lcamtuf :verified: :verified: :verified: on Nostr: OK, a serious question that I hesitate to ask publicly... A while back, I learned ...
OK, a serious question that I hesitate to ask publicly...
A while back, I learned about Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a libertarian concept. I think Milton Friedman was one of the early proponents, and it was this sort of a thought exercise of how to maximize personal freedom while still showing compassion. In essence: stop doing single-purpose social programs that subject people to humiliating eligibility tests, restrict how they live their lives, and lock them into poverty. Replace it with a no-strings-attached universal stipend that will probably cost you the same as the programs and the bureaucracies you're getting rid of.
It always struck me as a bit of a libertarian pipe dream because it assumed perfectly rational actors. A drug addict or a person with a gambling habit might be helped by food stamps more than they're helped by any no-strings-attached cash. So in the libertarian UBI model, I think you still end up with human drama that you need to fix, upsetting the financial calculus.
Anyway - nowadays, UBI comes up mostly on the socialist left, and I guess my embarrassing question is: is it still the same idea, or have we pivoted to a variant where we keep or expand the existing social safety nets, but then conjure new funds and add UBI on top?
(I'm not really looking for a pie fight over whether we could afford it or not - just trying to understand the terminology.)
A while back, I learned about Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a libertarian concept. I think Milton Friedman was one of the early proponents, and it was this sort of a thought exercise of how to maximize personal freedom while still showing compassion. In essence: stop doing single-purpose social programs that subject people to humiliating eligibility tests, restrict how they live their lives, and lock them into poverty. Replace it with a no-strings-attached universal stipend that will probably cost you the same as the programs and the bureaucracies you're getting rid of.
It always struck me as a bit of a libertarian pipe dream because it assumed perfectly rational actors. A drug addict or a person with a gambling habit might be helped by food stamps more than they're helped by any no-strings-attached cash. So in the libertarian UBI model, I think you still end up with human drama that you need to fix, upsetting the financial calculus.
Anyway - nowadays, UBI comes up mostly on the socialist left, and I guess my embarrassing question is: is it still the same idea, or have we pivoted to a variant where we keep or expand the existing social safety nets, but then conjure new funds and add UBI on top?
(I'm not really looking for a pie fight over whether we could afford it or not - just trying to understand the terminology.)