The idea of Universal Basic Income is great. For people who will have no job soon, like truck drivers, for people who can hardly find a job because of... whatever, really. And for people who would rather create art than spend 40 hours per week doing what does not need doing to pay for basic things that are considered human rights anyway. Like shelter, like water. UBI could potentially free up our potential as a species.
It could also immediately end quite a big chunk of bureaucracy we now "need" for all sorts of state-to-person payouts, helps, fundings. All the different kinds of Not-universal Perhaps-basic Incomes could be made really simple by removing all conditions, checks, etc. Savings would be significant (making UBI slightly higher, possibly).
Yes, UBI is a revolutionary idea.
So.. why am I not convinced that it's the next greatest things after sliced bread? There are few possible problems with it.
1. Who will be responsible for making sure there is enough money, year to year? Well, this is obvious. The state itself. Few people who already don't care about well-being of others will be in charge of UBI. I'm then not sure for how long it will stay Universal - what about people who oppose government? If you speak out against it, what's the chance of removing you from the list? Depends on the country, some are more civillised (dare I say "democratic"?) and allowing opposition to have voice, some would gladly see only "our people" receive any money, the rest being marked as unworthy and unpatriotic subverters who obviously deserve nothing.
2. Who will define how high UBI should be? And on what basis? The name itself says "basic", which means we can expect to be able to survive, but probably nothing more. Culture, education? With enough free time people should be able to self-organize, hopefully... Unless "basic" will mean "low enough to guarantee that beer and TV will stay primary concern of population".
3. ...but then again, it's possible that having this equation unbalanced, having income of X but cost of living of Y, it may mean that always X < Y. And then you will have to work anyway, if you are skilled or lucky enough to be able to find some job. Even with automation in place, prices can be artificially kept high enough to guarantee that "basic" will never become "comfortable". Why not? The current system depends on the people not feeling comfortable. Finland possibly excluded :) So, with the only change being that we are given some money, and services, food and water cost whatever the owners of means of production, land and sources of water want it to cost... It does sound like a recipe for control, does it not?
4. Most of the people now work for living. As much as it is mostly wasting potential of humanity, there is one thing that can be said in defense: you rely on yourself. Even if what you do is realizing someone else's dream, even if it is irrelevant for the planet (even if it is harmful!) there is the "I do" factor that allows me to feel slightly better - within the system, but by the work of my own hands, even if irrelevant, allows me to provide for my family. Mind you, this kind of thinking is heresy according to my previous posts, where I argue that work can and should be obsolete anyway. This is true, but there are two distinctly different ways of making work obsolete: the correct way of making cost of living near-zero, and UBI. The difference is that zero cost of living (let's call it ZCL) does not create debt to the state. UBI makes you depend of the state, it creates unhealthy relationship of recipient and provider, with one-directional energy flow, state -> you (and now by working the energy flow is bidirectional, which is good). And this relationship is the kind when one side has all the power, and the other has none.
5. Going further with the previous point, when you work, when there is some exchange of time, resources, skills, the relationship is... well, it could be healthy and balanced. I'm not saying it always is, probably it's hard to find healthy work relationship at all, because most (almost all) of us have to work, and the kind of relationship is master/slave, neither balanced nor healthy, but at least what you do has non-zero value. You can instigate industrial action for example, go on strike, etc. When you are only a recipient, your value in the relationship is precisely zero (or even negative...). This means that the state, as being the direct provider, does not need you anymore and there is nothing you can do to change its ways (apart from revolting). And who would bite the hand that feeds?
6. Лишний человек - this can be potential fate of all people who will depend on the state. I would love to be proved wrong of course. It might be that UBI is the first stage for us to reach the stars, and freed up potential of humanity can then bring peace, harmony and well-being to all of us despite all I just said? Maybe. But I think ZCL is the correct way and UBI is dangerous to say the least, but who knows. Yeah, dear state, please prove me wrong...
I should write more about ZCL I guess. It's a grand vision that deserves more attention than UBI, as it's much more revolutionary and much, in the long run, safer. And more eco-aware, so to speak.
