So, I admit sometimes my writing isn't the best, as I often use this blog to spitball ideas. Don't get me wrong, this kind of makes it like a public diary, but it does mean that some of my ideas aren't perfectly refined. This is okay, because I'm learning as I go along too. While I often start a post with a specific goal in mind, sometimes I end up deviating, coming to interesting conclusions I did not expect, and learning something as I go. I think my lazy vs crazy position is one of those things.
The fact is, I think my strong position is just. We have so many pro work philosophies that are extremely in favor of the crazies, often to the point of veneration, but often end up demonizing the lazies. Conventional moral theory holds that "crazies" who are workaholics are upstanding members of society, while "lazies" who are work shy are the scum of the earth. I believe pushing a strong position to the contrary is valid. I mean, my strong position in my last one almost mirrors the position we have toward lazies in our current society. Rather than viewing the lazies as scum who must be coerced into labor via propertylessness, I tend to take the opposing view, that taxing the crazies at the highest sustainable rate to fund the largest basic income possible guarantees the most freedom for society.
But, the crazies might protest. After all, taxing at laffer curve rates and then some severely hampers their ability to make money, and violates their theory of justice that if you want something, earn it. Despite work being voluntary in my system, I've heard arguments from the right argue that taxation is a form of slavery, and I do understand that I do coerce people to surrender large amounts of income to fund the highest sustainable UBI.
But you know what? These guys support the opposite. They support an atomized society in which no basic income exists and everyone is forced to earn their keep, whether they want it or not. They support a theory of justice that forces all to work like they do. I support a theory that heavily taxes people, but frees them from labor. THey claim work is voluntary in their system when it is not. I claim work is voluntary in mine, and it is, but the taxation that comes with it is not. I claim they oppress me by forcing me to work. I have a point under my own theory of justice. They claim that I oppress them by taxing them to fund my UBI. They have a point according to their own theory.
Even if we go by my two conditions test of everyone who wants to work can work, and everyone who doesn't doesn't, those who work can claim that they're unsatisfied with the diminished rewards and wish for a lower tax rate and lower basic income. They have a point. But again, if we lower the rate, I could argue that they are making my UBI level unsatisfying to the point of coercing me into the labor force to earn more income.
Ultimately, where we come down between these two theories is, like everything else, subjective. Once we stop assuming the jobist theory as the moral default, and start considering different theories on equal footing, we start realizing we have equal claims to having valid models of distributive justice. Which one we support is ultimately a matter of public will.
But that said, that is why I'm willing to offer such a strong position for the sake of argument. Too many philosophers and theorists dance around outright just justifying laziness and leisure as a default, and often end up trying to justify their views within jobist and pro work philosophical frameworks. They feel a need to go through this complex dance of justifying a basic income, arguing on their opponents' terms. I ask, why should we work? What if we were forced to justify work, the way are forced to justify not working? Maybe we should subject the jobists to the same absurd standards they try to impose on us. I don't necessarily accept the strong position in reality, mind you. But I present it for the sake of argument. Because if we start from the assumption that all morality is subjective and all theories are models, like I actually do, why does this model not deserve to be heard? That's not to say that there aren't objections to it, of problems ith it, but such is life. I've been in enough political debates over the years to watch the complex dance people of differing ideoologies and moral systems do with each other. Watch capitalists and socialists go at it. You can spend hours watching them argue back and forth, posing different theories, and then responding to each other that those theories are wrong, while arguing such a thing from within their own preferred theory. And after hours of discussion they end up not changing their minds at all, hating the other side's arguments, not understanding how the other side can't see how immoral and unreasonable they're being, and nothing gets doone. Heck, I've done it myself. Virtually every discussion I have with a right libertarian ends this way. They're not wrong, but neither am I, it's simply a matter of your specific moral compass. That said, I'm willing to understand what a farce political theory and arguments can be, and I'm willing to push strong arguments that many will find objectionable, just for the sake of argument. Consider it my opening offer in a complex debate in which we must fiind common ground.
That said, where do I compromise from here? Well, if I want to bend my extreme position to a more reasonable one, I would go from arguing for the highest sustainable basic income taxed at laffer curve rates, to proposing a basic income merely sufficient to free people from forced labor, if such a UBI is lower than the maximum sustained one. This is a moral compromise with a jobist society. I say, okay, I will settle for the bare minimum to liberate me, rather than a freedom maximizing basic income of a higher rate, and we can agree to work for the rest. Now, what is the functional difference between those two positions? Not much right now. I susepect the max sustainable basic income and the minimum to liberate people from poverty and coercion are roughly the same. With my ideal basic income being around $13,000 riight above the poverty line, and the maximum reasonable income being around $15-16,000.
But over time, the differences will widen. A maximum sustainable UBI will only increase as automation takes over, while a subsistence one will stagnate. Over time, the weaknesses of this compromise will become appparent, and ideally, people will shift their attitudes away from labor and toward leisure. Perhaps once people get a subsistence UBI, unwanted jobs automate themselves, wages go up, and over coming decades, desire to work plummets. Well, by that point, the political compromise will do its job. We will have enough freedom to live as we want, and as freedom gives people the ability to rethink their lives, it may also give them the ability to rethink work. In the long term perhaps we will seek full unemployment, and try to shift toward a maximum sustainable UBI, lest we shift toward a highly unequal society of haves and hve nots. I would argue in a post work society, my strong position may eventually become a ppolitical necessity.
But it isn't right now. Right now, we have a strong pro work environment that favors work, and demonizes leisure. Merely arguing for the minimum subsistence level is revolutionary in and of itself. And that should be the immediate political goal. Strike a grand compromise with the jobists, and then leave future debates to future generations.
Still, seeing the importance of the strong argument, I believe it should be heard today. Even if we cant quite come around and agree with it yet, because of the political and economic realities of 2021, it's a nice vision to have for the future, and it may be nice too revisit in 50-100 years. Either way, I believe that putting forward such a countercultural and subversive ideology is worth doing. I think we need to challenge the assumptions of the overton window we find ourselves in, and rather than dancing around the ideological framework of our opponents, we argue on our own, pushing for a new progressive system unmoored by the problems of the past. So dream big, even if we have to settle for something that compromises with the same political establishment we need to challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment