Whats the Libertarian position on Universal Basic Income?

Peoplearesostupid6 · 2日前

My post on R/futurology that was removed...

Explain to me how the "billionaires" will be able to sustain their money if no one can afford to purchase their products? Posts like these show a fundamental ignorance when dealing with the free market, or even in our case the fascist market. Markets work by having lots and lots of people using their economic power to purchase things. When people have no money and no income they are unable to buy things. When things are not purchased the "billionaires" are unable to sustain their billions as cost of operations keep on keeping on but revenues fall.

Economies do not work by having people hoard wealth, and even in our "lopsided" economy of today, there is still plenty of money that is getting down into the lower 99%. If we want to make the world more fair their is one clear path, taking the power away from the people with all the guns! When the market, aka normal ass people, are not able to use the results of their labors in ways that benefit themselves and are forced by the people with guns "government" to give up 1/3 of their income and forced to purchase other products which reduces their income even further, you have an oligarchy, fascism or socialism, which in my opinion all act the same in the real world. The insistence that technology diminishes employment is one of the most disgusting fabrications created by the fascist socialist oligarchy currently in power. If you want to see issues with employment you need to look no further than the protection of industries, and the lagging new creation of companies. In the US and around the world we are seeing fewer and fewer companies created as the governments of the world tighten regulations and allow favoritism and corruption steer how the world operates.

A basic income guarantee is giving the government even more power and brings even more inefficiencies and corruption into the world. If you give the oligarchic socialist fascism more power and money why in the world would you think anything would become more fair? "Trying the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result is insanity." - Albert Einstein. I consider most of these arguments to be nihilistic, as you are living at the end of a gun, and want to give the people wielding that gun more power. Is basic income a good idea... maybe, but before you can even consider ideas like this you must fix the broken world governments, as any additional input will result in additional corruption and mismanagement of these funds. Also lets not forget that the number one largest impact on poverty through out the world has not been because of hand outs, it has been because of the free market moving into different regions (China and India). Hand outs have actually been proven time and time again to be ineffective and actually often have the unintended consequence of doing the exact opposite of what they were intended to do. Please look to Africa's textile industry. I could probably write about a thousand pages on all of this, but fear that this post already will not be read.

In conclusion, most of you do not even have basic economic understanding enough to have an educated conversation about this. You are speaking from emotion about a highly volatile topic, thinking that your common good heart means that you know better. Unfortunately the way economies work is not through happy ignorant thought, they work based on how people behave, which is always inherently in their own self interest. Every socialistic, communistic, oligarchy and fascistic power of our shared history proves this point. May be we should learn from history rather than repeating the same tired line of "they just did not do it right".

Good day and best regards -Peoplearesostupid6

unrustlable · 2日前

It's yet another welfare program. Yet another entitlement system that requires a lot of tax money to implement.

The big hubbub about the UBI is that people are suggesting it replace the complex system of welfare programs we have as a single program, which would cut down on administrative costs and possibly do more for providing for the poor with the same amount of money or less.

However, we know how the game works. Bill Ruger thought he could shut up the gun control movement by suggesting the 10-round magazine limit, and that they would stop trying to ban certain guns. Did they back off? Nope, they just added the magazine limit into the 1994 assault weapons ban. Welfare state proponents will do the same thing: add it to the behemoth and not repeal any other programs.

epsilon_swift · 2日前

If the people who pay into it consent to do so, then it does not violate their freedom. If they do not consent, then it does.

I consent to pay into a time-limited version of it. Time-limited UBI is when a person receives that money for a limited amount of time. I want this time to be determine by a combination of age and work history. A person can choose when to receive it, and when to cease receiving it. Time-limited UBI can replace stupid programs like unemployment benefits and the retirement component of social security.

mrhymer · 2日前

That there should be a complete separation of charity and state. Charity does not require force.

CatOfGrey · 1日前

Here is my very limited take on basic income.

Our current situation in the US is that we have literally dozens of different welfare and benefit programs for the poor. For example, food stamps are restricted - where and what a person can buy. Medicaid is a logistical nightmare. Government housing is also nasty.

Replacing the myriad of welfare programs with Basic Income would probably be an improvement. Instead of 'partnerships between community and industry' which are really just code-words for crony capitalism, putting cash into people's hands would provide incentives for the market to create the most efficient solutions. For example, it would discourage emergency room visits, but encourage visits to smaller clinics for minor ailments.

And instead of the current system, where people often lose more benefits then they would receive in earnings from getting more work or better work, a Basic Income system would not discourage people from working - they would always have the incentive to work in order to improve their situation.

That said, it would be a much better situation for the poor if the government would completely remove itself from the charity business. Individuals should have a tax credit, not just a deduction, for their contributions to a 'basic income fund', run by private people who distribute the income based on what is best for the community and the people rather than government worker automatons who form a bloated and wasteful system that, in the long term, takes funds away from the poor.

LibertyTerp · 2日前

It might be OK if it was small enough compared to the average income, but most people are talking about a universal basic income that would allow people to make more money on welfare than in a minimum wage job. If you can make $10/hour playing video games all day you wouldn't even consider working a job that pays less than $15/hour. Some people will even choose a simple life of never working and making the equivalent of $10/hour over jobs that pay $20/hour. Some people would have someday earned $30 or $40/hour but only after years of gaining experience and perhaps becoming a manager, but at their entry level income they will decide it isn't worth it to work and will just stay on welfare their whole lives.

Could we have a universal basic income of $2/hour equivalent? Sure that would probably be low enough not to increase unemployment too much, but it wouldn't come close to the goals that progressives have for it. So right now, a universal basic income is a terrible idea. The number of working Americans might drop by half. That means the amount of products and services would drop by roughly half. The standard of living of all Americans would drop by half, far worse than the Great Depression, and it would be permanent.

The only way a universal basic income can ever happen is if we allow capitalism to operate with fewer taxes and regulations so that growth is much more rapid. When our average income is $120,000/year then we can have a $20,000/year universal basic income. Of course by then the progressives will say that making only $20,000/year is inhumane. Every human being deserves to make at least $60,000/year.

IPredictAReddit · 1日前

Thomas Paine suggested such a thing in Agrarian Justice on the basis that land ownership is inconsistent with freedom - that is, nobody created land, so when someone claims they own land, they do so at the expense of every other person in the country (and every future person) who all have equal claims.

A land (rent) tax that funds a UBI would be a modern parallel to this.

haqshenas · 2日前

Milton Freedman was for it. More precisely, he advocated a variant called negative income tax.

SlappyJiggler · 1日前

No. Fuck off and get a job, loser.

Libertarian

Free association.

Freedom of the individual.

Related Subreddits:

調停者