|
Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump
"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"
"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"
"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"
"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"
"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands
"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"
"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"
KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel
"Trade should work for America, not rule it"
"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"
"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"
‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’
Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"
"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"
"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"
"Ending EPA Overreach"
Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built
Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew
The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!
Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!
Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?
Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)
"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"
Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent
"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"
Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly
"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"
ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby
Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!
"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"
7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith
Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening
Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas
Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel
Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?
What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked
Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225
EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza
New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets
Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?
"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"
test
"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"
"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"
"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"
"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"
"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"
Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes
"Greg Gutfeld Cooks Jessica Tarlov and Liberal Media in Brilliant Take on Trump's First Day"
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles Title: Three Problems for Libertarian Supporters of a Basic Income ...
Source:
bleedingheartlibertarians.com
URL Source: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.co ... -supporters-of-a-basic-income/
Published: May 18, 2015
Author: Matt Zwolinski
Post Date: 2018-07-21 05:06:14 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 2513
Comments: 11
| 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: - Cost – There’s good reason to worry that the size of the grant provided by a BIG is either going to be too small to meet people’s basic needs, or to large to be affordable. Ed Dolan’s proposal, for instance, which is one of the better-worked out proposals out there from a libertarian perspective, clearly falls into the former category at only $4,452 per person. Other proposals like Charles Murray’s cut down on the costs but only by giving up on the universal nature of the grant, and thereby also on some of its most attractive features. Murray’s proposal, for instance, includes a provision to tax back the grant at progressively high rates after a person’s income rises above $25,000. That significantly reduces the administrative simplicity of the proposal, and also creates potentially strong disincentives to work. Michael Tanner goes into the cost-estimates of various programs in great detail, as does David Henderson in his contribution to the recent Independent Review debate on the BIG. Both discussions deserve a careful read from supporters of a BIG.
- What Programs to Replace? It’s easy to talk in the abstract about the BIG serving as a replacement for the existing welfare state. But exactly which programs is a BIG supposed to replace? Free K-12 public education certainly involves coercive redistribution. Is that “welfare”? And if so, would we really feel comfortable replacing it with a cash grant (which would presumably go to the parents, and not the children themselves)? What about programs for the mentally disabled? Would giving them cash really be better for them than giving them counseling services and other need-specific forms of in-kind assistance?
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. - Increased Xenophobia – In my the very first thing I ever wrote about the BIG, I worried that implementing would lead to increased hostility toward immigration, and therefore to worsening the situation of the poor outside the United States. Megan McArdle makes a similar point here, and raises some other serious concerns for the BIG here. Now, sure, there are ways around this. You could design a BIG that simply doesn’t apply to first- generation immigrants, or that has a kind of waiting period before it goes into effect. But the more exceptions and modifications you have to weld on to a BIG to make it practically workable – especially when those exceptions are likely to face severe political and legal challenges – the less likely it is that you’re going to get it implemented in anything like the form for which you’d hoped. The relevant comparison isn’t whether an ideal BIG would be better than the non-ideal welfare-state we’ve actually got. It’s whether the BIG we’d actually be likely to get would be better.
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 # 5.
Replies to Comment # 5.
There are no replies to Comment # 5.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
|
