against a basic income

[Michaël Bauwens]

Hallo Jos,

onderstaande tekst uit een persoonlijke discussie met een tegenstander van het basisinkomen. Het brengt mij in ieder geval aan het twijfelen...

now some points on your basic income idea:

1) "feeding everybody": governments prevent this by blocking a) trade and development in biotech b) "unofficial" trade between individuals in different countries c) "unorganized" (non-union) labour in developing countries - remember that 150 years ago, every country in the world was worse off than today's developing countries. What these people need is to go through a similar revolution to bring up their living standard, not the revenue of their government. The only way to "feed the world" is to allow individuals to trade with individuals so that they can build up personal wealth and capital. Read Hernando De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital" and J. Norberg's "In Defense of Global Capitalism" for this. Again, the principles are more complicated, but bring that question to FEE.

2) "deciding" what work should be paid: it is presumptuous and ridiculous for anyone to think that they can decide for everyone else what is valuable, but this is what most government officials (and unfortunately almost all philosophers) do. Decisions as to what is paid are made by people themselves when they freely choose to purchase goods and services in the market. Read up on supply and demand theory for this. People will pay for what they want and value. Now an interesting case: the philosophers. People clearly still value philosophy b/c they buy books on it and take classes on it. But here is what has happened to devalue philosophers and their craft: the government has created a monopsony. This means that they have crowded out all other employers of philosophers by becoming the sole employer simply b/c they have access to more funding than any other single employer. Ie) universities are the only employers of philosophers (other than authors and journalists) b/c philosophers would rather have people forced to pay them through taxes than take the risk of making money on the market as all other entrepreneurs do. This is not the fault of the philosophers; the government has perverted their incentives by forcing poeple to pay for them. As for specific ideas, it may be a sad thing, but people will only ever buy, listen to or act upon what they like. This is how the rest of the world works. Now, imagine a world in which philosophy was "revalued": philosophical entrepreneurs would find a way to remove philosophy from the "ivory tower" by convincing businesspeople, artists, writers, doctors, lawyers, private individuals -anyone!- that their craft was useful in strategizing the right decisions to make in life. People already make millions of dollars doing this - they have the dubious title of "consultants" or "psychologists". Think of the man you told me about who acts as a philosophical psychologist and multiply that a million fold. Philosophers would not only be in demand and well-paid, they would no longer be viewed as a relic of the past. But it is up to enterprising philosophers to realize this and do it. It took a long time for psychology to be accepted as a legitimate field, but look how much money psychologists make now and how many of them there are.

- mothers: up until the very recent past, parents did extract payment from their children. After reaching a certain age, children were expected to take care of their parents financially to repay the costs of their upbringing. Especially in rural areas (this still happens today) children were expected to work on the family farm or business and support the extended family. This certainly did not destroy society: it held it together! When families are given more responsibility for governing their own business, more people will be taken care of b/c people can see and experience the effect they have on family members. When government crowds this out by attempting to replace the family, which it could never really do, it atomizes society.

3) Unfortunately, your idea of a "national basic income" is completely divorced from reality. Don't be insulted by that statement; I don't mean to dismiss it, as you'll see below, but study economics some more and you'll see what I mean. What you are looking for is a perfect world in which scarcity no longer exists. But scarcity is one of the most important principles in the universe! Without scarcity, rational decision-making would be impossible, and it would be practically impossible to distinguish one thing from another. No human action would occur, since human action is directed at improving (phsyically or "spiritually") the well-being of the individual or the people the individual wishes to benefit. You are assuming that money and the value behind money just exists. It does not - people have to create it through labour. People would not go to work if a basic income was instituted; you are assuming that most people are creative and driven and hold strong values. Sadly, this is not the case. A very small percentage of people are, and you are proposing to tax this small percentage out of existence, which would destroy society. The reasons are this: a) if you offer this to everyone with no limits, there is no incentive for them to work b) if there is no time limit, people will not develop skills that are marketable to other people, but will become permanent slaves to the government ( the result of all welfare schemes) c) as more people are put on basic income, more will be taxed from the producers and creators of society. At a certain point, it does become absolutely irrational to work if other people are given the majority of one's money. You won't want to hear this, but what you are proposing, on a national scale, is just another way of collectivizing human beings, which is exactly what Stalin did in the late 1920s.

