Contemporary political philosophy, a.k.a. post 1971, entertains many interesting questions. Often the most interesting questions of the said subfield of Philosophy involve public policy questions. These questions, while not an exhaustive list, include issues in policy with regards to public education, the extent of police powers, and what to do with the poor and desperately needy; hard questions indeed. The purpose of this blog post is to present the argument that modern political libertarians should not immediately cringe at social minimum policies and could in fact endorse them as other libertarians have.
Issues Addressed, Issues Deferred
I want to make it clear up front that I will not be addressing the justifications of a social minimum. For that, I need more time to read, analyze and conclude my thoughts regarding that difficult question. That said, I would like to quickly mention that there have been libertarians that have endorsed a social minimum. This list includes Robert Nozick[1], albeit a very low social minimum, Friedrich Hayek[2] and Milton Friedman.[3] Less traditional libertarians that have endorsed forms of social minimums include thinkers like Hillel Steiner.[4] Of the mentioned group, two are Noble Laureates in economics. Since I stated that I am deferring these justification issues, what am I interested discussing? Well, given the fact that the government[5] already spends massive amounts of money on ostensibly social minimum goals, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, federal student aid and similar projects; my question is whether there is a better way to spend that money.
Setting it Up
So given the fact that we have sidestepped the question of whether or not it is justified for the state to take income from wealthier citizens to poorer citizens, we can now proceed to my belief[6] that an unconditional basic income from the state to citizens is a better, and perhaps has beneficial consequences[7], means to provide for desired social minimums.[8] Current government programs in place for the purposes of social minimums are awful in terms of what they produce, vast economic inefficiencies, distortions of market incentives, an army of government bureaucrats, vastly overpowered unions, and an increase in the prices of certain markets such as healthcare and education as a result of the increase of demand as a result of government subsidizes. All too often government has interfered in the private sector with while good intentions, bad outcomes. Unfortunately, this practice has only increased dramatically with the current administration. Yet what do these programs do? These programs are created with the implicit assumption that government knows better than the consumer regarding the issue on how to spend income. This is a conceptual mistake on the part of statists and those endorsing government interventions in the private sector. In addition, these programs have broken down the door to what are now accepted in the mainstream as justified positive rights.
Most, if not nearly all, libertarians emphasize negative liberties. These rights, for the most part, mean the ability to pursue an activity that does not cause harm to other parties. Thus, the right to vote, to earn a living, to read, to pursue an education, to speak freely, to enter a contract with another agent, and other similar rights are rights that may be pursued without the enslavement of others by means of force and or coercion.
One of the most common criticisms of negative liberties is ‘so what?’ Indeed, it is easy to see the dismal of the negative right to free speech when one is hungry, poor and unemployed. Negative rights for agents in those derelict conditions mean not that much, if any bit at all.[9] For those in the said conditions the offer of positive rights, the right to be free from hunger, to an education, to a home, and to a job are understandable preferences. So of what relevance is the libertarian with his mantra of negative rights to the person in desperate need?[10]
Empowering Negative Rights
So then, the question is how negative liberties can be made more relevant to a greater number of persons. With a basic unconditional income from the state, the individual is then able to better utilize negative liberties in a meaningful manner. When one can afford learning materials, then he can be a more productive member of society. When one can read, he can better evaluate the rhetoric of politicians. When individuals are freed from the conditions that promote hand to mouth behavior and expenditure, they can better improve themselves because of the greater range of options made by the basic unconditional income.
