U.S. “Libertarians” debate basic income

U.S. “Libertarians” debate basic income

The success of the Swiss petition drive has created to a great deal of media attention to the issue of basic income. This discussion has penetrated libertarian circles in the United States. So-called “libertarians” support strong, private property rights with little or no taxation, regulation, or redistribution. Although Some readers might be surprised to learn about it, a few libertarian thinkers going back at least 70 years has favored some for basic income guarantee. Many libertarians are attracted to basic income’s potential to streamline, simplify and replace complicated welfare-state programs. Two recent articles, one by Matt Zwolinski for Libertarism.org and one by Matthew Feeney for Reason magazine argue in favor of BIG. Tyler Cowen writes a much more skeptical article for Marginal Revolution. Many pro-market writers are wholly opposed to basic income. An article by Jim Manzi in the National Review (back in 2011) provides one example.

Reason magazine

Reason magazine

The articles mentioned above are:

Matt Zwolinski, “The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income,” Libertarianism.org. December 5, 2013.

Matthew Feeney, “Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money: A guaranteed income would reduce the humiliations of the current welfare system while promoting individual responsibility.” Reason, November 26, 2013.

Tyler Cowen, “What are some of the biggest problems with a guaranteed annual income?Marginal Revolution, November 14, 2013.

Jim Manzi, “Against the Negative Income Tax,” the National Review, February 15, 2011.

Other recent libertarian articles for and against BIG include:

Chris Pacia, “Libertarians For A Guaranteed Minimum Income?Escape Velocity, December 5, 2013.

Andrea Castillo, “Libertarians for (Better) Welfare,” the Umlaut, November 26, 2013.

Bruegel Netherlandish Proverbs 1559 -from the Umlaut

Bruegel Netherlandish Proverbs 1559 -from the Umlaut

Walker, Jesse, Two articles on libertarian populism include a discussion of basic income

Libertarian populism in Reason Magazine

Libertarian populism in Reason Magazine

Libertarianism, in the United States, is a political ideology dedicated to the smallest possible government. Yet, there is a long history of at least some libertarians favoring basic income. In two articles in the libertarian magazine, Reason, Jesse Walker discusses basic income as a part of the libertarian agenda and the Alaska Dividend as an example of a working basic income. According to Walker, “The American safety net is a confusing maze of programs, many of which double as a way for paternalists to stick their snouts into poor people’s lives. It would be both simpler and less intrusive to replace the lot of them with a single negative income tax or basic income grant.”
Jesse Walker, “One State Already Has a Basic Income Plan,” Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets, Aug. 2, 2013 Jesse Walker, “How Far Will Libertarian Populists Go?Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets, Aug. 1, 2013

Karl Widerquist and Michael Howard, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its suitability as a model

Karl Widerquist and Michael Howard, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its suitability as a model, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, xvii + 267 pp, hbk, 0 230 11207 0, £62.50

In 1967 oil was found in the relatively new state of Alaska; in 1976 a constitutional amendment established the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) to receive 25% of oil royalties; and in 1982 the fund paid out the first Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) to every Alaskan citizen: the same amount to every individual. The world had its first Citizen’s Income.

This important edited collection tells the political and legislative story of the APF and PFD, explains their operation, and discusses the dividend’s economic impacts ( – from being the US state with the most unequal net incomes in 1980, Alaska is now the state with the least net income inequality: p.53). Chapter 5 shows how distributing a dividend from a permanent fund generates political protection for resource revenues; chapter 6 explores the trade-off between higher average dividends and lower volatility facing any permanent fund administrators; and chapters 7 and 8 ask what will happen when the oil stops flowing: Will the Alaskan economy be in sufficiently good shape for the Permanent Fund to remain a political possibility?

In the second part of the book a number of authors debate the ethics of the Alaskan model. They find that Left-Libertarianism requires the collection and distribution of the natural resource components of all privately owned wealth; that the PFD constitutes a kind of Citizen’s Income (though the fact that it fluctuates compromises its ability to behave like one); that if the dividend were to be transformed into a capital sum for every citizen at the age of majority, then citizens would become genuine stakeholders in the economy (with the temptations that that would bring); that the dividend only ambiguously coheres with a republican ‘freedom-as-nondomination’ perspective; that registering for the PFD makes the individual citizen complicit in the oil industry’s contribution to climate change (though if Alaskan citizens were at the same time to prevent the same amount of climate change as Alaska’s oil industry causes then they would escape this charge); and that a Citizen’s Income can be consistent with a variety of moral theories. Finally, Widerquist and Howard draw a number of lessons: that resource dividends work, that they are popular, that they can be established anywhere politicians are willing to look for opportunities (as Governor Jay Hammond did); that governments need to assert community ownership of resources; and that coalitions need to be built if resource dividends are to be established and then defended.

We have waited a long time for a thorough book-length treatment of the APF and PFD, and Widerquist and Howard have served us well by pulling together such a relevant and coherent collection of essays. The one weakness is not of their making: As Scott Goldsmith suggests in chapter 4, there has been too little research on the economic and social impacts of the APF and the PFD. The research needs to be done and a second edition of the book then published so that we can all benefit from the results.

Opinion: Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income

My new book, Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory Of Freedom as the Power to Say No, now has a release date of February 28, 2013. Although I have edited or coauthored six other books, this is the first book I’ve written all by myself. It is also the first published book in which I begin to outline—however tentatively—my theory of justice. The basic income guarantee is intimately tied up with this theory of justice, and so I would like to take this opportunity to explain some of the background that led me to write it.

