The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee

[Bigfoot 88]

The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee | Cato Unbound

I really think there could be wide support across the spectrum for replacing the welfare bureaucracy with a simple income payment.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee | Cato Unbound

I really think there could be wide support across the spectrum for replacing the welfare bureaucracy with a simple income payment.

In a free society, there is no guarantee that the people will utilize the money for what it is intended to be used for. At least with SNAP and housing subsidies for instance, the money HAS to be used for what it is intended for (although some people sell their SNAP cards for pennies on the dollar to get cash for drugs or other things) with SNAP cards being only good for food and housing subsidies going directly to the housing provider.

Give people the cash and who knows what they'll do with it.

 

[Goshin]

In a free society, there is no guarantee that the people will utilize the money for what it is intended to be used for. At least with SNAP and housing subsidies for instance, the money HAS to be used for what it is intended for (although some people sell their SNAP cards for pennies on the dollar to get cash for drugs or other things) with SNAP cards being only good for food and housing subsidies going directly to the housing provider.

Give people the cash and who knows what they'll do with it.

Is that our problem? If they're adults, they should know better. If they don't know better, a few episodes of going hungry for a week or two should clear it up.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

In a free society, there is no guarantee that the people will utilize the money for what it is intended to be used for. At least with SNAP and housing subsidies for instance, the money HAS to be used for what it is intended for (although some people sell their SNAP cards for pennies on the dollar to get cash for drugs or other things) with SNAP cards being only good for food and housing subsidies going directly to the housing provider.

Give people the cash and who knows what they'll do with it.

If they don't want to prioritize it, they can starve or live in the woods.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Is that our problem? If they're adults, they should know better. If they don't know better, a few episodes of going hungry for a week or two should clear it up.

Which is why it won't work. Either practically or politically. Politically, the left will go absolutely nuts that people are still going hungry and insist on raising the amount of money, and practically, it would just be a waist of money. We can't legislate morality or personal responsibility. As long as personal responsibility is not a characteristic of some people they will waist the money and still be destitute.

As for those that are truly in need, the physically or mentally impaired, they may not be able take care of themselves with just cash given directly to them. They may not have the intellectual capability to do so. As for the free-loaders, they don't care, and would waist the money as well.

So, wasting the money is not something that I would be in favor of as a fiscal conservative. Which is also why I am not in favor of the current system that tends to breed dependency and does nothing to raise people up to the point they can become self reliant and self supportive.

 

[Goshin]

Which is why it won't work. Either practically or politically. Politically, the left will go absolutely nuts that people are still going hungry and insist on raising the amount of money, and practically, it would just be a waist of money. We can't legislate morality or personal responsibility. As long as personal responsibility is not a characteristic of some people they will waist the money and still be destitute.

As for those that are truly in need, the physically or mentally impaired, they may not be able take care of themselves with just cash given directly to them. They may not have the intellectual capability to do so. As for the free-loaders, they don't care, and would waist the money as well.

So, wasting the money is not something that I would be in favor of as a fiscal conservative. Which is also why I am not in favor of the current system that tends to breed dependency and does nothing to raise people up to the point they can become self reliant and self supportive.

Part of the problem is that we're looking at major changes in the economy, going on right NOW, and progressing ever faster over the next 30 years until the landscape looks mighty different.


Automation and computers are replacing a LOT of jobs, along with outsourcing overseas and similar things. Computers are surpassing the Turing limit now, and with quantum computing in the works it may be possible, in 20 or 30 years for Ford Motors to replace 200 engineers with 3 really sharp ones and some high-end computers.

More and more people are going to be effectively unemployable.... even some degreed persons and skilled trades, over time.


We're gonna have to deal with that one way or another.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If they don't want to prioritize it, they can starve or live in the woods.

The left, or many on the right for that matter, will never let that happen. They are our problem, whether we want it or not.

The difference is how we go about addressing the problem. Just giving them money, regardless of form (either minimum income level or social programs) does nothing to address the root cause of the problem, although that is the only thing we really do.