Cutting Other Programs
Often the criticism of those against market-based societies is that the market may punish those that are born with deficiencies. This is intuitively plausible, as it seems inherently unfair, whatever ‘fairness’ is, to have the market punish someone not because they failed in merit of economic maximization but because of disabilities they were born with. Therefore, our society tries to compensate for this by means of disability insurance and other similar programs. I believe that endorsing, once again taking it as a given of government intervention in this arena, a basic unconditional income can satisfy all these issues of fairness and also make the government much smaller. For instance, many government agencies could be successfully eliminated. The Department of Education, of Health and Human Services, and so on and so forth could all be removed from the rolls because now consumers would best decide how to spend the unconditional income. With current systems such as Medicare and Medicaid, government bureaucrats decide where spending can occur. In my alternative, consumers would best decide how to spend the basic unconditional income thereby alleviating the market of the perverse incentives created by government intervention. The state could then return to the most basic of functions of protecting Persons, Property and Promises (PPP).[11]
Hedging Some Bets
I do expect some familiar criticisms to arise…
…that it is immoral to take from one to give to another by means of government force
…that a basic unconditional income will increase unemployment because workers lose a level of incentive to work
…that the taxes necessary for a basic unconditional income will cause the same market perversions that I attacked
These are just three of many expected attacks.
Replying to each in order:
I said early on that I would not address the justification of a social minimum.
This empirical question requires research. Economic literature generally finds that a 10% increase in minimum wages increase unemployment for those in minimum wage jobs by 1%. That is not necessarily a bad trade-off. Furthermore, not all workers will decide to live off the basic income, some will save and work still to save even more money.
Yes, it will cause market perversions, but much less than the existing market perversions created by a hodgepodge of government programs that heavily interfere with market structures.
Closing
Am I still a libertarian, yes of course! But I merely recognize that Americans generally like their social minimum programs. So I accept the fact of government social safety net spending is probably here to stay. I just think that the current setup is much too inefficient and burdensome. Given the fact that we spend all this money anyway, why not just give it to the individual. How much should the monthly stipend be? I’m not sure, that is an empirical question outside of this discussion. But should the empirical questions devastate my argument, I do not think so.
[1] Anarchy, State and Utopia,1974
[2] “I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” from Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue by F. A. Hayek, 1994
[3] Capitalism and Freedom, 1962
[4] An Essay on Rights, 1994
[5] When I say government, I mean the aggregate sum of local, state and federal governments unless stated otherwise.
[6] Belief for the time being, I am still thinking this out.
[7] Again, I am not one to believe that the mere result of desirable consequences is a sufficient condition as justification in regards to the claim of state ownership over the individual which is in effect what happens when the state takes the wealth of one citizen in order to provide for social minimums. I do not wish to violate the commitment to inviolable rights of self-ownership.
[8] A basic unconditional income is just as it sounds. A monthly payment from the state to citizens and only citizens with funds derived from various forms of taxes and fees collected by the state.
[9] I can remember my dad telling me the plight of Russians in the 1990s when I brought up the benefits of free speech. His reply, ‘Who gives a shit when you’re starving and stealing just to survive!’
[10] I am going to ignore issues of charity.
[11] Thank you Professor Bell for this useful phrase.
Robert Nozick advocated a state-provided minimum income? You cite “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” but could you provide a page reference? Also, if you could, would you mind providing a page reference from Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom”? Thanks.
More comment to follow…
Thank you for opening this up. Enjoyed reading this.
Addressing the possible objections you raise:
“…that it is immoral to take from one to give to another by means of government force”
Capitalism itself is such a “force” that demands social participation – and if one cannot successfully participate or compete, that one must be excluded and disenfranchised. A basic income which provides the human rights of having food, shelter, education and health care would benefit all while producing a society where more can have the liberty to participate. The Libertarians I’ve run into don’t really believe in liberty for everyone, for to generate such wealth they would like to have, someone has to be economically exploited and they really couldn’t care less.
“…that a basic unconditional income will increase unemployment because workers lose a level of incentive to work”
This neoliberal canard that “people get bored if they won’t compete for money” is mere justification. The “incentive to work” exists because buying one’s survival with money is a life or death proposition. People have been tricked (programmed, really) into the acceptance of “buying” their “liberty from needs.” My position is when nobody is forced into playing the “paying money for the right to survive” game, society will benefit much more from the people who will be truly “liberated” to pursue their own expression in cooperation with others. Libertarianism only “begins” to make sense after the freedom from “wants” is achieved for all.
