Under this proposal, each person resident in a country would receive a guaranteed income, sufficient to live at a modest level. People would get the money unconditionally.
The critics of the UBI aren’t convinced and still claim the program would be too costly to implement. In a recent book, Universal Basic Income – For and Against (Rational Rise Press, 2019).
Antony Sammeroff offers a very able account of this controversy and many other issues connected with the UBI.
He gives an especially good analysis of the argument that automation is liable to make so many people unemployable that a UBI will be needed to provide for them. But what I’d like to discuss this week is another argument that Sammeroff deploys to great effect against the UBI.
The UBI, Sammeroff reminds us, is a government program, and we ought always to view the state as an enemy of liberty.
It is precisely the feature of the UBI that its supporters emphasize, its universal coverage, which would enable to state to exercise tyrannical control. Sammeroff says:
“Now a Basic Income Guarantee may begin universal, but as the years wear on and it proves expensive to grant, corners may be cut to ensure its continuance. Hardly anyone will object to the UBI being withdrawn from criminals, for example. And then perhaps for anti-social behavior.
“Petty crimes, like littering the street, might lead people to receive a penalty against their UBI. A few might moan that this is the beginning of a government social-engineering program, but to most people it will seem like quite a sensible and reasonable measure…. Clipping people’s Basic Income will soon seem the most sensible and appropriate response to many crimes and misdemeanors.” (p.148–49)
Not only could the state use the UBI as an instrument of social control; we have every reason to think those in charge of the state would exercise their power for bad motives.
“This is the same class of people [who] launched a permanent war in the Middle East wasting trillions of dollars and destroying millions of lives. They bailed out the banks from the public purse and gave themselves raises after telling the rest of the nation that we had to tighten our belts.
“They have robbed the young of the opportunity to own a home by sending house prices through the roof, and mean to leave them a nation in ruinous debt.” (p.147)
“Why the Worst Get on Top,” but it is not quite the same. Hayek argues that rulers will very likely be bad, but Sammeroff’s point is not dependent on this thesis. His claim is rather that the evidence shows that our present rulers are bad and will remain so. Thus they can be expected to abuse the UBI program.
Sammeroff strengthens his case that the UBI poses a threat of tyranny by using an admission from Charles Murray, who, as mentioned above, is a pioneering advocate of the program. He acknowledges that the UBI would require people to have a “universal passport” and “known bank account.”
Sammeroff strengthens his case that the UBI poses a threat of tyranny by using an admission from Charles Murray, who, as mentioned above, is a pioneering advocate of the program. He acknowledges that the UBI would require people to have a “universal passport” and “known bank account.”
Making the most of these admissions, Sameroff says:
“I don’t think it’s unrealistic to imagine that people may soon be forced to accept a mandatory Government ID Card in order to claim their Basic Income.
“Before long they will be asked to show it in order to get into government buildings. Then at the airport to get on a plane. Then simply to board a train or a bus. Then to post a package. Then to get into a bar. Then a restaurant. Before long every public place will ask you to show your ID card….
No comments:
Post a Comment