The Case for UBI

The Need to Assist the Needy

When we are born into this world, we enter the world with nothing but our bodies. If we are fortunate, we are born healthy and have parents that care for us, who provide us with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. And eventually, if we are so fortunate, we end up in a public or private school where we are taught to read and write. And then, when we are older, we are also taught mathematics and about history, science, and our nation's government and laws.

The world we are born into is a difficult world. Countless hazards await us on our journey from cradle to grave. And without the assistance and generosity of many people, we would very likely not survive long. Yet even with all the assistance we do receive, it is often pure luck that propels us over the hurdles that would otherwise condemn us to a far less desirable outcome.

In the final analysis, it is fate and the charity of others, not our own inherent skills and temperament, that sets the course for all of our lives. And, until one can fully appreciate that inescapable truth, one cannot truly grasp the moral and social necessity for assisting the needy.

Yes, to truly thrive we, as members of the human species, need to strive. But before we can strive, we first need to survive. As any student of the social sciences will tell you, food and shelter form the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. And unless those two essentials are secured, none of us would ever find any measure of fulfillment in our lives.

Addressing The Need

Since ancient times, poverty has been addressed through personal donations made from one person directly to another. Simple acts of charity, often made out of pity for the destitute. And when such donations have been made, sometimes the recipients have used the donations to provide themselves with food and/or shelter. And, unfortunately, sometimes they have used them to purchase alcohol or drugs or sexual favors.

Gleaning, the gathering of crops left over after a harvest, was another way the hungry commonly found food to eat in times past. Gleaning was so critical to the survival of peasants that laws were from time to time passed that granted peasants the right to gather food from fields as long as the crop they gathered was for their own consumption. However, the owners of fields often protested against gleaning, and, consequently, in some places, rather than being allowed to glean, peasants who gleaned fields faced punishments that at times included death.

Eventually religious institutions, such as the Catholic church, stepped in. They helped to raise money for feeding and housing those faced with poverty. And they put the money they collected to use by providing shelters and food kitchens for the poor.

However, without question, the most significant efforts made to address poverty in the last century have been made by governments. Through various welfare programs, they have tried to provide free food and low-cost housing for the poor. But to prevent those who were not truly destitute from taking advantage of the programs for the poor, rules were established to specify exactly who could benefit from such programs. And to ensure that those rules were enforced, large bureaucracies were established to administer the welfare programs.

A Two-Edged Sword

Unfortunately, government run welfare programs have not always had benign effects. In fact, one could say they have generally been a two-edged sword.

In many cases, for example, the barriers set up to prevent those who were not truly destitute from taking advantage of public welfare--or as it is commonly known, public assistance--transformed into a barrier to employment for those receiving it. That is because getting a low-paying job, the only kind of job often available to a welfare recipient, meant losing their public assistance and a lower standard of living. Only a fool would make such a trade.

As a result, the barrier to employment created by public assistance helped to perpetuate poverty rather than helped to raise people out of it. It created a welfare class. People who were trapped beneath the welfare barrier. And the only employment opportunities truly left available to members of the welfare class were criminal activities. Like drug dealing and prostitution. Things that might escape the attention of the administrators of the public welfare programs.

And because convicted criminals couldn't get anything but low paying jobs, they too inevitably fell into and became permanent members of the welfare class along with the misfortunate. But, unlike those who fell into the welfare class out of misfortune, they were not innocent victims of a difficult word. They were wolves in human clothing. And they fed on the poor and terrorized them. And ruled over them.

And any child so unfortunate as to be born into the welfare class became a victim of it. They came to be molded by the harshness of their environment and by their peers. And they became targets for gang recruitment and police interactions. Not surprisingly, within them grew hate, hate toward the system that oppressed them. And a sense of victimhood. And defeatism. And self-loathing. And anger toward God.

And who can blame them?

The Taxpayer's Burden

The need for a large bureaucracy to enforce the rules governing who receives and doesn't receive public welfare also means that the total cost of public welfare programs is often significantly greater than the welfare the programs actually deliver. And because they are so costly, such programs often become a target for budget cuts at a time when the programs are needed most.

The financial burden of public welfare programs has also fueled intense anger within the hearts of those who do not receive public welfare toward those that do. Many working long hours to earn near survival wages feel that it is extremely unfair that they should be forced to pay income taxes that effectively transfer money from them to those they see as freeloaders. In the United States, that has led to increased political polarization, particularly between urban and rural regions, and increased hostility along racial and ethnic lines.

The sting of the tax burden associated with public welfare is also continually amplified by television. Every day local television stations broadcast news shows that prominently feature the violent crimes taking place in their cities. Murders. Rapes. Armed robberies. Car jackings. Police car chases on highways and crowded city streets. And because television viewers watching such news shows are often convinced--and rightly so--that it is members of the welfare class who are committing the vast majority of the violent crimes in their cities, their willingness to feed and house "those" people at taxpayer expense--at their expense--goes right out the window.

And who can blame them?

The Fix

However, there is an extremely easy and effective way to solve the problems caused by public welfare programs--to stop their harmful socio-economic effects and transform public welfare into a powerful tool for good. It is called Universal Basic Income or UBI.

The only "problem" with UBI, is that the uber rich do not like the idea. So, they label it as "socialism". And they know that by labeling it as "socialism", they will be able to get a large number of gullible, middle-class voters to be skeptical of UBI. And, sadly, they are right. Because the word socialism is a poison pill that taints everything it touches.

So why do the uber rich dislike UBI? It is because they like poverty. They like prisons and crime and fear. They like hunger and desperation. Because that is what keeps wages low and profits high. Because good people will do whatever it takes to avoid falling into poverty and the welfare class. Even if that means working at low wages and in bad working conditions. And the uber rich know it.

Be absolutely clear. The uber rich like the way the world is. They created this world, and they are not about to change it. That is because they are afraid that, if they change it any significant way, they could potentially lose their ability to rule over this world. And that would mean they would not be able to continue to live in absolute splendor.

And, given what they have to lose, who can blame them?

The Answer

I have absolutely no problem with wealth. In fact, I think everyone should be wealthy.

And I have absolutely no problem with extreme wealth, either. I think having a huge yacht and private jets and helicopters would be fantastic. And having a huge estate or two or three with formal gardens and a swimming pool would be absolutely wonderful as well. And servants at your beck and call. For sure. Sign me up. So, to be clear, I harbor no animosity toward the uber rich. Far from it. I would love to join them, if only for dinner.

But I do have a problem with poverty and human suffering. And crime. Particularly when it is unnecessary.

Do you remember that thing called Maslow's hierarchy of needs that I mentioned earlier? At the top of that pyramid is a thing called self-actualization. It is where a person comes to see themselves for who they truly are. And, unfortunately, many of the uber rich, despite their immense wealth, fail to reach that level of the pyramid. And I know that to be true, because, if they did, they would come to fully appreciate who they are.

You see, the uber rich are gods. They have the power to shape the world we live in into anything they want it to be. They can turn it into a hellscape. Or they could turn it into a heaven. But, if they are truly wise, if they do reach the top of Maslow's pyramid, they will come to realize that their Valhalla won't burn to the ground if they make the world a little bit better for everyone else. By sharing a little of their rheingold with the Nibelungen that helped them acquire it.

UBI should not be feared by the uber rich. It should be welcomed. Like an old friend.