[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Three Problems for Libertarian Supporters of a Basic Income ... Today The Atlantic published an article on the Basic Income Guarantee, with special focus on the work of Scott Santens to crowdfund a basic income on a voluntary basis. And last week, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute published a terrific policy analysis assessing both the strengths and weaknesses of various sorts of BIG and related-policies. I’ve written a few pieces defending a BIG from both a pragmatic and a more principled perspective. But it’s never been an issue about which I’ve felt absolutely settled. The idea of implementing a BIG as a replacement for our current welfare state faces some serious difficulties. And lately – especially after reading Tanner’s piece – those difficulties have been worrying me a bit more than they used to. Here, then, are what I take to be three of the more pressing problems facing libertarian supporters of a BIG: I’m pretty opposed to paternalism as a general principle. But there’s something to the argument that people like Barbara Bergmann (and Tyler Cowen) make: people have lots of different and very specific needs, and simply giving people cash isn’t always a more effective way of helping them then trying to meet those needs directly. Whatever cash grant the BIG provides might not be enough to meet their needs. And if people perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the BIG isn’t meeting people’s needs, they are likely to support political measures to amend it, adding add-ons for this, exceptions for that, and so on. A BIG that replaces all or much of the existing welfare state might thus not only be insufficient; it might very well be politically unstable. Now, the force of these problems depends to some degree on what one’s rationale is for supporting a BIG. And different libertarians have different rationales. Libertarians who take a pragmatic approach to defending a BIG, for instance, are going to find all three of these points especially troubling. If the point of a BIG is to meet people needs more effectively or more cheaply than the current welfare state, than the fact that it wouldn’t meet their needs, or that it wouldn’t be cheap, is going to be a pretty big problem. On the other hand, most libertarians don’t believe that people have a right to get all of their needs met by others as a matter of justice. If, then, the point of a BIG isn’t to meet people’s needs, but rather to compensate for past injustice, or to redistribute the undeserved economic rent held by owners of natural resources, then the fact that the BIG doesn’t meet all of everybody’s needs isn’t really a problem after all. On this view, the point of the BIG is to give you the economic resources to which you’re entitled, and what you’re entitled to and what you need might be two entirely different things. I think this response goes some way to addressing the worry raised by the first two arguments above. But then again, I’m so much of a hard-nosed deontologist that the consequences of the policy don’t matter to me. So if there are better responses to these problems, I’d love to hear them. What do you say, readers? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#7. To: Gatlin (#0)
The problem with BIG is that it is vastly expensive, and misallocates resources. MOST people get by ok, so the idea of giving money to EVERYBODY is wasteful. The people who DON'T get by ok, don't do so because of specific things. A great number of them have specific problems whose solutions, if they are to be attempted at all, cost a lot more than BIG. Some bright guy with a heroin addiction could probably be saved and his brain put to use by society, and could earn his living quite well. But real rehab and the cost of living while getting it are expensive - much more expensive than BIG. The long term cost of NOT doing anything is either very low - the guy dies - or usually much, much higher: the guy resorts to crime and has to be incarcerated at a cost vastly exceeding the cost of rehab and support during rehab, and also the cost of the crime, of the cops and insurance to cope with crime. it would be cheaper and better for society to give him rehab and take care of his needs while he gets the rehab SO THAT he can get back out there in a job commensurate with his intelligence, and end up paying all of that expense and then some in taxes. That is what actually makes the most economic sense long term, and certainly produces the best result socially and in terms of crime rate. But psychologically, spending money giving a "free right" to a dirt bag who got himself addicted to heroin is a hard sell. BIG is an attempt to heal drug addiction by handing out a little bit of money. It cannot work.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
Everybody except you... then it's not wasteful, it's the Jubilee - right Comrade?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|