Universal Basic Income Can Be The Imperfect Solution For An Imperfect World
by Brett Linley
Truly, Universal Basic Income (UBI) is often a hotly contested issue among libertarians. Some notable libertarians, such as Gary Johnson, have voiced support for the concept. For other libertarians, the idea seems like an unreasonable pipe-dream.
In reality, UBI is certainly not perfect. Most libertarians would like to see the welfare state abolished completely. The addition of a new social-spending program, for sure, is essentially the antithesis of libertarian ideology.
However, it is essential to note that UBI is only desirable as a replacement. The question we must consider is whether or not there’s a better way to conduct welfare-spending.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security won’t just disappear in the dead of night. Politicians won’t accept a proposal that makes some people objectively worse off. If, on the other hand, the process could improve lives, the budget, and the economy, something could happen.
Libertarians are under no obligation to accept UBI. With that said, it does not make sense to dismiss a proposal just because we don’t like any government at all. Some arguments, at the very least, are worth considering.
1. UBI is still less convoluted than the current system
Very few libertarians support the welfare state as it exists. Many consider Social Security to be a Ponzi Scheme. Many recognize that Medicare paying out $3 for every $1 received is nonsense. Welfare programs are duplicated across departments and no one in power wants to fix the problem.
With all of this, it’s hard to imagine why a streamlined process is less desirable. Imagine, all welfare provided by a single office. The only thing to figure out is how much to write for each check. No bureaucracy, red tape, or duplication.
Yes, a dollar stretches farther in different state. That’s not a useful argument against current welfare, and there are indeed many. The Consumer Price Index exists for a reason. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.
2. UBI could actually encourage work
Some argue that with UBI, there would be no incentive for many people to work. Unfortunately, this is already the case today. As it stands, it is more profitable for many people to stay unemployed and collect welfare. If they start to collect income, their checks suddenly dry up and they’re magically worse off than before.
There is an undeniable dignity in work. There will always be lazy people, and they indeed collect welfare as we speak. However, there are many who would certainly like to work. As it stands, they have to choose between sitting around on welfare, or spending their time and energy to work for less money.
UBI mitigates the conflict. People can take up what they’re good at, knowing that they have a little extra cushion. There will always be issues with the government handing out checks. That’s impossible to deny. However, when it comes to welfare, the more streamlined and transparent, the better.
3. If applied properly, UBI could increase employment
A notable problem with UBI is just how many things have to go right for it to work. It would be dishonest to ignore this problem. However, libertarianism is all about big ideas to improve lives. If we can help working families while fixing the state, all the better.
For UBI to have its greatest success, it should be accompanied by the complete abolition of the minimum wage. On the surface, it seems implausible that any anti-poverty liberal could go along with this. However, the nature of UBI would make the change palatable to conservatives and liberals alike.
If UBI was set at an inflation-adjusted $20 thousand per year, just as an example, we’ve already met the goal of alleviating poverty in a more efficient way. Helicopter money drops are obviously not ideal, but again, we’re looking to improve the system as it exists.
The minimum wage is a job-killer, no exception. With the UBI cushion, there is no reason to force employers to pay wages above productivity. Firms could hire more people for jobs that wouldn’t have been previously viable. More jobs would become available, and more workers would be able to take them.
4. The current system is unsustainable
Another big question is whether or not UBI would create an uncontrollable bout of inflation. While it’s impossible to project exactly how inflationary it would be, it’s hard to imagine it would be any more so than the current system.
Federal meddling in healthcare has long been attributed to price inflation. In reality, all varieties of federal spending in various fields raises costs. To suggest that UBI is beyond the pale in this regard seems dishonest. We might expect to see a general rise in prices. However, there is nothing to suggest that it would be as dramatic or worse as we’ve seen in other government-sponsored areas.
The U.S. currently boasts roughly $127 trillion in unfunded liabilities through Social Security and Medicare. That’s what is clearly unsustainable. Simplifying the process can hardly make the problem worse
5. UBI could secure protection for the weakest, while promoting innovation
Imagine the creativity that could be unleashed if people had the freedom to follow their dreams. Now of course, this sounds like some extreme lefty propaganda. But consider the alternative. The current system, designed by those on the right and left alike, traps people. It becomes impossible for working members of society to follow their dreams and survive.
It is certainly possible that a potential engineer might become a musician. However, libertarianism is, if nothing else, the realization that people should follow what makes them happiest as individuals. Imposing the goals of “society” is not only impossible to quantify, but antithetical to individual freedom.
As it has been noted throughout, UBI is not perfect. In truth, there are many problems and issues that must be addressed for it to ever be considered viable. When it comes to improving lives, we should be open to the options we have. When we can do it while streamlining and trimming our monstrous leviathan, that’s just a plus.