“…that the taxes necessary for a basic unconditional income will cause the same market perversions that I attacked”
This can be paid for through redefining the traditional role of banking (and by extension, money). Money is created out of thin air and everything still manufactured. Banks would have to be fundamentally changed into an institution dedicated to public service, not profit.
@Aaron
Capitalism and Freedom, Chapter 12, starting at 190. At 192 he explicitly calls for a negative income tax. Methinks that counts as a type of basic guaranteed income from the state.
ASU, 178-182. Like I said it is a form of very weak social minimum, but I read it as a right to welfare.
@Darryl
Capitalism doesn’t ‘force’ anyone to do anything. When I used the word force, I used it in a manner that describes physical action. You are using the term in a metaphorical way. Capitalism may present the conditions to a person which may or may not be sufficient incentive to work. But that is not forcing anyone to do anything.
Also, I do not see having food, shelter and education and health-care as human rights. Those are positive rights, you might have a right to pursue those desires free from interference from others, but to say you are entitled to them entails the enslavement of other to fulfill those rights. I am very much against that.
Maybe, but you’re most likely wrong. There is much strong empirical research that shows the incentive to work is lessened by the handing out of money. Unemployment benefits in particular come to mind.
I would not force private institutions to change in order to satisfy your moral desires. If we print double the amount of money in current circulation, manufacturing will not double as well. All that will happen is the rise of prices, inflation. In economics how things are relative is more important than absolute terms.
“Capitalism doesn’t ‘force’ anyone to do anything. When I used the word force, I used it in a manner that describes physical action.”
Capitalism’s totalizing and ubiquitous nature does indeed “force” everyone to participate in it. If one doesn’t participate in it, one loses access to money, shelter and food – in other words, “survival.” If one doesn’t “play the game,” one is in serious trouble of surviving. I haven’t heard of an alternate economic system that is available to operate in.
“Also, I do not see having food, shelter and education and health-care as human rights. Those are positive rights, you might have a right to pursue those desires free from interference from others, but to say you are entitled to them entails the enslavement of other to fulfill those rights. I am very much against that.”
We disagree on this point. There is no liberty or freedom without the attendant liberty from “wants.” Your perspective is indicative of the libertarian ironic posture of individualistic “rights from interference,” as long as one does not impinge on the neoliberalist’s right to exploit others for financial gain.
Capitalism’s law that states one must compete and pay others money for the “right” to survive is a form of social control. Thus the libertarian is revealed to be the most virulent of totalitarians.
“There is much strong empirical research that shows the incentive to work is lessened by the handing out of money. Unemployment benefits in particular come to mind.”
I disagree with your premise, as it is connected to the current unfair and abusive money system in place. Of course people will try to find an angle to benefit from it as it currently stands. There are other where scrip money was used in various places and times which benefited the communities greatly. Look up the subject on the Austrian town of Worgl and scrip money, how it was used and the results of the positive works that was created. if you are intellectually honest, you will admit that there can be different social contract that would benefit all.
“I would not force private institutions to change in order to satisfy your moral desires. If we print double the amount of money in current circulation, manufacturing will not double as well. All that will happen is the rise of prices, inflation. In economics how things are relative is more important than absolute terms”
You don’t seem to be hearing me. My moral desires have nothing to do with the self-evident truth that humanity is capable of benefiting the equal economic participation of everyone within the creation of a more perfect capitalism. If libertarians are so concerned with “liberty” and “freedom,” then why is it they only want these things for themselves?
Money, as it is currently used in the banking system, is debt. That needs to change, and we do that by changing the definition of money into something else, something that is the truth. For you may well know that the true nature of money is an instrument of debt created out of thin air by the banks – but most people don’t know that and are controlled by their own ignorance. What will they do when this perpetual debt system gives up its last breath? They might want to listen to what some proposal of a basic income where money will be more fairly distributed. just sayin…
Darryl,
The libertarianism you attack is a caricature. It simply does not match up to what libertarianism is all about.
