Theres a lot of right wing support for unconditional basic income. Try to think of it as free market welfare. Instead of paying for welfare services you just give cash to people as they no best how to spend it for themselves.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hell, even Milton Friedman was for it. Money is only free for the elites who get most of it!( read Picketty).
That's the thing, it would need to be implemented with the dismantling of the present welfare state and with a new education system not run by cynical misanthropes.
In the end the idea is more free market than the present system. It's either this or everyone should get an acre of land at birth with a new education system teaching people to become self-sustainable from and off the land.
BTW: I don't see that it needs to be universal (why do the Koch Bro.'s need welfare? )they already get tons of corporate welfare! I do think that minimum incomes should be guaranteed. One of the way to do that is to make currency a public utility. www.positivemoney.org
I also don't think there is one monological solution; I think we may need a plurality or a'multiplicity' of solutions.
Milton Friedman was also behind payroll deductions to secure income tax revenue. He's hardly an unimpeachable paragon of liberty.
He loved Mises!
Sure didn't learn a lot, judging by income tax deduction and UBI support.
Well, we all have our allegiances:)
If they support this, they aren't from the right as it is classically defined.
Where does the money come from in the first place? Neither taxation nor inflation are "free market."
Taxes or inflation unfortunately. The free market bit is giving the welfare direct as cash not dictating to people how it should be spent. Alot of people despise UBI because the amounts suggested are ridiculously high. I only would support something low that keeps people out of desperate dire poverty.
No, sorry. Receiving stolen money, even 'directly', is not a function of the market.
We have UBI now, it's called Social Security, and it doesn't work.
Ignoring the source of the money is bad economics and bad politics. You're just trying to dress up the broken window fallacy again.
Good point! They aren't worried about the details, they just want free cash!
Money comes from wealth but wealth doesn't only come from humans. This is why the job fallacy won't hold. Wealth comes from any kind of value whether it be land, or automation, or whatever else people find valuable at any time. Robots will generate most but never all of the wealth in society.
Humans will always possess some wealth and monetization of the human will always take place. Emotional labor might become a lot more expensive as robots begin running nursing homes and people want to be cared for by humans have to pay a premium.