There has to be minimal requirements of action required by the recipient (education, training, work programs, etc) or consequences. It's the consequences part that no one wants to talk about.

Without consequences, there is no incentive for people to do anything other than just take the money. Right now, their are no consequences and no incentives to do anything different. In fact, in our current system, there are incentives to do the exact opposite. Giving out cash for a minimum income at a level that could truly sustain a person would only entrench the incentive to do nothing even further.

 

[iacardsfan]

In a free society, there is no guarantee that the people will utilize the money for what it is intended to be used for. At least with SNAP and housing subsidies for instance, the money HAS to be used for what it is intended for (although some people sell their SNAP cards for pennies on the dollar to get cash for drugs or other things) with SNAP cards being only good for food and housing subsidies going directly to the housing provider.

Give people the cash and who knows what they'll do with it.

This is the definition of nanny state. It is not the job of the government to worry about how people spend the money. Look where that gets us. An overhang of regulations that doesnt actual help fight poverty and where the American people have to look to the government for what to do.

 

[Master PO]

the current system is so messed up its going to crash, shall we make a system that works somewhat and continue to transfer wealth, the idea is to get people off the tit of the federal government.

if people are to receive money from government it can only be state, the federal government has no authority.

and the money collected for that charity, which is what it is...cannot be collected by aggression....only voluntary means......thru commerce.

 

[iacardsfan]

I like a lot of what is said in here. I certainly do not like the current welfare state, but I am not all in on this idea either. It certainly is not a true libertarian idea, but what the author said was true, we are never going to get to Libertarian Utopia. I would love to live in a world were the government plays a minimalist role, but realistically we are never going to reach that point, and nobody has laid out a plan to get there. It is a step in the right direction imo, but there are still problems. I am not a fan of redistribution of wealth, but I am a fan of the no strings attached. I would need to see the final product before I pass judgement.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Part of the problem is that we're looking at major changes in the economy, going on right NOW, and progressing ever faster over the next 30 years until the landscape looks mighty different.


Automation and computers are replacing a LOT of jobs, along with outsourcing overseas and similar things. Computers are surpassing the Turing limit now, and with quantum computing in the works it may be possible, in 20 or 30 years for Ford Motors to replace 200 engineers with 3 really sharp ones and some high-end computers.

More and more people are going to be effectively unemployable.


We're gonna have to deal with that one way or another.

Very true. Education, retraining and work incentives are the only things that can help.

For instance, in the counties that you and I live in, we still have courses in high school that teach how to work in a cotton mill or hammer nails or ethnic pride but we have very few courses in computer programming or engineering or the sciences. The change has to start in basic public schools and their curriculum. We should be teaching calculus, and chemistry and Java coding in middle school.

We will never break the cycle of poverty and ignorance unless we teach how to do so in our public schools to our youngest citizens so they are prepared for the ever changing world when they graduate.

As for adult, adapt or perish. That's what I had to do. I don't see why most others cannot do the same.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This is the definition of nanny state. It is not the job of the government to worry about how people spend the money. Look where that gets us. An overhang of regulations that doesnt actual help fight poverty and where the American people have to look to the government for what to do.

True, however we're talking about tax funds. Fiscal responsibility of tax revenue demands that we not waste the money. I see only two viable options - regulate what people can use the money for, or don't give any money away... at all. The only other potential option is not even thinkable to me - free money with no strings attached, given to those that have less, that is taken from those that have more.

 

[Goshin]

Very true. Education, retraining and work incentives are the only things that can help.

For instance, in the counties that you and I live in, we still have courses in high school that teach how to work in a cotton mill or hammer nails or ethnic pride but we have very few courses in computer programming or engineering or the sciences. The change has to start in basic public schools and their curriculum. We should be teaching calculus, and chemistry and Java coding in middle school.

We will never break the cycle of poverty and ignorance unless we teach how to do so in our public schools to our youngest citizens so they are prepared for the ever changing world when they graduate.

