Guaranteed Income: Coming to a Town Near You?

The government in Finland is starting an experiment, and it could make for an interesting story as it progresses.  The experiment involves giving 2,000 citizens of the country a guaranteed basic income.

The participants will receive 560 euros per month (about $590 currently), and they will get the money regardless of their changing circumstances.  The experiment will run for an initial period of two years.

The participants were selected at random, but to initially qualify, the person had to be receiving some form of unemployment benefits or income subsidy.  The participants will receive this basic income instead of the subsidies, but they are allowed to find work without losing the basic income.

I wrote about this previously when the Swiss voted down a referendum that would have implemented a basic guaranteed income for all the people of Switzerland.

This isn’t just a proposal amongst socialists.  There are actually libertarian leaning people who favor this idea.  While I think it is wrong, it is understandable based on the idea of incentives.

The reason the Finns are trying out this experiment is because it is easy to conclude that paying out unemployment benefits discourages people from getting work.  In a relatively free market economy, work is available for most anyone who is not severely disabled.  But if someone is getting paid unemployment, they aren’t going to find a low-paying job that barely exceeds the unemployment check.

The Finnish government officials think that giving a basic income will get people to find work and will actually be less of a drain on the welfare system.  If the people are working, from the government’s perspective, at least they are paying taxes.

But what if this experiment “works”?  What if it does incentivize more people to find work?  Does that mean the government will give a basic income to everyone, or just newly unemployed people?  You could see that it would result in a lot more people seeking to be fired from their job.  Therefore, you would have to conclude that every citizen would get the guaranteed basic income.

The next question is whether all of the rest of the welfare state can be repealed.  This is highly doubtful.  Even with a basic income, you will always have some people with extraordinary needs.

(Don’t get me wrong here.  From a libertarian perspective, there should be no basic income or government welfare.  Any welfare should be funded through voluntary charity.  I am just writing this based on the perspective of the welfare statists.)

This is why libertarians should not endorse a guaranteed basic income.  It is not the lesser of evils.  You will not get rid of the rest of the welfare state.  It would be naive to think so.

This is also the reason that this idea will probably not be expanded.  It is not coming to the United States.  Most Americans wouldn’t go for it.  But most politicians wouldn’t go for it either.  If you eliminate the rest of the welfare state, then that would eliminate the lobbyists and special interests if we are to believe that the rest of the welfare state would go away.  The politicians and bureaucrats thrive on the system of special interests.

I consider this idea of a basic guaranteed income as analogous to school vouchers.  I am against both ideas because it is still theft (a transfer of wealth).  But I can’t even support either one as the lesser of evils because things would evolve from what is originally promised.

In the case of school vouchers, any private school that accepted them would all of a sudden be subject to a lot of government rules that go with the vouchers.  The rules and curriculum requirements would get worse over time.  Private schooling would be destroyed.

In the case of a guaranteed basic income, maybe a lot of the rest of the welfare state would go away at first.  But then the lobbyists and special interest would be right back at it trying to get little handouts for the groups with extra special needs.

So while I don’t think this idea is going to take off in the United States, I also don’t think libertarians should encourage or promote the idea.  It may incentivize more people to work, but it will also ultimately expand the welfare state even bigger.

Libertarian Optimism in 2017

If you are relatively new to the libertarian movement, then you may not know just how much libertarianism has grown within the last decade.

If you think you are lonely now, other than seeking out your libertarian-minded friends and websites, try to imagine how lonely it was ten years ago or more.

If you filled a room with 100 adult Americans at random today, you would have a pretty good chance of finding at least a couple of libertarians in the crowd.  Perhaps they were supporters of Ron Paul.  You would probably find a few more who are libertarian leaning and sympathetic to your cause.

If you went back in time 10 years (January 2007) and filled a room with 100 random adult Americans, you would have been lucky to find one person who shared similar views.  You would have been lucky to find ten people who somewhat understood the term “libertarian”.  You probably wouldn’t have found five or more people who had ever heard of Ron Paul.

