On both sides of the argument over the efficacy of the Universal Basic Income (UBI), there is the claim that the UBI might encourage unemployment. The critics of UBI claim this is a defect, but the Left often argues that employment is not the only value we should have, and that a universal net will encourage people to pursue their own ends, rather than have their life consumed by a job that might not foster such individuality. While I am sympathetic with the Left’s claimed desire for a sort of autonomy-expanding benefit to a universal basic income, I think we have good reason to doubt that such a state of affairs is possible or that the Left in this country is genuinely interested in the free expression that would result from such a state of affairs.

Over at the “Bleeding Heart Libertarian,” Jacob T. Levy’s entry, “A worry about the basic income,” proposes that while the unconditionality of a basic income might be promising in theory, there are serious worries as to a basic income remaining universal for long. He quotes Don Boudreaux to begin,

That policy might well be better than what we currently have, but I fear that the chances are high that we would soon hear – not long after its implementation – cries such as “You are hypocritical to object to government policy X because government is the root source of your income. Because government guarantees each of us an annual income of at least $10,000, our prosperity and well-being and civil peace spring from this policy. As such none of us has any right, or strong grounds on which to stand, to engage in civil disobedience or even to oppose government regulation.

Boudreaux’s worry is apt. The history of modern government welfare stems from 19th century German chancellor Otto Van Bismarck, who stated that welfare was a way to bribe and distract the working class. Indeed, even the more benevolent advocates of the German welfare state admitted that the program was meant to be paternalistic, so that a state had control of a worker’s life. Those who became dependent on the state would be necessitated to obey its commands as Frederic Howe explained,

The state has its finger on the pulse of the worker from the cradle to the grave. His education, his health, and his working efficiency are matters of constant concern. He is carefully protected from accident by laws and regulation governing factories. He is trained in his hand and in his brain to be a good workman.

Not much has changed in the justification for the welfare state or how it is used. American intellectuals took the ideas of Bismarck and over the 20th century transformed America into a vast welfare state. Thaddeus Russell notes that one of the founding documents of today’s welfare state, “The Other America” is highly paternalistic. The author, Michael Harrington, claims that the poor are naturally dependent on their betters, the wealthy.

As will happen, the culture of the elites trickled down into the American subconscious. Today, Americans exist in a reactionary craze over those who, for a plethora of reasons, do not work. This can be unfortunately be seen quite well even among the working class, who rightfully believe they have been overworked and are resentful towards those who can successfully avoid such toil. Levy points out that even when conditions for welfare have no foreseeable economic benefits to anyone, Americans will still demand that discipline be implemented in such programs. Simply put, after working 8-16 hour days, you do not want to be informed that your neighbor sat at home and smoked weed. Why should they, who are not disciplined enough to work, get to enjoy themselves?

As much as some leftists claim that they want autonomy for the poor, people are naturally skeptical of those who they strictly associate with unemployment or shiftlessness. I will here posit a possible explanation for why: people are averse to being ripped off. As a result, a basic income or any other welfare program will inevitably lead to the disciplining nature of being treated as a ward of the State. Libertarians should stop entertaining new schemes for using the violent arm of the state to create social stability. Society is not stable and caging it will not sedate its members.

Leftists are right to point out that employment can be restraining of autonomy, of individual creative action. However, they often ignore that their own worldviews are rarely respecting of autonomy themselves. The Progressive Left rightly knew that control of the poor was necessary in order to maintain societal order. If the poor become too free, too distanced from the prevailing culture of work, discipline and promoting the “social good,” the Progressive path of our culture is in trouble. The point of all welfare schemes is not to allow the individual to flourish for himself, but for the collective to be carefully cultivated for the State’s interests.