I don’t know exactly when I began thinking about the ideas that made their way into this book. The general philosophical outlook is something that has been bouncing around in my head for a long time. The outlook didn’t appear as a whole at any one point; it gradually developed. My interest in social justice began when I was a kid. My parents were politically interested, liberal Christians (a rarity these days). They, my brother, my sister, and I regularly discussed politics around the dinner table. Growing up in that context in the 1970s, I was optimistic about the progress the United States had made against racism, and I began to believe that the biggest problem remaining in most democratic countries is the horrible way we treat the poor.

The television series “Free to Choose,” by Milton Friedman, first introduced me to the idea of a guaranteed income, which is now more commonly known as the basic income guarantee. He presented it mostly as a way to simplify the welfare system, but having thought about it over the years, I began to see it as the centerpiece of a just society and a serious challenge to the Left: If we really care about other people in society, we should care about them unconditionally. The effort that has so far resulted in this book is a self-exploration of why I think this perspective is so important.

As I see it, from the hanging gardens of Babylon to the modern sweatshop, one social problem occurs over and over again in different ways: advantaged people force disadvantaged people to serve them. Can this be justified? I find the social contract answer extremely dissatisfying: it’s OK to force people to do things as long as you can imagine conditions under which they would have signed a contract subjecting themselves to force.

For some time I thought I was a libertarian, but I eventually came to see the Right-libertarians, who call themselves “libertarians” in the United States, in a similar light as social contract theorists. I find their answer even more dissatisfying: it’s OK for owners to force the propertyless to do things, because someone did something before we were all born to give owners special rights over the Earth and its resources, so that the propertyless have no right to refuse the duty to serve owners. Right-libertarians talk about freedom from force, but they invite everyone to ignore the tremendous amount of freedom-threatening force involved in the establishment and maintenance of property rights to the earth and all its products. Without rectifying this issue, “libertarianism” becomes the defense of privilege at the expense of liberty.

Although these issues were important to me, I didn’t do much direct work on social justice until the mid-1990s, when Michael Lewis, Pam Donovan, and I decided to have weekly breakfasts to talk about the progress we were making on our theses. These discussions usually turned to politics, and one day we found the one thing we could all agree on was an unconditional basic income guarantee. So, Michael Lewis and I wrote a paper on it that was eventually published (about ten years later and in heavily revised form) as “An Efficiency Argument for the Basic Income Guarantee,” in International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment.

One paper on the basic income guarantee led to another as well as to involvement with the Basic Income Earth Network and to writing the Newsletter for the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network. I read a lot of impressive literature on basic income, but none of it quite seemed to articulate the reasons I thought it was so important. So, I had to explore my ideas further.

In 2001, I held a half-year fellowship at the Chaire Hoover at the Catholic University of Lovain in Belgium. By this time I had realized that my interest in economics was secondary to my interest in social justice, and I decided that the best way to work full-time on social justice was to go back to graduate school and get a doctorate in political theory. Getting a second doctorate still feels like a crazy idea, but in hindsight, it was the right thing for me. I started at Oxford in October 2002, and by April 2006 I completed a doctoral thesis entitled “Property and the Power to Say No: A Freedom-Based Argument for Basic Income,” which is my initial statement of the theory of justice as the pursuit of accord. Many of the ideas in this book appeared first in that thesis—often in a slightly different form.

I have discussed these ideas with so many friends, colleagues, students, and mentors that I can’t possibly name everyone who has influenced this book. If I’ve discussed politics or philosophy with you in my lifetime, you might have influenced this book in some way. So, thanks.

Since leaving Oxford, I have continued to rework and extend the ideas from my thesis on and off while working on other projects. Not long after Laurie Harting of Palgrave Macmillan approached me about becoming series editor for their new book series Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee, I thought about turning my thesis into a book. In the spring of 2012, I set out to do that, but as I revised it, I found that the chapters in the first half were growing and splitting into more chapters.

I finally realized that the book would be an extension of the first half of my thesis—concentrating on an exploration of the theory of freedom I call “effective control self-ownership” or “personal independence” and leaving the development of most of the rest of justice as the pursuit of accord for later works. Effective Control Self-Ownership is a theory of freedom that makes the freedom from directly or indirectly forced service central to an individual’s standing as a free person. The book defines, derives, and defends this theory of freedom in the context of the contemporary literature on freedom and justice. It examines the implications of the theory and argues that a basic income guarantee is an important tool to maintain personal independence in a modern society.

Now that the book is almost ready to be released, I still feel that it is tentative in many ways. I could spend years revising it, but it is best to get it out. Although tentative, it is a sincere expression of my beliefs on the issues discussed at this point. I hope to explore these ideas much more in the future.

-Karl Widerquist, Mojo’s Coffee House, New Orleans, Louisiana, August 2012; revised onboard a flight from Dallas to London, November 2012

Flanigan, Jessica “BHL’s & UBI’s [Bleeding Heart Libertarian’s and Universal Basic Income’s]

Bleeding Heart Libertarianism April 30, 2012

This article appears on the popular right-libertarian blog, Bleeding Heart Libertarians. In it the author discusses four libertarian arguments for Universal Basic Income (UBI). First, UBI is compensation for coercively enforced, state-created property rights. Second, UBI is relatively market-friendly. Third, UBI is part of the justification for the existence of state power. Fourth, UBI can be consistent with “hard libertarian” property rights. The author is an assistant professor in the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at University of Richmond.

The article is online at:
https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/bhls-ubis/