Universal Basic Income: A Concept Worth Questioning or an Ethical Abomination?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a contentious topic, often discussed in the context of economic policies and social welfare. This article examines the arguments for and against UBI, focusing on its potential impacts on society, economic infrastructure, and ethical considerations.

Economic Foundations and Capitalism

Our economic framework is built on several key principles, including the Welfare Clause, which is fundamental in ensuring a certain level of support for citizens. Additionally, the Commerce Clause supports a capitalist system, where capital must circulate freely within the economy. Full employment of capital resources is crucial for maintaining a healthy market-based economy.

Why UBI Might Not Be Feasible

Many proponents of UBI argue it is a necessary step towards creating a more equitable society. However, many opponents like myself believe it is fundamentally flawed and cannot be implemented for various reasons:

Economic and Ethical Vacuums: UBI punishes the productive by taxing them to enable the unproductive to remain idle. This is economically and ethically vacuous and is essentially unworkable due to cost and its impact on the motivations of both groups. Financial Implications: The US is facing significant debt, illustrated by the massive interest payments. For instance, this year, the nation is paying $1 billion per day in interest, and next year, the figure will almost double to $2 trillion. This high interest burden will inevitably lead to cuts in existing programs and increased taxes, as well as unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security. Refinancing and Debt: The trillions of old government bonds issued at very low interest rates will need to be refinanced at significantly higher rates. There is no money to pay to people under UBI, making it unrealistic.

Understanding the Ethical Perspective

From an ethical standpoint, I believe UBI is a morally bankrupt idea that would trigger years of societal inflation. As the concept of UBI leads to inflation, the amount provided would eventually become insufficient, necessitating increases every few years, causing yet another round of inflation. The cycle would continue.

Controversial Nature and Personal Opinion

While I have provided objective reasons against UBI in previous analyses, I wish to be transparent about my personal viewpoint. I believe UBI stinks and is one of the worst ideas in the long history of bad ideas. It is akin to a city mandating that people are paid to not commit crimes, which is absurd.

At its core, UBI is a violation of the natural principle that one must work for what they get. It suggests that one should receive money for merely existing, which violates the principle of equivalent exchange: TANSTAAFL! (There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!) The idea is fundamentally unethical and goes against nature and the natural economic laws underpinning our society.

Significance of Voluntary Work

One of the ethical objections is the involuntary redistribution of wealth. The term income is misleading, as UBI is a handout, not an income. It should be called gravy, charity, or welfare. True income is the result of a voluntary and mutually beneficial agreement where work is exchanged for compensation. UBI eliminates this voluntaryism, forcing individuals to pay each other salaries for doing nothing personally.

Conclusion

While UBI may seem appealing in theory, it is an ethically and economically untenable concept. As someone who values both economic principles and ethical considerations, I cannot support UBI in any form. The proponents of this idea are likely not believers in its benefits either; they are likely just pandering to their base. The proposals to redistribute wealth through UBI are morally reprehensible and against the natural laws of our economy and society.