If you do not agree with force with the meaning of meaning action, then what do you mean when you say force? Can you provide a definition for your use of the word force? Also, what is the issue with losing access to goods and services that you do not pay for? Individuals that do not have the financial means to goods and services may turn towards avenues of charity. If you feel so bad about the situation of others, then you open up your pocketbook and pay for what you deem are situations of moral imperative, do not take my money to fulfill your moral dilemmas.
We disagree because you use liberty and freedom in unconventional ways; furthermore, you conflate negative and positive liberties. What is ironic about asking that others do not interfere in my affairs that require no input from others? In addition, what is exploitation? Can you provide a theory of exploitation? What about two agents voluntarily entering an agreement that yields financial gain for one or both parties, is that exploitation? On the last point of this block, once again you use words in a manner far removed of their definition. Totalitarianism is
“adjective 1. …of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.”
“noun 2. a person who advocates or practices totalitarian policies”
So, you have no idea what libertarianism is about when you claim that libertarians are totalitarians. Under capitalism, individuals have the choice whether or not to accept market prices. They can choose not to pay and attempt to find a better price or choose to accept the seller’s price and complete a transaction. Libertarians advocate that individuals do this without the state interfering with this private affair. Libertarians dislike social control and instead advocate for decentralization of power. Let individuals decide for themselves how best to live their lives.
Your moral desires have everything to do with your dislike of capitalism. I would also question the ‘self-evident’ truth of
“humanity is capable of benefiting the equal economic participation of everyone within the creation of a more perfect capitalism”
First, what would count as a perfect capitalism? Second, witness the miserable failure of every economy where the state intervened in such as scale as to bring about a ‘more perfect capitalism’ The Soviet Union exists no more. Libertarians desire for all individuals to pursue their wants and desires free from state interference as long as their wants and desires do not hurt others in their pursuit of wants and desires.
The last block is so off the mark and would be address in any economics 101 class. Money functions as a medium of exchange, not as an accessory to conspiracy.
Edgar would have no reason to believe this, but I most certainly understand that money is a symbolic exchange. I also have studied libertarianism and it’s antecedent “classical liberalism” for years. If my portrayal of the lovable, loony libertarian philosophy comes off as a “caricature,” I wouldn’t argue against it, since my conversations with them at times were quiet surreal. Privatizing roads and the postal service? Justifying child labor? Really?? Oh, wow. Tell me more.
My opinion is that neoliberals form an unstable and philosophically immature group, and I say that as once being a part of that group. I left because they seemed shit-scared of the community and were only concerned with the pathological regard for protecting their precious “liberty” for money-making. They are the “pure” capitalists. You know, the smug, self-satisfied, Ayn Rand-reading economic fascists. I keed. I keed.
I found myself agreeing with the anarchists that libertarians are just pot-smoking Republicans who hate paying taxes. But then, the discovered that the anarchists were even worse (!) because they had a worthy pedigree in Proudhon and Goldman and others, but they squandered their legacy as they too forgot that human beings are social creatures and are far, far stronger and effective as a group than as any puny “individualist.”
Edgar claims that I define “freedom” and “liberty” in “unconventional ways,” but I remind you all that these terms have been compromised and distorted to justify institutional inequality and economic oppression and by appealing to these virtuous – sounding, yet hollow conceits. Is this a “theory of exploitation that Edgar would accept? Doubtful, for Edgar has chosen his side and is theologically committed to it. Like Rothbard, Edgar may feel that Equality is “evil”
Edgar wants me to give an explanation of the term of art I used by calling capitalism “totalitarianism.” So let’s see what’s in there…
Totalitarianism
“noun 2. a person who advocates or practices totalitarian policies”
That’s an acceptable definition, but there are more than the ones offered by Edgar. For it was the “totalitarian policies” which has destroyed American democracy through corrupting our elected “leaders” with money while destroying and making a mockery of the “one man, one vote” principle of our society. Permission to speak plainly.