That said, it is only the scale that you are proposing that is flawed. The concept itself would work splendidly if it was a) private b) voluntary and c) taken on by small groups and cooperatives in a non-coercive way. Here is how a basic income could work: a group of people who have goals other than the jobs that they do would agree to pay weekly, monthly or yearly dues to a fund which they would organize. Depending on the size of the fund, they could then provide basic income to one or more people for a particular period of time (say a year, for example). During that year, if 10 people were in the cooperative, 9 would continue working and paying dues while the other person had a year to work on whatever he/she wanted. The time limit would a) create an incentive for the funded person to get work done during that time b) allow that person to develop their work to a point where they could sell it on the market. The funded person could be selected through a vote, or rotated. In this way, everyone involved would get a turn to take the time off, but it would be affordable to all. Also, it would be limited to small groups b/c people would not want to wait more than a few years to get a year off. I haven't thought out all the details of this, but this is not only the only way it would work, it is a creative and promising one. I would join one of this cooperatives!

4) A final note: the reality is that many valuable things are paid for (art,for example) while many aren't (walking outside in the sunshine, for example). This is not to say that these things will not continue to exist if they aren't government subsidized. They exist b/c people use their leisure time to produce them. Leisure time is something that only emerged after the Industrial Revolution. Before people had regular jobs, they worked 7 days a week, up to 20 hours a day, and took practically no holidays. Now, even the poorest people in devloped areas have 2 weeks of holiday. The way to encourage this is encourage economic development and employment. We cannot have 100% leisure ever, and we can't even have 50% leisure yet. But that is the trend that the world is moving towards, so stick around In order to pay for this trend, we need to be producing (which is what also feeds the world, of course). Also, consider values. People will always choose to do what they value in their leisure time, but leisure is a scarcity, just as life itself is. That is what makes these things so valuable and cherished: they are scarce, and people work in order to have them. If they didn't, these things would lose all value. By forcing people to pay for things, their value is lost. On that note, consider this: if you really think that philosophy and other things have so much value, and you believe that there are redeemable qualities in the human race, do you really think that these things will go extinct if people are left free to choose them?

[Jos Verhulst]

Hier kort enige geïmproviseerde commentaar

now some points on your basic income idea:

1) "feeding everybody": governments prevent this by blocking a) trade and development in biotech b) "unofficial" trade between individuals in different countries c) "unorganized" (non-union) labour in developing countries - remember that 150 years ago, every country in the world was worse off than today's developing countries. What these people need is to go through a similar revolution to bring up their living standard, not the revenue of their government. The only way to "feed the world" is to allow individuals to trade with individuals so that they can build up personal wealth and capital. Read Hernando De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital" and J. Norberg's "In Defense of Global Capitalism" for this. Again, the principles are more complicated, but bring that question to FEE.

Ik denk dat de basisteneur van de passage hierboven wel correct is. De economische activiteit berust op het principe van de vrije overeenkomst. De eigenlijke taak van rechtsstaat op dit domein is, om een juridische basis te scheppen voor rechtszekerheid en eenduidigheid van de overeenkomsten, en om types ongeoorloofde overeenkomsten uit te sluiten. Daarentegen heeft de staat zich absoluut niet te bemoeien met de vraag, wie met wie een overeenkomst moet sluiten, noch met de vraag welke overeenkomsten gesloten moeten worden (tenzij uitsluiting van ongeoorloofde overeenkomsten). De staat dient zelf geen economische actor te zijn.
Dit alles belet echter niet dat het volkomen gerechtvaardigd is om op vrijwillige basis zgn ‘fair trade’ - initiatieven te nemen. Indien consumenten bv bereid zijn om meer te betalen voor een pak ‘rechtvaardige’ koffie dan is dat hun goed recht.

