In a recent WSJ article, Dan Nidess tried to explain: Why a Universal Basic Income Would Be a Calamity (Psst. It's paywalled at WSJ, but you can read it here). He makes a good point here:
At the heart of a functioning democratic society is a social contract built on the independence and equality of individuals. Casually accepting the mass unemployment of a large part of the country and viewing those people as burdens would undermine this social contract, as millions of Americans become dependent on the government and the taxpaying elite. It would also create a structural division of society that would destroy any pretense of equality.
We already have a government bent on creating equal outcomes, and the people the current system of government largess foster discontent, too. The beauty of a good UBI is that it would abolish all other forms of government handouts. As Charles Murray's original plan said, it would replace Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program.
How long before the well-educated, technocratic elites come to believe the unemployed underclass should no longer have the right to vote?
Well, given how difficult it has been to get laws requiring voter IDs and the uphill battle to ferret out voter fraud, he needn't worry too much about that.
Anyone who has read any of the previous posts at this blog about Universal Basic Income know that I favor it, so long as it's properly implemented. But before jumping head first, we should pay attention to those jurisdictions that are experimenting with it and learn from them.
Comments