The Random House definition comes pretty close to what I had in mind with my equation of capitalism with totalitarianism:
2. “exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.”
Others may talk rashly about “give me liberty or give me death,” but if one does not participate within the capitalistic system, that one will be excluded and destroyed. There is no “liberty” outside of capitalism. There is no choice. There is no Free Will. Capital must be obeyed. It is the totalizing, pervasive and global enslavement and exploitation that has stretched across the entire world, cancels and denies any reality that doesn’t agree its existence.
This totalizing aspect of capitalism is the reason why sweatshops exist. You think a sweatshop worker making Gucci bags in Polynesia has been given a real “choice” participating in capitalism when she has to choose between death and exploitation?
No doubt Edgar sees this “transaction” as a “private affair” between the exploiter and the exploited. And it can be rationally justified. We shall thank Edgar for helping us to see the very real limits of rationality.
Edgar also asks me, “First, what would count as a perfect capitalism?”
I thought I was clear on that. What would be “perfect” would be the allowance of equal participation that would remove the relationship between exploiter and exploited by instituting economic equality: a socially acceptable basic income given to all equally. Have their basic needs paid for so they can contribute to society unburdened by debt and the predators. But such a world would seem to be a virtual Hell for the neoliberals. They can’t seem to stand the idea of everyone being given an equal start in life. They have to have it all for themselves first through enlightened self-interest and a callow disregard for the group. Fascinating.
Edgar then asks: “Second, witness the miserable failure of every economy where the state intervened in such as scale as to bring about a ‘more perfect capitalism.’
They failed because Equality wasn’t seriously considered. Take the latest example of your list of the “failures of egalitarianism.” After the end of Apartheid in South Africa, the African National Congress swore they would help the millions of Africans who were historically disenfranchised, oppressed and “forced” into accepting a servile role to the immigrant Europeans who took over the joint. Of course, they’ve done the opposite: enriching themselves and selling the resources to foreign corporations for money. Here comes the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss. Damn, we were fooled again.
We want democracy restored to the one being, one vote
principle. We want Leaders who will do what they say and not sell out to the corporatists. If money is the Point, then instead of limiting access to it, grant an equal share to everyone. It’s not like it will get used up. The banks can always print more.
Edgar,
In one breath you say you “will not be addressing the [moral] justifications” of a state-provided basic income (BI), but in another, after a brief and anemic note on the (possible) beneficial economic consequences of your idea, you proceed to defend a BI on the basis that a standard libertarian conception of negative rights is unable to satisfy various “issues of fairness” and therefore must be amended (“empowered”). (The last two paragraphs of the “Issues Addressed, Issues Deferred” section possess an underlying moral criticism of a libertarian conception of negative rights which makes this clear.) Issues of fairness are normative concerns, and if you wish to (partially) engender your idea with them, you cannot without contradiction refuse at the same time to address the moral justifications / criticisms of a BI. (Nevertheless, I will forgo discussing the moral (de)merits of a BI or negative income tax (NIT); if for nothing else than you don’t want to have that discussion. Suffice it to say, however, that I find the argument that one must be free from relative poverty in order for negative liberties to be meaningful to be largely incoherent.)
As you note, notable libertarians have proposed replacing the welfare state with a BI / NIT. (Though, Robert Nozick was not one of those libertarians. Pages 178 – 182 [ASU] concern the relationship between the Lockean proviso and a neo-Lockean entitlement theory, not a social minimum of state-provided resources.) Also, some libertarians have offered something like your argument for something like the same reasons. See, for instance, Charles Murray’s “In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State” (2006). However, like most libertarians, I am not convinced a BI / NIT, whether it replaces the welfare state or not, would be desirable.
Like many government welfare programs, a BI / NIT would likely distort incentive structures resulting in unintended, negative consequences that outweigh the positive consequences. In your post, you fail to address this criticism adequately.