2) "deciding" what work should be paid: it is presumptuous and ridiculous for anyone to think that they can decide for everyone else what is valuable, but this is what most government officials (and unfortunately almost all philosophers) do. Decisions as to what is paid are made by people themselves when they freely choose to purchase goods and services in the market. Read up on supply and demand theory for this. People will pay for what they want and value. Now an interesting case: the philosophers. People clearly still value philosophy b/c they buy books on it and take classes on it. But here is what has happened to devalue philosophers and their craft: the government has created a monopsony. This means that they have crowded out all other employers of philosophers by becoming the sole employer simply b/c they have access to more funding than any other single employer. Ie) universities are the only employers of philosophers (other than authors and journalists) b/c philosophers would rather have people forced to pay them through taxes than take the risk of making money on the market as all other entrepreneurs do. This is not the fault of the philosophers; the government has perverted their incentives by forcing poeple to pay for them. As for specific ideas, it may be a sad thing, but people will only ever buy, listen to or act upon what they like. This is how the rest of the world works. Now, imagine a world in which philosophy was "revalued": philosophical entrepreneurs would find a way to remove philosophy from the "ivory tower" by convincing businesspeople, artists, writers, doctors, lawyers, private individuals -anyone!- that their craft was useful in strategizing the right decisions to make in life. People already make millions of dollars doing this - they have the dubious title of "consultants" or "psychologists". Think of the man you told me about who acts as a philosophical psychologist and multiply that a million fold. Philosophers would not only be in demand and well-paid, they would no longer be viewed as a relic of the past. But it is up to enterprising philosophers to realize this and do it. It took a long time for psychology to be accepted as a legitimate field, but look how much money psychologists make now and how many of them there are.

De kernideeën in deze passage lijken mij te zijn dat de staat niet voor de burgers kan bepalen welke goederen en diensten gewild zijn en welke niet, en dat de staat ook niet in het geestesleven vervormend moet optreden om bv sommige filosofen wel, en andere niet te betalen (‘filosofen’ is uitbreidbaar tot alle types van culturele actoren). Zie ik helemaal zitten.

- mothers: up until the very recent past, parents did extract payment from their children. After reaching a certain age, children were expected to take care of their parents financially to repay the costs of their upbringing. Especially in rural areas (this still happens today) children were expected to work on the family farm or business and support the extended family. This certainly did not destroy society: it held it together! When families are given more responsibility for governing their own business, more people will be taken care of b/c people can see and experience the effect they have on family members. When government crowds this out by attempting to replace the family, which it could never really do, it atomizes society.

Ik ben akkoord met de stelling op het einde van deze passage, namelijk dat de staat gezinsvernietigend werkt. Het verwoestend werk dat het particratisch regime op dit vlak heeft verricht, lijkt ondertussen al bijna onherstelbaar. Maar bemerk tevens het archaïsche element in deze paragraaf. Kinderen werden vroeger inderdaad opgenomen in het bedrijf van hun ouders, werden geacht de pensioenverzekering te zijn voor hun ouders enz.Daarom ook is in de Bijbel kinderloosheid zo’n vloek: je zat als ouder wordende mens zonder verzorging. Je zou kunnen zeggen dat er toen in dit opzicht een soort intrafamiliaal basisinkomen was. Maar in tijden als de onze kan je mi dit systeem niet meer handhaven; het is archaïsch geworden. Vroeger was het normaal en natuurlijk voor het overgrote deel van de mensen, om heel hun leven door te brengen binnen de kring waarin ze kind waren en binnen het dorp waarin ze geboren werden. Die tijd is voorbij. Je kan kinderen en ouders, die niet zelden op verschillende continenten wonen, niet blijvend aaneen ketenen. Daarom moeten die vroegere, instinctief functionerende vormen van basisinkomen bewust ingericht worden, op grotere schaal en langs democratische weg.