As for adult, adapt or perish. That's what I had to do. I don't see why most others cannot do the same.

Because things are changing, and that change is going to be more rapid soon.

You're saying we should teach them skills important last year and this year, when in five or ten years those skills (like Java coding) may well be irrelevant.

Self-programming computers will replace the bottom 95% of IT types within two decades, is my bet.


Right now, we have a certain swath of the population who just flat out lack the capacity to learn high-tech or high-academic skills... maybe 15-25%. You can try to teach it to them and even if they're motivated and try hard they don't have the basic brainpower to be any good at it.

As the jobs that can be replaced by computers continues to grow to higher and higher levels, it may well get to the point that only those who graduate with honors are going to be eligible for one of the fewer and fewer remaining "real jobs" in high tech or science or academia or engineering.

The service industry has already started losing some jobs to automation, don't expect it to suffice.


So how are those handful of engineers still employed at Ford Motors going to get paid.... if hardly anyone else has a job with which to buy a car?


Adapt or perish indeed.... but it is probably going to have to be at the societal level.


I'm not necessarily saying THIS particular solution, but SOMETHING is going to have to be done, and I'm afraid it is going to have to be outside of the free market.... since the free market is strictly Darwinian, yet we can't just tell two hundred million people "oh well, you're unemployable now and surplus to society's needs, so go off somewhere and quietly starve whydoncha."

 

[iacardsfan]

True, however we're talking about tax funds. Fiscal responsibility of tax revenue demands that we not waste the money. I see only two viable options - regulate what people can use the money for, or don't give any money away... at all. The only other potential option is not even thinkable to me - free money with no strings attached, given to those that have less, that is taken from those that have more.

Our current system is not working, and it is costing us billions. There are plenty of strings attached, yet we are not raising anybody out of poverty. This way there is significantly less discrimination, and people can use the money any way they want. The rich can use it as a tax credit, the poor, use it to buy food. The thing is, since there are no other forms of assistance provided by the Government, people will have to figure out how to use the money, otherwise they will not survive. It is not an ideal proposal from a Libertarian perspective, but it is better than the current welfare system.

 

[Visbek]

Give people the cash and who knows what they'll do with it.

What do senior citizens do with their Social Security payments?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Because things are changing, and that change is going to be more rapid soon.

You're saying we should teach them skills important last year and this year, when in five or ten years those skills (like Java coding) may well be irrelevant.

Self-programming computers will replace the bottom 95% of IT types within two decades, is my bet.


Right now, we have a certain swath of the population who just flat out lack the capacity to learn high-tech or high-academic skills... maybe 15-25%. You can try to teach it to them and even if they're motivated and try hard they don't have the basic brainpower to be any good at it.

As the jobs that can be replaced by computers continues to grow to higher and higher levels, it may well get to the point that only those who graduate with honors are going to be eligible for one of the fewer and fewer remaining "real jobs" in high tech or science or academia or engineering.

The service industry has already started losing some jobs to automation, don't expect it to suffice.


So how are those handful of engineers still employed at Ford Motors going to get paid.... if hardly anyone else has a job with which to buy a car?


Adapt or perish indeed.... but it is probably going to have to be at the societal level.


I'm not necessarily saying THIS particular solution, but SOMETHING is going to have to be done, and I'm afraid it is going to have to be outside of the free market.... since the free market is strictly Darwinian, yet we can't just tell two hundred million people "oh well, you're unemployable now and surplus to society's needs, so go off somewhere and quietly starve whydoncha."

Here's the "elephant in the room" that one of my sons brought up the other night that no one, and I mean no one, wants to even broach - population control.

 

[Beaudreaux]

What do senior citizens do with their Social Security payments?

None of my business. Totally different scenario.

 

[Helix]

Part of the problem is that we're looking at major changes in the economy, going on right NOW, and progressing ever faster over the next 30 years until the landscape looks mighty different.