First, you mention some figures concerning the relationship between minimum wage laws and unemployment without citing a single source and without framing the context in which those figures may have relevance. The source of your data is important because you state that a 10% increase in the minimum wage rate corresponds to (on average) a 1% increase in unemployment, but do these figures factor across all hourly wage earners or do they pertain to a subset of hourly wage earners (e.g. wage earners aged 25 and under)? If the former, then I suspect the figures you gave do not accurately reflect the negative consequences on unemployment minimum wage laws have. Of the 72.6m Americans 16 and up who earn hourly wages, one fifth are 25 and under. However, that cohort comprises over half the total amount of individuals who make Federal minimum wage rates (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm). Among the 25 and under cohort, workers 16 to 19 have experienced approximately a 6.9% reduction in employment, totalling 98,000 jobs lost since the federal minimum wage 2007 – 2009 increase (http://epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=128). If we consider the entire cohort, the rate of job losses is even greater. The evidence that minimum wage laws increase unemployment among those who fall within minimum wage earner cohorts is overwhelming. (This does not even begin to address the decrease in the general standard of living due to the increase in prices, which is due to the increase in production costs which in turn is due to the increase in the price of labor inputs.) The potential difficulty in, say, the figures you gave is that wage earners who do not fall within minimum wage earner cohorts (i.e. the 45.5m plus who do not earn minimum wages) and who are somewhat immune to fluctuations in minimum wage laws obscure the negative consequences that arise from minimum wage laws. Unfortunately, however, given the nature of a BI, comparing the relationship between minimum wage laws and unemployment is largely irrelevant to the issue of a BI, and therefore in bringing this up, you have done nothing to assuage the criticism.
The worry is that a BI / NIT would provide individuals incentive not to enter (1) lower wage labor markets, (2) decrease the amount of labor hours, and, for some, (3) the labor market in general, resulting in, though not limited to, the following: (a) a loss in productivity, (b) higher production costs (firms would have to pay more for labor than its market value), (c) from (b) a general increase in prices through inflation, (d) an overall decrease in the labor supply, resulting in less tax revenue and further straining the ability to provide the BI / NIT, and (e) from (d) the loss of experience that lower wage earners obtain through entry-level occupations, resulting in the exasperation of (a) and (b) in the long run. To compound (a) – (e), given payroll, state, and federal income taxes, a BI / NIT would reduce the net value of wages and provide further inducements to decrease labor supply (this is known as the substitution effect). If this worry is valid, then, given the implementation of BI / NIT pilot programs, we would expect to observe something like (a) and (d) and the substitution effect obtaining [with (b), (c), and (e) following after substantial implementation of a BI / NIT). From 1968 to 1982, various BI / NIT experiments were conducted in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington State, and Colorado. In short, researchers found a general and appreciable decline in a willingness to work, measured by higher unemployment rates and, for those who maintained employment, decreased labor in-put time and productivity. I quote from a review of the research findings here:
“The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which analyzed the SIME/DIME findings, found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives. This was not as scary as some NIT opponents had predicted. But it was large enough to suggest that as much as 50 to 60 percent of the transfers paid to two-parent families under a NIT might go to replace lost earnings. They also found an unexpected result: instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup.”
The entire review quoted can be read here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html
A more analytical review can be read here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/145685
I implore you to conduct a detailed literature review on the experiments. I think you will find, as I have, that while some have found some positive results associated with a BI / NIT, the majority of analysts have found net negative associated results.
In the end, Friedman et al. underplayed the negative consequences of a BI / NIT. It should be noted that the 1968 – 1982 experiments were conducted after “Capitalism and Freedom,” which was published in 1962. (To be fair, Friedman thought a NIT would be less destructive than a BI, and that even his devised NIT would reduce work incentives. However, he, like you, thought a NIT would be the lesser of two evils.)
