To follow-up on my previous post on the GMI, here are a few more links to other thought pieces about them.
Here’s a piece about an interesting thought experiment from Warren Buffet:
My political views were formed by this process. Just imagine that it is 24 hours before you are born. A genie comes and says to you in the womb, “You look like an extraordinarily responsible, intelligent, potential human being. [You’re] going to emerge in 24 hours and it is an enormous responsibility I am going to assign to you — determination of the political, economic and social system into which you are going to emerge. You set the rules, any political system, democracy, parliamentary, anything you wish — you can set the economic structure, communistic, capitalistic, set anything in motion and I guarantee you that when you emerge this world will exist for you, your children and grandchildren.
What’s the catch? One catch — just before you emerge you have to go through a huge bucket with 7 billion slips, one for each human. Dip your hand in and that is what you get — you could be born intelligent or not intelligent, born healthy or disabled, born black or white, born in the US or in Bangladesh, etc. You have no idea which slip you will get. Not knowing which slip you are going to get, how would you design the world?
It really highlights the role of luck in people’s lives. There are simply many things that are out of your control, starting with who your parents are and where you’re born. Nobody gets to choose those.
That’s not to say that those obstacles are insurmountable, but that they play a part, sometimes a very large part, in our lives.
And the welfare state deals with specific instances of this. We have programs so children have health insurance (much of Medicaid), programs to reduce poverty among senior citizens (Social Security, Medicare), and programs to help low-income families (EITC, TANF).
These programs came up in a piecemeal fashion, in response to specific problems which were prominent at the time.
With rising income inequality, I’m not surprised that something like a GMI is now being discussed.
The second pair of articles discuss the guaranteed minimum income from a libertarian perspective. The first attempts to find libertarian arguments in favor of a GMI.
1) A Basic Income Guarantee would be much better than the current welfare state.
2) A Basic Income Guarantee might be required on libertarian grounds as reparation for past injustice.
3. A Basic Income Guarantee might be required to meet the basic needs of the poor.
It’s interesting reading, even though I’m not one of the intended audience, for its attempt to reconcile what, if implemented, could be one of the largest parts of the welfare state with a view that seeks to reduce the size of government.
The second is a response to that, and doesn’t agree that there can a be a case made on libertarian grounds for a GMI.
Concluding, so while I have a lot of sympathy for Matt’s suggestion for a Basic Income Guarantee I have major problems with his arguments for income redistribution. Hence, I continue to think a Basic Income Guarantee or a Negative Income Tax is a good idea as adenationalization strategy that could bring us (a little) closer to the ideal of a non-paternalitic classical liberal society.
The last article is the liberal case against the GMI (Universal Basic Income, or UBI in this article’s parlance).
Like good fiction, the way to read the UBI is not as a real proposal, but as a message about something else: our existing system. But the implicit critique of the existing system underlying UBI advocacy is not well-founded.
The alternative put forth in the article is to work with, and improve, the existing system.
I’m of the mind that the GMI is a proposal worth at least thinking about. As the author of the last piece says, GMI proposals are proposals, with none of the details worked out yet. But I can see the attraction in implementing one.