UBI - For once I'm conflicted

 

First published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk & www.dissexpress.co.uk on Thursday, November 5, 2020.

I’ve got a slightly somewhat different column this month.

Firstly, I’d like to thank all the letter-writers who responded to my recent articles on the US Presidential elections and the latest COVID-19 restrictions here in the UK.

I always find the correspondence of interest, but notice an enduring misunderstanding about libertarianism that I’ve clearly failed to properly address.

Libertarians, whether of the classical or radical varieties, are NOT just interested in their own freedoms from coercion. We care passionately about the freedoms of all to act in their own self-interest as long as they do not cause harm to others in such pursuits.

We detest tyrants and bullies of any description and from whatever backgrounds. For the last three hundred years and more, libertarians have been at the forefront of the struggles against everything from feudalism to monopoly powers through to slavery.

Secondly, unlike my previous pieces for this newspaper, which strive to illuminate an issue based on core libertarian principles, in this one I wanted to kick off a debate.

The subject of Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been gaining traction amongst the commentariat, not least during the COVID-19 pandemic which has exacerbated failures in current Government programmes.

I’m aware that Sir John Timpson, a fine businessman with a very clear ethical approach, is in favour. However, other, equally prominent, entrepreneurs are adamantly against.

Basically UBI involves regular payments from the Government to every legally entitled adult citizen for life and regardless of their circumstances, such as age, employment status and the uses to which they put their funds.

I’m genuinely conflicted about this.

The most obvious objection is that such a system further increases state power and control over even more citizens than it does at present in this country. If everyone is on the Government payroll, then potentially the Government has leverage, to a lesser or greater extent, over everyone.

That said, there are ways around this through an application of the ‘blind inheritance’ principle, whereby Government pays UBI via the current National Insurance system, but denies itself any further intrusive monitoring of individuals. But would opportunity to snoop be too tempting for most Governments?

Another libertarian objection to UBI is that the system is a crude example of enforced charity, forcibly taking away the rights of richer individuals to support others through charitable and other giving of their own choice. Indeed, if the aim of UBI is to help the poorest in our society gain a ‘leg up’, then it is a very inefficient way of doing that. Surely something more targeted would be better – and cheaper?

There is also the concern, that if the UBI was set too high, then it would be yet another disincentive for those already existing on the sugar rush of other state benefits to actually look for work to provide for themselves and their dependents.

All of these are valid objections. But – and this may surprise those who deliberately caricature libertarians as heartless and selfish – there are very many freedom-based reasons to support UBI.

The idea of a social safety net is one of those very basic functions that many libertarians accept Governments can legitimately provide. The great libertarian economist, Friedrich Hayek said that such a role “appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society.”

After all, libertarians believe that all people should be able to live life their lives according to their own values, unimpeded by the deliberate or unintended consequences of Government social engineering.

For example, although it has improved in recent decades, Government tax policies have traditionally favoured some types of family arrangements over others. UBI would keep the Government out of people’s bedrooms and avoid the humiliating prying into their drink or drug taking habits that seems to be a prurient role of our current nanny state.

Talking of which, a UBI would allow society to replace the current wasteful and bureaucratic benefits system. Although Universal Credit is a vast improvement on the administrative Bantustans that went before it, a UBI system would obviate the need for all those thousands of unproductive DWP staff whose whole rationale is to build dependency in others.

My worry here, though, is that rather than a UBI replacing the current expensive social security architecture, it will be bolted onto it as an annex. This would be the very worst of both worlds. Can we trust the state to loosen its grip on our lives? I’m not so sure about that, particularly at the moment!

So what do you think? Would a UBI increase or decrease the freedoms of the British people? I look forward to your letters.

Ends.