Darryl,
Thus far, your comments (both here and in Lou’s post) have been light on logic and heavy on platitudes. It is easy enough to make claims (e.g. capitalism is exploitative / immoral and the such), but providing justifying arguments for those claims is more difficult…
Aaron, there’s really no need for me to provide ‘justifying arguments’ when there exists well-knoqn claims against Capitalism have been made many times over the past 200 years. Maybe you haven’t read them. Maybe you just don’t agree with their content because you have committed yourself to a specific philosophical point that has placed a resistance in your mind to anything that might make you question your belief system. I don’t know. But I didn’t think that I would have to provide ‘justifying arguments’ to the self-evident historical existence of human trafficking, sweatshops, pollution, political corruption and intentional disenfranchisement of the poor and scarcity – just to name a few processes of wealth generation in capitalism.
The critique against Capitalism consists of something more substantial than “platitudes,” Aaron, and any attempt to lazily dismiss them or invalidate their effect on the human condition indicates your unwillingness to honestly discuss the flaws of capitalism and makes me wonder what passes for ‘logic’ in your mind.
It’s interesting to see those defending the neoliberal position often like to play hard and fast with definitions of ‘morality.’ They appeal for a morality that allows their demand for ‘liberty,’ yet will deny its force if it is used to point out an inherent weakness of their philosophy.
The concept of ‘Liberty’ has been based on the very foundation of ethics, morality and rationalism, yet the neoliberal refuses all moral appeals of the proponents for Equality, and the reason is simple: the Principle of Equality does not allow for the Liberty of individuals or groups to abuse each other. The neoliberal has a big problem with that for obvious, self-interested reasons.
Thus the concept of ‘Liberty’ is undermined and robbed of its meaning.
A basic guaranteed income that provides the basic human rights for shelter, food, health care and education will provide protection against exploitation individuals and groups and give society an expanded talent pool which will allow everyone to participate and finally give ‘Liberty’ the meaning it deserves.
[...] at Florida Student Philosophy Blog argued that libertarians should endorse social minimum policies, or welfare [...]
No matter how I look at it, it’s very obvious that in order to generate profit someone has to be exploited in this world under “capitalism”. We have to find a better system. Sooner or later you or me will be the one exploited. And it’s not necessary.
Robert,
Ironically, it’s obvious to me that capitalism (i.e. the free and voluntary exchange by individuals [or groups thereof] of justly, privately held goods and services) is, strictly considered, devoid of exploitative relations.
Aaron, you can put lipstick may give an added dimension to a pig, but it’s still a pig. And by god, don’t ever let the facts get in the way of moral philosophy. The Marxist critique of capitalism still holds true on many fronts, but the question is how does one who exploits another for money by trapping them within an inhumane, no-win scenario actually provides a “choice?”
Concerning sweatshops, if the phenomenon of exploitation is allowed, the specious claim that Capitalism defends “human rights” is devoid of any moral force its appeal to liberty alleges, reducing one to justify an amoral philosophy by alleging that it’s a moral philosophy. A neat trick if one dispenses with common sense.
A simple solution would be the institution of a single currency along with enforcing laws to protect workers from amoral, stateless corporatist practices.
In re: “… to the self-evident historical existence of human trafficking, sweatshops, pollution, political corruption and intentional disenfranchisement of the poor and scarcity – just to name a few processes of wealth generation in capitalism.”
See: “SELF-EVIDENT, adj. Evident to one’s self and to nobody else.”
- Ambrose Bierce, Devil’s Dictionary.
Darryl,
I am aware of the (many) “well-knoqn (sp)” critcisms of capitalism. The problem is that I have yet to encounter one that is persuasive, whether on economic or moral grounds. Now, you can continue shaking your anti-capitalist rattle and accuse me of avoiding the “self-evident” (and in so doing presume your case without argument) or you can run one of your best arguments by me. Which will it be?
Well, Aaron, it’s not my job to “persuade” you in anything, for if you “aware” of the criticisms of capitalism, yet can’t trouble yourself to be honest in looking at the inhumane and exploitative aspects of capitalism, no persuasion seems to be necessary, for you’ve already made up your mind.
