing before I finish though. And that is how egalitarianism without a vision of freedom seems to be quite heavy handed. Like look at the social justice warriors. We have some inequality between say, blacks and whites, women and men. Okay. TO what extent is it worth implementing policies to fix this? Do these policies negatively impact peoples' well being (given other injustices in the system)? What are the downsides? because as a white man, I kinda feel like the SJWs, in focusing so much on the whole inequality thing, miss the point that unless we raise the bottom, all redistributing wealth and opportunities according to their principles does is redistribute misery. Okay, so you made blacks and whites just as likely to be poor. But in doing so, didnt you basically just raise the amount of whites in poverty to reduce the poverty of blacks? I mean....duh. But then they scream that we cant stand the thought of us losing our privilege. I mean, yeah, you kinda wanna put us in a position of being more poor. Maybe that is the problem? Again, unless you abolish the injustices of the current economic system, focusing on say, further racial and gender based equality is just going to divide people. Because then you have people fighting over who is going to get screwed more or less. When in reality we should aim for a system where no one is screwed at all.
We should also note that some level of inequality simply rises from circumstances or social systems, or people interacting freely with each other. I mean, is that always a bad thing? Sure, I support correcting for this to some extent. But for me, UBI IS that correction. It inherently redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. And it does so while preserving liberty. If you start micromanaging everything to create even further equality, this might come at the expense of liberty. SO again, liberty is to me, kind of a prerequisite for equality to truly exist.
Again, it doesnt matter what social or relational inequalities exist if they cant be enforced. You can have the employed hating the unemployed in my ideal society. So what? What are they going to do about it? The unemployed can just go off and form their own communities and whatever social power the employed class of power has won't matter.
What does matter if when we allow the employed to have power over the unemployed and to systematically deny them not just resources, but the opportunities that come with those resources.
I mean, no one gives a crap if a lottery winner is unemployed. They have money. They dont NEED employment. They have status simply by having money.
Maybe the "dignity of work" really IS just a paycheck.
But yeah that's how I see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment