(continued)
### **Are there religious reasons for or against it?**
Religious perspectives vary:
- **For UBI**: Some religious teachings advocate for the dignity of human life and helping the poor, which aligns with UBI’s goal to eliminate poverty and provide basic security.
- **Against UBI**: Other religious views might argue that providing income without requiring work goes against the values of responsibility and contributing to society.
I don't think a UBI ought to be opposed on the grounds that it renders the demand for charity low or nonexistent, even for the sake of some sort of religious agenda.
Regarding opposition to income without requiring able-bodied individuals to work, or the "if you don't work, then you don't eat" principle, it depends. I can understand the idea back in ancient times of discouraging people from the idea of taking something from someone who put in the time and effort to produce a good or service, and giving it to someone else who's a lazy bum.
Today, circumstances are different; we have practically created society to wall people off from resources for the sake of property rights; in this case, there's an entirely different problem from some people being lazy bums.
Take the case of Ernie Wayne Tertelgte as an example of someone who wouldn't be considered a lazy bum, wasn't trying to mooch off of anyone else, and was putting in the effort on his own to work so he could eat; I couldn't find a good article to cite, so I referred again to ChatGPT & asked it to provide 3 paragraphs about him and his unlicensed fishing case:
Ernie Wayne Tertelgte is a Montana man who gained attention in 2013 after refusing to comply with state fishing laws. He was arrested for fishing without a license and appeared in court, where he argued that he did not need to abide by government regulations because he was living "off the land" and exercising his natural right to feed himself. Tertelgte claimed that the laws governing fishing were illegitimate in his view, as they interfered with his basic human rights.
In court, Tertelgte made several sovereign citizen-style arguments, stating that he did not recognize the authority of the court or the government over his actions. He insisted that he was a "natural living man" and that his right to fish was derived from natural law, not man-made legal systems. His defiance and courtroom behavior, including refusing to answer basic legal questions and addressing the judge with unconventional statements, drew public attention and videos of the proceedings went viral.
Despite his arguments, the court ruled against him, and he was fined for fishing without a license. Tertelgte’s case became a symbol for the sovereign citizen movement, which advocates for individuals rejecting government authority based on their interpretation of constitutional or natural rights.
I think he has a legitimate point, except that, in principle, it disregards the tragedy of the commons dilemma:
Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia
Regardless, he's an example of someone who symbolically represents an individual who has been "walled off" from having access to basic resources that are necessary to survive. In his case, he probably could've simply avoided all this trouble by paying maybe $20 (or whatever it is) for a fishing license, or finding a place where he could fish without needing a license to fish, but the problem is that there might not be anything like this anywhere near his home.
In general, this is the sort of situation that homeless individuals, individuals living in poverty, or individuals who do are willing to work but can't because one wants to hire them, are in. They're in this impossible situation, one that's artificially unfair (or unfair practically by design), and are figuratively pushed over this economic ledge into a fiscal abyss by society's economic policy of property rights walls.
This reminds me of a scene in the 1978 Superman movie where -
SPOILER ALERT - Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) uses a hydraulically movable subway wall that he can control, to push one of the detectives trailing one of Luthor's minions, Otis (Ned Beatty), in a subway train tunnel, onto the tracks in front of a moving subway train and killing the detective.
Anyhow, when people in this impossible situation try to get around these property rights walls (which means, in the legal context, trespassing and stealing), they are committing crimes, according to today's rules, standards, and conventions of society. It seems like it's the political RW (particularly by its religious members who identify as Christian) that advocates for being more forceful and heavy handed about invoking and imposing law enforcement and locking them up in prisons to deal with them; I suspect that this is an indirect attempt at coercion by them to get these individuals in this impossible situation to join their religion, but getting converted to Islam in many cases is an unintended side effect (or, maybe it is intended for some even more ulterior type of religious conflict agenda - ?).
### **Can it help or destroy the economy?**
- **Help**: By providing a stable income floor, UBI can boost consumption and economic activity. It may also foster innovation and entrepreneurship.
- **Destroy**: Critics argue it could lead to inflation, unsustainable debt, or higher taxes that would slow economic growth.
I think a sustainable UBI can raise the income floor, but not necessarily provide a stable income floor.
### **Does it get rid of the incentive to work?**
This is one of the most debated aspects. While some believe that UBI could reduce the incentive to work, especially for lower-wage jobs, studies from UBI trials suggest that most people still pursue work, but they may feel empowered to choose jobs that are more meaningful or align better with their skills.
I think it can reduce the incentive to work, but in 2 different and distinct possible ways; one is with recourse, and the other is without recourse.
The one with recourse - by which I mean that the UBI payouts are dividends as a function of the performance of the economy (they payouts go up when the economy is performing well & down when not performing well) - would still be able to incentivize people to work when the payouts are too low to meet their needs; on its own, this is not susceptible to inflation.
The one without recourse - by which I mean UBI payouts are some guaranteed fixed amount; this will be susceptible to inflation, the economy's on a slippery slope, and access to basic resources at best remain as bad for some (those same individuals in that impossible economic situation I discussed earlier are essentially still stuck there), or the economy overall gets worse for everyone.
I see nothing wrong with reduction in incentive to work with recourse, but a reduction in incentive to work without recourse is the one with a recipe for economic disaster.
### **Is it socialism?**
UBI is often associated with socialist ideas because it involves wealth redistribution. However, UBI itself does not imply state control of industries or central planning. Many argue UBI can coexist with capitalism and a free market by supporting consumer spending and individual financial freedom.
The version without recourse, that I described earlier, would be socialism, and entails wealth redistribution.
The version with recourse, that I described earlier, would be consistent with a free market system, and rather than being wealth redistribution or socialism, would be compensation in exchange for being walled off from basic resources, whether it's a pond or river on public land with fish, or a privately owned land with apple orchards or other hunter-gatherer resources.
In exchange for such a dividend-based variation of a "UBI", recipients must acknowledge and accept property rights laws, laws requiring fishing licenses, etc. Regardless of whether it would be considered a fine or forfeiture of a part of their "UBI" payout, they have to pay up for fishing without a license, and it would be justifiable to require fishing licenses.
### **Does it contradict a free market?**
UBI does not inherently contradict a free market. In fact, it can be seen as a way to ensure that all citizens have the purchasing power to participate in the market. However, concerns arise over how it's funded—if taxes on businesses or high earners are too high, it could hinder private sector growth.
I think that the version without recourse (that I described earlier) undermines a free market (which essentially contradicts it), but the version with recourse (that I described earlier) does not, in itself, contradict a free market.
The idea behind advocating a free market system is that it's better for economic growth, but this is basically an assertion based on the historical results of a free market; I don't consider high taxes per se as contradictory to a free market in itself. The premise in question is that a free market system with high taxes would still perform better than a heavily regulated market system, with the same high tax rate.
I think that the dividend-based variation of a "UBI" is more compatible and more consistent with a free market, and it could produce a more efficient economy, which could lead to a lower need of government revenue & in turn that means being able to lower taxes.
### **Will it reduce crime?**
Studies have suggested that improving financial stability through guaranteed income can reduce certain types of crime, such as theft and other crimes related to poverty. However, UBI alone may not address the root causes of all crime, which often include broader social and economic factors.
I agree with this; a sustainable UBI policy can reduce crime & in fact I think it could drastically reduce some financial/property acquisition types of crimes (armed robbery, strong arm robbery, theft, shoplifting, muggings, pickpocketing), and maybe directly or indirectly other crimes; I'm not including scam or fraud in this list because I'm presuming that those with the skills to commit such crimes have the skills to find legal employment (note they also don't involve "face-to-face" interactions or in-person presence with victims).