We must begin focusing on the liberation of mutual aid if we truly want the end of careerism, of working for the purposes of others through our most vibrant and alive years. Local organizing by lodges and fraternities was the norm in America and England before the Bismarckian ideal of welfare became the enforced norm.

the UBI is the biggest CRAPOLA ever invented by the Collectivists!

http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/favorite-passages-from-atlas-shrugged/the-story-of-the-twentieth-century-motor-company-atlas-shrugged-part-ii/


It is a Slap in the Face of every creative industrious Human Being!
If I really posted what I think of the Scheme,I'd be bounced from every Forum on the Internet!

Have a look at Starnesville,errm,Detroit,then tell me again that it is a good Idea!

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/08/how-detroit-became-starnesville-from-ayn-rands-atlas-shrugged/

Detroit is a direct result from king barry and his auto bailouts... he paid GM to move to Mexico...

decades of just that Garbage the Writer in your OP is proposing!
Besides,have you given any thought who will be paying for the Fiesta?

Okay, we have nobody in power looking to create a living wage (Dems, GOP and Libertarians won't do it because that'd "ruin capitalism") and we have corporate america looking to ensure the same. "The left" (which are the dems) are also just a guilty for enabling protecting and expandng corporate america as the right are (nobody ended reaganomics, instead they all kept it going and added to it.). The only party pushing for that are the Greens and they're not right or left, they actually are looking to change up the entire system to be working for the people as the main focus. (Not the acquisition of wealth by any means.)

Secondly, we also need to evaluate what should constitute as work. Our basic deal of what we have is basically "It's work if you get paid for it" and with undertones of "specific jobs = specific levels of entitlement". (Note: Entitlement is only for those with the money.) So things like "art", "writing" and stuff like that aren't considered to be work as much due to pay levels. The problem is that work itself has a matter of being something that you put effort into that you also get outcomes from. If we only literally go on the scientific definition of work, we are missing the point entirely. (Scientific Definition basically = If you pick something up and you move it into a different place, it's work.) Some jobs don't require that at all.

Living wage is entirely possible and would actually benefit the people. Specifically:so we're not going to be trained to jump for money. (What we have in regard to money is conditioned response.) What we need to to is establish it down the chain so that way there can be more of a flow of cash so it can go into the mom and pop businesses. Getting major corporations to pay a living wage (When they can afford it) is important. It cuts down their lobbyist money, cuts their tax havens savings (Which puts more money back into the economy) and depowers who they are. This also ensures that people will be able to make enough money to keep things they have. It would/could also potentially push a flat rate for products and services instead of creating a system where we're charged based on income of the state or area you live in.

A functional government keeps in mind of the people living under it (so it'll adapt to the needs of the people) and also is looking to put them up as a priority. Currently we have a system that protects those with money, 50% on or below poverty level, no career field expansion (outsourcing yields way more profit) and a cumulative unemployment rate of around 20%. Aside form lack of regulating things the system doesn't care about those who vote to keep them in power and that shows in their actions. People aren't undisciplined to work, people are getting shafted on jobs that'll pay enough to live on top ensure the owner (or CEO) gets the bulk of the profit. They also can't start their own businesses because they either don't have the funding or the potential to be purchased by a larger company results in their own loss while establishing more control in the field that company is in. Mind you, this is also in a system that'll charge the highest on things you need (food, medicines, housing) because that's considered to be guaranteed profit.

The money craze is based on one of our main dehumanization factors... Wealth = worth. People have been indoctrinated into capitalism's mindset so much that we will call humility communism, we admire might over right, and it's making honorable become replaced by classy. Our measure of Progress is how much more money that'll be made. Our scale of ambition is revolving around "how much money you're looking to make and what you're willing to do for it". It's even come to the point with us that it'll affect love and relationships. If you don't make money, you're just the odd man out. Who you are, what you're about takes a back seat quite often to the promises a large wallet and a potential lifestyle upgrade comes with. It's practically HS with money and you're looked on as defective for not being able to follow it. Never mind that our ideals don't match our actuality, (above paragraph to recite reasonings) the american dream is materialism and we shoot for it to show we did something right in our life. Quite honestly it's like an even more backwards deal than the protestant work ethic. What people don't get is that God and the heavens don't work on money. They have a better system so they're not going to care as much about the system we put in place that's managed to socially dehumanize us. They only care about what we do to each other over it.

