Year: 2020

Due to the pandemic, the government is giving out $1,000 to all who qualify for it. This program is the equivalent of a temporary Universal Basic Income program. If Covid 19 continues, the Trump administration’s policy will more and more come to resemble UBI. What is the permanent version of this program? UBI has the advantage of simplicity: $12,000 per year to all, from the richest to the poorest. Even some erstwhile supporters of the free enterprise system have been taken in by the siren song of this proposal.

It is time, then, for a critical review of this initiative.

First, it will promote laziness and reduce labor force participation. If people can scrape by with this relatively modest amount of money in their pockets, why go to work so as to help others? Why become a dishwasher or house-cleaner when you can indulge yourself in poetry, tv watching, computer gaming or day-dreaming? Investment in human capital, the be-all and end-all for rising to the middle class, will have taken a shot to the solar plexus.

Second. it will increase immigration on the part of poor and thus presumably not very productive folks. A highly skilled worker from abroad is not likely to line up at our borders for this amount of money, but to a poverty stricken person on the fence, this offer is likely to tip him over into crossing our borders.

Third, while the UBI is pegged at a low level, experience suggests it can be radically raised. The income tax was introduced at 3% of earnings, and look at it now. There is at present a group supporting so-called “welfare rights.” A UBI “rights” organization is sure to follow. How can we be so callous as to offer everyone such a pittance? The voting bloc for expanding its scope will be immense. It will include all “low information” voters who do not realize that the money has to come from somewhere.

Fourth, while these funds are now promised to all and sundry, it can always in future be taken away from dis-favored groups. This possibility, even if not carried out, gives the government more and more power over the populace, at a time when a move in the very opposite direction is more in keeping with economic freedom. Do we really need more people dependent upon the largesse of the all-loving state?

Fifth, some argue that the UBI is an improvement over the present system. It penalizes no one from obtaining a job. True enough. But the extreme likelihood is that it will not replace welfare as we know it, but, rather, be added to present disastrous policies.

Sixth, given that this new “rag in the bag” will raise taxes (or further enhance deficits) some of our most productive citizens will migrate to other countries. It is no accident that people are leaving the likes of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, California, etc., and moving to low tax states such as Florida, Texas, Arizona. Do we really want to introduce this tendency on the national level?

Seventh, UBI will not cure poverty, as claimed by its adherents. The way to enrich ourselves, says Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, is through more capital goods, based, in turn, on savings, based, in further turn, on economic freedom. This program leads us in the very opposite direction.

Eighth, what’s the point of taxing millionaires like Bernie Sanders and Bill Gates, and then turning around and giving them back some of their cash? These transfers are costly. More money will thus flow into the pockets of those living in the very richest counties in the U.S., near Washington D.C. The only benefit is publicity.

UBI will further rend the fabric of the social order, not improve it. As for the present scheme, according to Milton Friedman, there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. Better to phase this out as soon as possible, now that it has begun, which never should have been the case in the first place.

Sources:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/;

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrDQqO8OiZevfkAhAIPxQt.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcwMDU1OQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1pdG0tMDAxBGdwcmlkAzhhTU1tU1ZkUy5LQjRLekhpZnY0bUEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzQEb3JpZ2luA3VzLnNlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzIEcHFzdHIDYXQgd2hhdCBsZXZlbCB3YXMgdGhlIGluY29tZSB0YXggZmlyc3QgaW50cm9kdWNlZD8EcHFzdHJsAzUwBHFzdHJsAzUyBHF1ZXJ5A2F0JTIwd2hhdCUyMGxldmVsJTIwd2FzJTIwdGhlJTIwaW5jb21lJTIwdGF4JTIwZmlyc3QlMjBpbnRyb2R1Y2VkJTIwdXMEdF9zdG1wAzE1Nzk1NjM3NDMEdXNlX2Nhc2UD?p=at+what+level+was+the+income+tax+first+introduced+us&fr2=sa-gp-search&hspart=itm&hsimp=yhs-001&param1=1&param2=f%3D4%26b%3Dchrome%26ip%3D141.164.29.80%26pa%3Dpdfconverterds%26type%3Dpds_sjiqmxum1acegikmuebkmoqsuwl96p7j8qmodg_19_45_ssg10%26cat%3Dweb%26a%3Dpds_sjiqmxum1acegikmuebkmoqsuwl96p7j8qmodg_19_45_ssg10%26xlp_pers_guid%3Dgclid_eaiaiqobchmixflg9_pr5qivyqt9ch2onq8eeaeyasaaegly5_d_bwe%26xlp_sess_guid%3Dgclid_eaiaiqobchmixflg9_pr5qivyqt9ch2onq8eeaeyasaaegly5_d_bwe-9fc3-29c00f804e86%26uref%3D%26abid%3D%26xt_abg%3D%26xt_ver%3D10.1.4.57%26ls_ts

From LRC, here.