3) Unfortunately, your idea of a "national basic income" is completely divorced from reality. Don't be insulted by that statement; I don't mean to dismiss it, as you'll see below, but study economics some more and you'll see what I mean. What you are looking for is a perfect world in which scarcity no longer exists. But scarcity is one of the most important principles in the universe! Without scarcity, rational decision-making would be impossible, and it would be practically impossible to distinguish one thing from another. No human action would occur, since human action is directed at improving (phsyically or "spiritually") the well-being of the individual or the people the individual wishes to benefit.

Von Mises.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

You are assuming that money and the value behind money just exists. It does not - people have to create it through labour. People would not go to work if a basic income was instituted;

Dit is een absurde veralgemening, uitgaande van het idee dat het basisinkomen onmogelijk hoog zou zijn.

you are assuming that most people are creative and driven and hold strong values. Sadly, this is not the case. A very small percentage of people are, and you are proposing to tax this small percentage out of existence, which would destroy society. The reasons are this: a) if you offer this to everyone with no limits, there is no incentive for them to work b) if there is no time limit, people will not develop skills that are marketable to other people, but will become permanent slaves to the government ( the result of all welfare schemes) c) as more people are put on basic income, more will be taxed from the producers and creators of society. At a certain point, it does become absolutely irrational to work if other people are given the majority of one's money. You won't want to hear this, but what you are proposing, on a national scale, is just another way of collectivizing human beings, which is exactly what Stalin did in the late 1920s.

Eigenlijk is dit een pleidooi tegen te hoge belastingen, niet tegen een basisinkomen op zich. Het basisinkomen bestaat grotendeels al, omdat een moderne samenleving niet blijvend kan functioneren, doch roofbouw uitoefent op zichzelf, zonder een of andere vorm van basisinkomen. Het basisinkomen ligt verspreid over zaken als kindergeld, werklozensteun, fiscale aftrekken, wettelijke pensioenen enz Indien de schrijver gelijk zou hebben, zou er nu reeds niemand meer werken. Men dient niet het basisinkomen als zodanig te bekijken, maar het globale belastingspakket. Dat kan ongetwijfeld een heel stuk naar omlaag door de staatsactiviteit op domeinen, waar de staat niets te zoeken heeft, op korte termijn af te schaffen.

That said, it is only the scale that you are proposing that is flawed. The concept itself would work splendidly if it was a) private b) voluntary and c) taken on by small groups and cooperatives in a non-coercive way.

Ik denk dat deze opmerking juist is, in de volgende zin. Het basisinkomen moet gewild zijn. In het maatschappelijk leven kan men natuurlijk nooit een (overigens niet-bestaand) optimum bereiken, men kan enkel streven naar het best mogelijke. Dat geldt ook hier. Ik denk dat een gewild basisinkomen als noodzakelijke voorwaarde heeft, dat het direct-democratisch tot stand komt. Burgers zullen aarzelen en conservatief reageren, omdat voor velen de bestaande sociale zekerheid voor hen de huidige bodem onder de voeten vormt, en niemand vervangt gaarne een valluik waar hij zelf opstaat, ook al is het huidige valluik vermolmd en het nieuwe veel steviger. Toch moet die democratische stap gezet worden. Het gewild karakter van een sociale regeling neemt ook toe naarmate op aarde meer uiteenlopende staten en gemeenschappen met eigen regelingen bestaan, zodat men alleen of als groep aansluitingsovereenkomsten kan zoeken met de staat of gemeenschap die men de beste vindt. Op sommige plaatsen zal een basisinkomen bestaan, en elders niet. De praktijk zal uitwijzen wat werkt en wat niet. In molochstaten zoals de EU, en nog veel minder in het planetaire regime waarvan achter de schermen wordt gedroomd, is zo’n keuzemogelijkheid natuurlijk afwezig.