Although a universal basic income is likely to be conceived in the public eye as a utopian dream of the left, its proponents are often keen to note the idea’s historical appeal across the political spectrum, citing its support from the likes of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
Nor is basic income off the radar of the contemporary right. Indeed, the idea recently received some discussion on the blog of the noted conservative publication National Review — with Iain Murray, Vice President of Strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, tentatively endorsing the idea. (The CEI is a think tank that describes itself as “dedicated to free enterprise and limited government.”)
In a short post, Murray responds to Michael Strain of the conservative American Heritage Foundation, who published a critique of basic income in the same blog as well as the Washington Post — ultimately coming down against the idea despite admitting several of its appealing features, such as reducing bureaucracy and removing the stigma associated with receipt of government aid.
Murray claims, contra Strain, that a basic income would not problematically dis-incentivize work — unlike the current system of welfare in the United States — and that, on the contrary, it would empower many people to contribute more productively to the economy. He also contends that a UBI would encourage charitable giving.
Granted, Murray does emphasize two caveats: a UBI might just become an add-on to an overblown welfare state, and “it still relies on robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Despite Murray’s reservations, his tentative endorsement merits attention by other proponents of a free market and limited government, those who might otherwise scoff at a policy sometimes flippantly caricatured as “the government giving away money for free.”
Iain Murray, 4 April 2016, “Tentatively for Universal Basic Income,” National Review: The Corner.
Image Source: Annwong1026 (via Wikimedia Commons)
