There has been a lot of discussion recently about the
UBI, the “Universal Basic Income,” by means of which every citizen . . . or
maybe every person . . . or perhaps just those whom the government bureaucracy
likes . . . or whatever, would receive enough cash to meet their needs
adequately . . . or maybe just basic subsistence . . . or maybe something else,
depending on who makes the decisions.
 |
| If you don't control your own life, you are a slave. |
And that is the point.
Once someone else has control over your income, you are totally
dependent on something over which you have no control. That someone else can determine if you live
or die, and on what terms you do either.
You no longer have control over your own life, meaning that to all
intents and purposes you are a slave.
Take, for instance, Social Security. The common myth is that you own what you pay
into that account. The program was
carefully marketed to give that impression . . . and it is totally false. You own nothing. The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1960 (Fleming v. Nestor) that — whatever
impression the government may have given people, they do not own what is in “their” Social Security Accounts. It’s a tax, not a contribution.
 |
| FDR signing the Social Security Act in 1935 |
If you read the Social Security Act of 1935, you will see
that Congress reserved the right to adjust benefits at any time for reasonable cause.
Up to now, of course, Congress has used that power to increase benefits
to all, while denying it to some (like Ephraim Nestor), but it could just as
easily reduce benefits to all on the grounds that there isn’t enough money to
pay benefits — and it could make it stick, too.
So are we saying that there should be no way for people
who can’t find jobs to gain income? No,
we’re not saying that at all. We’re
saying that people should not be dependent on others for their income if they
don’t have to be.
So what’s the solution?
 |
| Honest Abe says "Free the slaves! Capital Homesteading Now!" |
Instead of a “Universal Basic Income,” why not a
“Universal Basic Access to Capital Ownership”?
Restrict government transfer payments to people who don’t get sufficient
income from their labor, capital, or charity (or gift or inheritance), and so
need a (hopefully temporary) helping hand until they can get enough income from
other sources.
That is one of the ideas behind Capital Homesteading:
ensure that everybody has equal access to the means of becoming an owner on
favorable terms, and save the social safety net for those who actually need
it. Simply providing an across the board
basic income to everyone does nothing to encourage people to get a job and own
capital so they can generate their own income and keep in control of their own
lives.
#30#