Automation and computers are replacing a LOT of jobs, along with outsourcing overseas and similar things. Computers are surpassing the Turing limit now, and with quantum computing in the works it may be possible, in 20 or 30 years for Ford Motors to replace 200 engineers with 3 really sharp ones and some high-end computers.

More and more people are going to be effectively unemployable.... even some degreed persons and skilled trades, over time.


We're gonna have to deal with that one way or another.

yep. quoted for truth. every day brings us a bit closer to a post labor economy. we really need to start having a discussion about what that looks like.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Our current system is not working, and it is costing us billions. There are plenty of strings attached, yet we are not raising anybody out of poverty. This way there is significantly less discrimination, and people can use the money any way they want. The rich can use it as a tax credit, the poor, use it to buy food. The thing is, since there are no other forms of assistance provided by the Government, people will have to figure out how to use the money, otherwise they will not survive. It is not an ideal proposal from a Libertarian perspective, but it is better than the current welfare system.

No one is being raised from poverty by the system. No one ever has. People raise themselves out of poverty, with help from others. That help can take different forms and some is not ever related to the government.

Our current system breeds poverty.

Changes must be made. However, taking no actions that would ensure that tax revenue is utilized for it's intended purpose would lead to chaos and exacerbate the poverty levels.

 

[Visbek]

Self-programming computers will replace the bottom 95% of IT types within two decades, is my bet.

Yes, it's coming. Right after we get that paperless office. :mrgreen:

 

[Goshin]

Here's the "elephant in the room" that one of my sons brought up the other night that no one, and I mean no one, wants to even broach - population control.

Lotta problems with that... but the biggest one is we already have a hundred million people who are just about 'surplus' to a high-tech post-manufacturing society, and that number will double in the next 30 years.



Also, if you control population, you may be looking at economic shrinkage... along with shrinkage of the tax base...

 

[Goshin]

Yes, it's coming. Right after we get that paperless office. :mrgreen:

We don't have paperless offices because people are attached to paper.



Companies, OTOH, would be thrilled if they could get rid of half or more of their IT department and replace them with advanced code-writing computers that don't eat, sleep, drink or pee, or ask for time off or go on vacation or demand a raise.

 

[iacardsfan]

No one is being raised from poverty by the system. No one ever has. People raise themselves out of poverty, with help from others. That help can take different forms and some is not ever related to the government.

Our current system breeds poverty.

Changes must be made. However, taking no actions that would ensure that tax revenue is utilized for it's intended purpose would lead to chaos and exacerbate the poverty levels.

Who's choice is it to decide its "intended purposes". If I am a millionaire, why should I have to spend the money on food, when I could spend it on a vacation. That seems a little restrictive.

 

[KevinKohler]

Here's the "elephant in the room" that one of my sons brought up the other night that no one, and I mean no one, wants to even broach - population control.

This is why I am pro abortion.

 

[Visbek]

Totally different scenario.

No, it really isn't.

Social Security is a defined direct cash payout to recipients. It is not, as many believe, an investment which you pay into for your working life. In fact, it is a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that current workers are paying for current recipients. The SSA only uses your wages to determine your benefit, specifically your highest paying 35 years. With the exception of the benefit varying based on your income, it is exactly like what Zwolinski is describing.

So what do people do with their government-issued cash? They pretty much live off of it. They don't cause lots of crimes (for various reasons), they don't all squander it, they don't all spend it brilliantly either. Some work as long as they can, some don't. We don't usually harass senior citizens about how they spend their Social Security.

Leftists obviously don't go ape over the idea of Social Security. I don't think they'd be too upset over streamlining the safety net either. As to whether it would work, the only way to find out would be to set up a pilot program. Give people a defined cash inflation-adjusted payout, tell them they have 10 years on the program, and see how it goes.

It'll make things easier for the recipients. It won't fix a lot of basic issues, namely a lack of employment opportunities, systemic discrimination, imbalanced educational systems and so forth. So, I don't think it will make a big difference, but obviously there's no real way to know without actually trying it, preferably in a controlled manner.