The headline in the newspaper was a horrendous one: Wildfire kills 4 firefighters in N. Cascades. Pictured was Pete Soderquist, the fire management officer in charge on the Cascade Mountains in central Washington state, who explained that the deaths were due to “when what had been a five-acre fire exploded into a wall of flame that trapped the crew.” Also featured in photographs were the four firemen who perished: 30 year old Tom Craven, 18 year old Karen Fitzpatrick, 21 year old Devin Weaver, and 19 year old Jessica Johnson, all who lived in either Ellensburg or Yakima, Washington.

Any time there is a death of a human being, it is a tragedy (the reaction of the overpopulationists to the contrary notwithstanding). When this occurs for any reason other than old age, this is even worse. When death is not instantaneous, and relatively painless, this is worse yet. When this occurs to four people in the prime of their lives — they were, respectively 30, 18, 21 and 19 years old — the degree of catastrophe rises even more, in view of the now never to be seen potential these four youngsters might have attained had they lived.

So far, these comments are pretty conventional. Very few would demur. But there are two controversial points to be made about this episode, both of which may teach important lessons.

First, this calamity occurred on public property, not private. The flames that consumed these four people took place in the Okanogan and Wenatchee national forests, and are believed to have been set near Thirty Mile campground, another example of socialized land ownership. Now I am not saying that no deaths occur on private property. I do not maintain that these particular occurrences would necessarily have been avoided were these lands under private control.

However, the two are not unrelated, either. When a forest fire consumes private timber, there are individuals who feel it in their bank accounts; this is not the case with socialized land holdings. This means that the incentives are greater, by how much is an empirical matter, for profit making individuals to take greater precautions regarding their property than is true for their public counterparts. If we have learned anything from the fall of the Soviet economic system — and this is a highly debatable point — it is that things work better under private ownership. These four young people will have not died totally in vain if we use their deaths as a rallying cry for privatization of the forest. Perhaps if we succeed in this effort, other lives will be saved.

Second, there were two females amongst the death toll in this fire. I see their smiling faces shining out at me from the newspaper coverage of this event. Both young girls were very pretty.

There was a time in our past when no such thing could have occurred; when fire fighting (along with other such dangerous activities as mining, policing, soldiering, lumber jacking, deep sea fishing, etc.) were the total province of men. Women and children died in calamities to be sure, but only if they were caught up in them as victims. Nowadays, with our modern dispensations, we place females in the front lines.

This is no less than an abomination. Females are far more precious than males. It is not for nothing that farmers keep a few bulls and hundreds of cows. It is due to patriarchy that we owe our very existence as a species. Imagine if our cave men ancestors had sent their women out to hunt and face the lions and tigers when they came a-calling, instead of throwing themselves at these enemies, sacrificing themselves so that mankind could persist. After World War II, the adult male population of Germany, Russia and other countries that suffered the most from the fighting was virtually wiped out. Yet the next generation, thanks to the relatively few men who survived, was able to come into being as if those losses had never occurred. Imagine if this war was fought primarily by the fairer sex; there would have been virtually no next generation. It cannot be denied that biologically speaking, men are in effect expendable drones.

So let us use the unfortunate deaths of these two young girls to resolve to turn back the clock to an earlier day when women were treated the way they should be treated. Let us return from “firefighters” to “firemen.” Let us no longer blithely acquiesce in the senseless slaughter of precious females. Let us, instead, place them back up on that “pedestal” from which the so-called feminist movement has thrown them.

Now, of course, in a free society, people should be able to hire whomever they choose. Females should not be prohibited from trying to enter dangerous professions. And, of course, there are certain police jobs for which only women are by nature qualified to fill: e.g., prison guard in a female facility (but not to help wipe out prostitution, which should be legalized in any case). So this plea that we use the deaths of these two young Cascade women as an inspiration for ensuring the safety of future generations cannot be done through compulsion. But at the very least let us rescind all laws which require equal representation, or “balance.” This should be done in all occupations, but let us at least begin with the dangerous ones. Freedom of association is not only just, it will promote the survival of our species as well.

July 27, 2001

From LRC, here.