Universal Basic Income

Written by Leon Zadok - December 5, 2020

Granting citizens a Universal Basic Income has been something discussed for generations. The great scholar, Thomas Paine, wrote about it. Milton Friedman discussed it with his contemporaries. Dr. King spoke at length on the subject. Numerous other great scholars of the past have bandied about the idea, usually to their detriment––seen by authorities as being so controversial as to be treasonous––this is no longer the case and may become a reality.

The introduction of a Universal Basic Income would see every individual in the country receives an income from the government without any conditions attached.

As with all things, there is more to it. But today, we are going to focus on one argument in opposition to its introduction.

Many opponents suggest, simply throwing money at people will entrench existing problems––problems around productivity, wealth inequality, and people's willingness to work. If you give everyone free money, will they, on the whole, contribute more to society? Or, will they just relax in the knowledge that they have some extra cash?

It is my view that those who stand against the introduction of the Universal Basic Income, on the basis that they believe citizens will be less productive, have an incredibly dim view of their fellow man.

For generations, political philosophers have been opining on the benefits of emancipating human beings from what is described as 'wage-slavery.' Wage-slavery is the condition every one of us faces. We rely on our employers to live decent lives. Without employment, there is no hope of meeting our needs. To maintain financial stability and remain able to meet our needs, we must retain this status quo. It is this 'slavery,' or reliance on others for our needs that many political philosophers and economists blame for low productivity levels. Peter Kropotkin wrote extensively on wage slavery:

"They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work. But during our own lifetime, have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? Once, by the anti-abolitionists in America before the emancipation of the Negroes, and, for a second time, by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? 'Without the whip the Negro will not work,' said the anti-abolitionist. 'Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated,' said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with an eager energy, unknown to his ancestor so, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers; and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with an eagerness proportionate to the completeness of his liberation. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it."

As Kropotkin noted, if the emancipation of Black Americans and Russian serfs from slavery was enough to push each group to work harder, imagine how hard a man, or woman, would plough a field or type at a keyboard if they were free of any anxiety in being tied to an employer. The introduction of the Universal Basic Income will not, as some think, lead to reduced productivity and fecklessness, but a realization of security and emancipation amongst the polity. If everyone has a base income, they may be freed from financial insecurity and granted the opportunity to pursue any vocation they desire. I suspect many would work more voraciously than they do currently.

Reference:

Kropotkin P, Kropotkin: 'The Conquest of Bread' and Other Writings (Marshall S Shatz edCambridge University Press 1995)