Three ways to organize society

 So, the video game thing got me thinking about how we should view society as a whole. I'm not sure if I ever fully gave an article about it on this blog, but I think that it's a good approach to how different sides view politics.So I kind of want to walk people through this and explain my thoughts on these approaches

Conservatism- From the top town

Conservatives love to rely on supply side economics in talking about the economy, or "trickle down" as it's called on the left. Basically the general premise is that if you give wealth to the top, to those who consider themselves "job creators", then the wealth will trickle down. And as we know, this doesn't really happen. Most wealth accumulates at the top, and the middle and bottom stagnate and struggle to keep up. Society has been operating this way since the 1970s or 1980s. 

Liberalism- From the middle out

Liberals, on the other hand, like to focus on the middle class. In their hay days from the 1930s to 1970s, the ratio between the average worker and the rich largely decreased, and the middle grew along with the top. Average wages were high, Americans had great living standards, could afford homes, healthcare, etc., but at the same time, things weren't perfect. Despite all the good the new deal and great society did, around 10-15% remained poor. And while the government offered programs for those people, they weren't really the best conceivable programs and they were normally aimed at simply offering temporary aid to encourage people to work their way out of poverty. And of course because as I like to say, the economy is a game of musical chairs, with the chairs being jobs, well, you're always going to have some without jobs, and some stuck in poverty. For some reason, around 1970, some in this country believed the time had come for a basic income, although the policy never materialized.

Social libertarianism- From the bottom up

Recognizing the failures of the past, the social libertarian basic income movement has created their own idea of trickle up economics, where instead of focusing on the supply side of economics, we focus on the demand side. We focus primarily on peoples' needs, as well as their liberty, and believe a basic income is necessary to help all people stay out of poverty. 

In a sense, this is based on Rawl's veil of ignorance. I know Phillipe Van Parijs was the first to use this concept to argue for a UBI and his "real libertarian" philosophy, although Rawls himself seemed to dislike this, not liking the idea that a UBI would allow someone to live without working. 

But, I have to ask, what is the purpose of life, what is the purpose of the economy? Well, there is no inherent purpose to live. I'm going to take the absurdist position that life has no purpose, and that a life full of meaningless work for its own sake is as dismal as the myth of sisyphus. I dont believe there is any coming to terms with this absurdity, or that we should see sisyphus as "happy", no, I think the whole thing is fricking pointless and sad and a waste of a good life. 

And I believe the economy exists to serve human needs. I get that conservatives and liberals think people need to be motivated to work in order to work so we can produce what we need, but here's the difference between us, I only accept meritocracy as a means to an end. We need work done, so we tie rewards to it to motivate people to do it. I dont believe that work is inherently a good thing, or that people should be forced to participate in someone else's social project, and I believe that UBI isn't just about providing for the poor, but preserving their liberty. 

Karl Widerquist adopted similar attitudes with his indepentarian theory, and expressing the problem of society through his "big casino" essay. Basically we're all born into a society owned by property owners or benevolent authoritarians in the case of socialism and both force us to work and adopt the values of the society we're born into. These societies do not respect peoples' liberty. As Rousseau would say, "man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." It is true. And the only way to liberate people is by making society designed from the bottom up. by giving the worst off possible person a basic stipend to live on and leaving them alone to pursue their own lot in life, we not only solve the poverty problem is capitalism but we free people from being forced to participate in a system they hate or otherwise don't benefit from. And I know capitalists will say everyone benefits from capitalism and that poverty is the natural state of nature, but honestly, I don't think you can claim that when you're forced to work and struggle to provide sustenance for yourself even if you do. And while liberals try to make work fair, I really have to ask, why work at all? The only reason work is important is because we need work to provide for the goods and services we want and need. But given how productive our economy is, I would argue we don't really need everyone working to provide the basics for people in 2023. Much of the modern economy is based on wants, luxuries, etc. And we regulately automate jobs that in the past we needed people to do. At one point in history, most people worked in agriculture. Now only like 2% do. And given how we're just gonna keep automating jobs, shouldn't we work less? Why continue to work as much as we used to when there's less work that has to be done? For infinite growth? That really IS the hellish myth of sisyphus if you ask me.

I say we give everyone a minimum standard of living and then let people make their own decisions. Most evidence suggests that people will still work. maybe some won't, but what's that to those who decide to do so? And before people complain about getting less, well, that only happens at the top. Most people in the middle and under will either get the same and come out ahead. The break even point is somewhere around the 73rd percentile on an individual basis based on the current year's UBI plan, and could go over 80th percentile applied to households.

So...yeah. An economy that is built from the bottom help only hurts those at the top. And those people will have the greatest ability to pay for such programs. And even after tax, they'll still be better off than the rest of society. All this really does is decrease income inequality and ensure that no one is in poverty, and everyone is free. The ideal libertarian society IMO is based on these adaptions of Rawl's principles, and I know Rawls himself disagrees with this interpretation of them, but other scholars like Van Parijs and Widerquist seem to whole heartedly embrace them, and I largely agree with them. 

Unlikely a video game, with the venture being based on a set of agreed upon rules that apply to all, and all are to play by them in order to win, life is actually like a sandbox. It's less like counter strike and more like an minecraft or an open world RPG where you choose your own narrative.

Being forced to accept other narratives foisted on us by society or those who own the most property is dystopian and authoritarian. And conservatives, liberals, and communists all seem to be on the side of forced participation in their state projects in regards to work. And even so called (right) libertarians often try to force people to work, claiming it's natural and blah blah blah. No it's not, it's a political system imposed on people. 

A system that is genuinely libertarian has a duty to try to stand out of peoples' ways and let them live as they want to the greatest possible extent given that it doesn't harm others. And such a system would, in my opinion, have a basic income as the cornerstone of its mechanism to maximize liberty within an otherwise capitalist state. 

Despite fiery anti capitalist rhetoric at times, I'm not entirely anti capitalism. There's a difference between critiquing a system and wanting to abolish it. I do the former, not the latter. Phillipe Van Parijs has made a convincing case that capitalism does a better job providing liberty for people than socialism would, and I don't see how you can have a truly libertarian system that doesn't operate off of some sort of market principles, rather it be capitalism or market socialism. 

And that is why I support a state that is designed to help people from the bottom up, and not the middle out, or the top down. Both of those kinds of systems generally lead to a system of winners and losers where the losers are forced to work and struggle just to survive, in a world with more than enough resources for everyone.