Friday, June 3, 2016

"Libertarian" Charles Murray Calls for a Universal Basic Income

Earlier this week, I pointed out that Charles Murray advised students to consider joining the military to gain "resiliency."

Today, he is out with an essay in the Wall Street Journal advocating a universal basic income:
My version of a UBI would do nothing to stage-manage their lives. In place of little bundles of benefits to be used as a bureaucracy specifies, they would get $10,000 a year to use as they wish. 
It is a fraud if Murray calls himself a libertarian. Libertarianism is about freedom from government. Murray's plan obviously calls for the taking of money from some to give to others, That is an authoritarian central planner coercive plan. It is the opposite of liberty.

He continues:
A UBI would present the most disadvantaged among us with an open road to the middle class if they put their minds to it. It would say to people who have never had reason to believe it before: “Your future is in your hands.” And that would be the truth
These guys just don't appear to understand the incredible Kirznerain insight that entrepreneurship is about seeing opportunity and grasping it, not about piles of money in the bank or government handouts.

-RW

12 comments:

  1. They always talk about the giving part and never the consequences. What are the consequences of $10,000/year? Demand... and a snootload of it. Also, the ability to establish a line of credit, I imagine. So, the demand would create higher prices, leaving those at the bottom still at the bottom once everything adjusts, and then they'd have debt payments as well.

    Oh, but what a party it would be for the first few months. The hangover would truly suck, however.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brutus, this kind of nonsense is only possible with fiat currency. Imagine a proposal to give every citizen ten ounces of gold every year. Anyone would ask: from where? But if it's $10,000, then why the hell not. That kind of "money" grows on trees. And only we head-slapping few ask: who produces the goods and services bought with this currency?

      "Nullum prandium gratium" is such a difficult concept even in the vernacular, isn't it? At least we are given ample opportunity to plan for the inevitable consequences.

      Delete
  2. With all the calls for evermore statist crap from it seems everywhere I guess we're doomed to yet another century of statist stupidity. Why do people never learn their lesson?

    ReplyDelete
  3. https://www.ssa.gov/history/towns5.html

    CW

    ReplyDelete
  4. Murray is talking about getting rid of all other forms of welfare in exchange. That means that the government will no longer be able to buy votes from welfare constituencies, and it significantly dismantles that part of the managerial stare. You can't see the forest from the trees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm. Maybe but couldn't they just buy votes by promising to increase this "universal basic income" every election cycle? And wouldn't it cost more in the end anyway?

      Delete
    2. Indeed UBI eliminates many of the controls and rules that come with welfare today. It is designed for the purpose that people can follow their interests and desires without fear they won't be able to eat. Without worrying about depleting their savings on day to day survival. It's sort of star trek like thing in the minds of people pushing it.

      It's a very different animal and does indeed break a part of that parental (managerial) state. Which is why it won't happen in its idealized form.

      On the other hand RW and brutus are correct that it is taking from people. But here's the rub, it's attractive enough to pull people out of productive work. Which means more and more getting UBI and fewer and fewer people working to pay for it.

      UBI in it's idealized form is quite destructive to the state in the long term.

      Delete
    3. Of course they'll be able to buy votes. One will promise to raise the basic income to 15,000 and the other candidate won't.

      Delete
    4. It doesn't matter that UBI might be in theory "better" than the current system. Even if it started out as an improvement it would rapidly devolve into a massive, corrupt, inefficient, debt financed, vote buying monstrosity. That's what politicians do. You don't have to know much Public Choice economics to see where it would end up.

      Murray should know better but he is blinded by technocratic optimism and good but very foolish intentions.

      Delete
  5. Personally I'm all for it. I'd like to stop working and let the taxpayers foot my living expenses. If they can throw in a little spending money, even better. Where do I sign up?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The idea that the State would replace all current welfare programs with UBI is naive to the point of stupidity. They would simply add new welfare programs on top of the UBI while increasing the UBI baseline whenever an election makes it prudent to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for Libertarians to be co-opted into the mainstream.

    ReplyDelete