It was in early 2007 that Ron Paul was gearing up for his second presidential bid.  His first was in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket.  This would be his first run for president as a Republican.

Little did we know that one year later we would find ourselves flooded with Ron Paul signs everywhere and online polls that put him as a frontrunner.  It was still a small minority supporting him, but the passion was overwhelming.

Since that run (and his 2012 bid), the libertarian movement has grown by leaps and bounds.  There are more radical libertarians today than at any other time in American history.

You might hear the objection, “Yeah, but you have nothing to show for it.  You can’t get libertarians elected to office, and government keeps growing.”

While there is a lot to be pessimistic about for sure, there are also many reasons for optimism.

First, it is now impossible to have this conversation without talking about Donald Trump.  Not only was Trump divisive to the country, but he was also divisive for libertarians.  Some libertarians love him and some hate him.  I have stayed in between these two groups, as have others, pointing out his strong points and his bad points.

But just the fact that Trump was elected should tell us something.  This would have been almost inconceivable four years ago with some of the positions he has taken.

I know the hardcore Democrats and the establishment media (mostly the same thing) will say that it just proves there are more racists and homophobes than what they originally thought.  But most of the people who voted for Trump aren’t racists or homophobes (and neither is Trump).  They voted for him for various reasons, but there was a general theme that he represented an anti-establishment stance.

Trump’s election, regardless of what you think of him, represents a repudiation of the establishment, which includes much of the media. They tried to do everything they could stop him, and it simply didn’t work.  And not only did Trump defeat Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, but let’s not forget that he defeated the Bush family and the entire Republican establishment as well.

Trump stood in a South Carolina debate and declared that we were lied into the war in Iraq.  And yet he still managed to win the Republican nomination.  Again, this would have seemed impossible four years ago when they were talking about how crazy Ron Paul was for his non-interventionist views.

No matter what Trump does in office, we should view his election optimistically.  It obviously was not an overwhelming victory, as he supposedly lost the popular vote.  Still, not many people were giving him a chance.

A second reason to be optimistic is the use of technology and free speech.  I understand there are attempts to silence people now, claiming that there is too much “fake news”.  Of course, the most fake news is coming from the people who are calling it fake news.  It is the establishment media that lies about weapons of mass destruction and about Assad using chemical weapons.  They are probably lying about Russia hacking the DNC computers too.  And they certainly had more than enough lies and placing things out of context with Donald Trump.

With the Internet and social media, we have open communications.  When the truth is allowed to be told, it tends to triumph over the long term.  We no longer have the gatekeepers of the so-called mainstream media.  And even for those who listen mostly just to the mainstream media, they still get the benefit of having the media’s hands forced to report stories that go viral that they otherwise wouldn’t have.

There are other reasons for optimism, particularly in the United States.  The majority of Americans do not believe that guns should be banned or heavily restricted.  Many states have loosened gun regulations.  And despite Obama’s attempts at further federal restrictions, they all failed.

Also, consider schooling as another thing to be optimistic about.  You can see the glass half empty and say that Common Core is a disaster and many of the colleges have turned into breeding grounds for the Social Justice Warriors.  But the hardcore left and the proponents of big government are over playing their hands.  They are making themselves look like fools, and they are delegitimizing the system they try to defend.

Parents see what a joke Common Core is.  Many people are opting for private schools or for homeschooling.  Homeschooling has grown exponentially over the last couple of decades.  It was almost unheard of 30 years ago.

One last area that needs mention is drugs.  While the war on drugs rages on, many states have legalized medical marijuana and some have mostly legalized recreational marijuana.  This has been a big turn in public opinion just within the last decade, and I don’t see it slowing down.  I don’t see that the federal government is going to be able to stop this wave from continuing.  The states have essentially nullified the federal drug laws, at least as they pertain to marijuana, and they are doing their own thing.  This decentralization is positive for liberty.

In conclusion, while there is still much to be pessimistic about in the short run, there is much reason for long-term optimism.  As Harry Browne used to say, human nature is on our side.