Hope you will find the Trees with the Money on it to pay for the Carnage!

Money is made before it can be looted or mooched,made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
Francisco D'Anconia

i don't think the government cares about the people, they care about votes and how to get them, through manipulation and outright lies... give the poor enough to get their votes, and then they will have the control/power they want...

the people don't need to lose their jobs, just need to get rid of the unions... everytime they pay someone 70 dollars an hour, it just being paid for by the consumer, us... the unions and government don't care, because of the same thing this article is about... give people a little, and then they vote your way...

And just what would make you think the "Greens" are any different than the red and blue teams. The only safe political party would be the true libertarians, the ones that want to dismantle the government and then leave office. But even they are suspect. And this left, right crap. There is no left or right just the illusion to keep the people stupid and at each others' throats.

And the "Greens", they are no different, just a different version that believes they have the right to determine my rights. Well they can stick that right up their "brown" spot.



Work, are you serious. Don't really care how anybody cares to try and define "work", it is amply defined now, thank you. What you are trying to imply is a different way of saying entitlement. A man has labor, the expenditure of his effort over time. He has a right to determine what his labor is worth, no one else. If you asked me to dig a ditch and I quoted a $100 an hour, I should surmise that I would not be the one digging your ditch. However, should you ask for me to consult on a legal issue and I quoted $100 an hour, I would probably be hired twice, provide I was qualified to do so.

Now if you stand in the town square and shout you would be willing to hire two people at $8 an hour to dig your ditch and lunch would be included, you would have many to choose from.

That sir is how labor works free from the guns of government.



This is just more of the little ideological propaganda that has been indoctrinated into the masses by this supposedly educational system. The thoughts that somehow someone is entitled to that which they can't or won't earn. If you don't like the large corporations, stop working for them and stop buying from them. Then mom and pop will again have a chance to survive.

And flat rate, is this for real? Before I retired, one of the things I owned was a woodworking shop. I made very expensive custom cabinetry. I also made custom real wood cabinet doors and custom hardwood mouldings for other high end cabinet shops and while competitive, was never cheap. If you didn't like my price, I would give you the names of my cheap competitors. I cared less as the work I wanted was always available.

I once had a finisher that worked for me, paid him $25 an hour but his portfolio and color work was worth it. However he didn't last long because he didn't know the difference between a $200 job and a $500 job. The difference being a $200 job took a day and a $500 job took two days. He always took three days.



And just what is a functional government? How does it keep in mind the people under it? You do realize that these united States are republics and the government is under the people, that is unless you are a 14th amendment citizen and "subject" to it's jurisdiction. Corporations are 14th amendments persons and subject to the governments jurisdiction. Governments only function is to regulate the corporations and protect that the peoples rights are not violated, period.

And it isn't that the people are undisciplined to work, most of them are just undisciplined, period. They refuse to take responsibility for themselves and mistakenly believe that others' owe them something. Are you aware that in many parts of this country you could buy an acre of land for under $4000. Did you know you could build an adequate shelter for a little over $1000. And then you could grow your own food and raise a few animals and if you chose wisely, you would have water. So outside of a couple hundred a month for staples and clothing, what else would you need? So that would make a living wage of working 20 hours a month for $5 an hour.

Nobody owes you anything that you don't get for yourself.



And this just isn't even worth responding to, just more entitlement gibberish.

$70 an hour for UAW, well all they were doing is jacking up the price of an automobile but not nearly as much as the government regulations do, so how is that not sustainable? At least they make a automobile. I would say the government regulations are what is not sustainable, they make nothing but added costs, but why?

Well there are the lawyers were the just plain stupid and new ones start at $150 an hour but could cost thousands an hour. And guess why all those regulations are in place, to keep those lawyers in riches.