Nor is it a “problem” for me if you are unmoved by what you see as my “anti-capitalist rattling.” I’m not, by the way, “anti-capitalist.” I’m only against the current exclusionary, abusive form of capitalism and for a capitalism that includes all and recognizes the right that basic human needs should be met because we are capable of doing so. Since you are apparently theologically committed to your neoliberal belief system, nothing contrary to it can exist within your preciously acquired knowledge. Why would I waste my time fighting against that?
That feature of conceptual stonewalling is typical with many libertarians I have come across when taking them on about the glaring inconsistencies and robotic doublethink of their so-called “moral philosophy.” They would rather focus on irrelevant points than honestly deal with the problems inherent within the design of their perspective. How unfortunate for them that they can only justify the “moral” claims of capitalism by twisting the meaning of principles like “liberty” and “freedom” into a shapeless mass of Randian bullshit – for they have worked it out that money is God, thus the neoliberal acolytes must do their best to worship that God, which is money – and the best way to do that is to dream up a theoretical “moral” framework to justify their anti-life belief system to they can feel better about themselves. Nope. Not a problem for me, Aaron. I stand on the principle of what’s best for all, not because it’s some [...] useless “moral,” but because it’s common sense (which is tough to argue against). That’s why you would rather focus on the irrelevant (like my spelling) than taking my position apart in any systematic way.
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE (09/14/2009, 9:25 A.M.): The material in the brackets — a vulgarity — has been deleted.
@Darryl
You haven’t provided an argument for your views at all. At this point you are preaching. Without a reasoned argument, what you say is not reason but emotional outburst.
Lest things digress and I have either to begin deleting comments or, worse, to close the commentary on this post, I encourage those participating in this discussion to review the nature and mission of the blog — http://unfspb.wordpress.com/about/
“These programs are created with the implicit assumption that government knows better than the consumer regarding the issue on how to spend income. This is a conceptual mistake on the part of statists and those endorsing government interventions in the private sector.”
I think what you’re missing here is that welfare programs are often designed to provide a useful public benefit, in addition to the direct aid that they provide to the recipient.
For example, a program which provides free preventive medical care benefits the recipient of that care. But it also provides numerous other benefits to society as a whole: increased vaccination rates help keep the entire population healthy, and early intervention reduces the need for (astoundingly expensive) ER visits. A housing subsidy benefits not only the housed, but also beautifies the street by reducing the number of homeless. A childcare subsidy benefits not only the parents and child, but also keeps kids busy and out of trouble (and thereby saves policing costs).
But if you were to replace all these programs with a cash payment, then a recipient (acting out of rational self-interest) might buy a bike (so they can get to a better job) instead of buying that vaccination. This maximizes their own personal benefit, but fails to maximize the benefit to society as a whole (as they spread plague to hundreds of other helpless victims).
So, in some cases, the government DOES know how to spend income better than the aid recipient, when the purpose of the aid is to maximize societal benefit instead of individual benefit.
Apparently Miron, Economics Harvard, and I basically agree.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/rethinking-redistribution
Edgar,
Thank you for sharing Miron’s article. I must admit that he makes an almost compelling case. However, the portion of his article where he waivers is exactly when he attempts to address criticisms similar to the ones I posed to you in my initial reply. Re: the last three paragraphs under the section titled ‘An Alternative Approach.’
While in all likelihood an economically more efficient idea than what is in place now (which is, frankly, an absolute mess), a BI /NIT would probably lead to a suboptimal outcome: Give us free-markets, not free checks.
Right, but I would take it as a pragmatic turn.
Maybe that is unsatisfactory to you, but the practical considerations must be met.
Baby steps Aaron…
No, I agree. Pragmatically considered, Miron’s plan is preferable to the current state of affairs.
[...] The second thing is that, while libertarians emphasis “negative liberty” and “negative rights,” if you can’t feed and clothe yourself, they don’t mean much. As one libertarian philosopher puts it: [...]