The Democracy Argument for Basic Income

Posted on Posted in Basic Income, Ethics, Political Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized

The Democracy Argument for Basic Income

1. A functioning democracy is impossible if there is extreme economic inequality and extreme poverty.

2. A universal basic income is the best means to eliminate extreme economic inequality and poverty.

3. So, we should have a universal basic income.

I’ve never met anyone who has seriously considered the second premise and disagreed with it so we’ll move on focus our attention here on the first premise. Of course there’s lots of good information out there on the topic if you’re interested or need convincing.

So, moving on to the first premise of the above argument. There are a number of ways in which poverty and economic inequality undermine democracy. I’ll try to argue this claim from several different angles.

The first is that poverty and economic inequality undermine democracy because it can make poor people less likely to vote. This is true in the United States, although not in every country. Despite this not being true in every country, I think the fact that it is true in the United States is a compelling reason to eliminate poverty. Just like we pass laws to try to protect consumers even if the measure taken will not always protect consumers. Seat belts don’t have to be one-hundred percent effective in protecting injuries to make it worthwhile to require people to wear them and similarly eliminating poverty doesn’t have to be the only factor in voter turnout to make it worth eliminating poverty. We need to do everything we can to strengthen the democratic process.

The second argument I would make in terms of poverty and democracy is that poverty undermines a person’s ability to function properly as a citizen. A well functioning democracy requires not only that people vote but that they be educated enough to vote for candidates who will best represents their interests. We don’t have to look farther than the united states to see this in action. A poor person in the United States would never vote republican if they were actually voting in their self-interest they. They would always vote for the party that would best promote the interests of poor and middle class Americans rather than the party that serves the interests of the corporate elite. It really isn’t complicated. An obvious response might be that people who vote republican truly think that a small government would lead to more prosperity for all persons. This is of course a terrible argument because we actually have lots of real evidence that supports the claim that taxes and liberal policies actually do work to reduce poverty. All we have to do is look around the world and look at their economic policies. There is a clear correlation between liberal policies and poverty reduction. The most liberal countries have the least poverty and the most “libertarian” countries have the most poverty. They fact that they sincerely believe voting republican is in their best interest is evidence of my point, that poverty makes it more likely that a person will vote against their own self-interest!

Poverty and economic inequality make it such that people with more money have greater influence over the political process than people with less money. Again we don’t have to look further than the united states to see the corrupting influence of money in politics. Everyone still gets a vote under the current system but a poor persons vote matters much less, because with extreme inequality it no longer is the case that voting is the primary determiner of political outcome. Much ink has been spilled so I don’t feel the need to rehash the details. Republic Lost by Lawrence Lessig  is good reading material on the topic. You can see the ted video below for the short version:

So, poverty and economic inequality affect democracy in three ways,

1) by making less poor people vote,

2) making their vote ineffective because they are not capable of voting in their own self-interest, and

3) by making it such that a poor person’s vote counts for less.

 

Check out some of my other posts Basic Income:

 

Imagine a World Without Poverty

 

11 Arguments for a Universal Basic Income

 

Basic Income and The Role of the Market in Society

 

Democracy and Basic Income part II

 

Why supporters of basic income should be in favor of a negative income tax

 

Is Basic Income Communism?

 

About Basic Income

One thought on “The Democracy Argument for Basic Income

  1. I’m not a smart man, so I suppose my understanding of world economy is similarly sparse, but the notion of one person, one vote is pretty simple.

    The notion that this or that country belongs to its citizens, or that the planet belongs to us all is pretty simple. So why is the notion that each person should hold, own, and receive a dividend from his or her share not just as simple, reasonable, and fair?

    I suspect a brighter person could think of a good way to do this, but if the U.N. (for lack a viable substitute) issued a share to each adult person, pursuant to the universal declaration of human rights, and an actual social contract, wouldn’t that simply distribute a minimum capital enfranchisement to each person?

    I like this simple social contract:

    Social Contract between and among People and Governments

    Definitions:

    People: Adult human beings.

    Government: Social structure holding assumed right to control social order.

    Common Resources: Those resources accepted as International, earth, air, fire, water, wood, and those resources claimed by governments for its people, monetized as shares for deposit in local banks.

    Rights and Responsibilities:

    Peoples Rights:
    • As described by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    • An equal share of the Common Resources
    • As provided for by local government

    Peoples Responsibilities:
    • Deposit Common Resources share in local bank
    • Comply with law

    Government Rights:
    • To govern as directed or suffered by its citizens

    Government Responsibilities:
    • To act based on objective reality in the public interest
    • To safeguard and secure the people, their property, and the Common Resources
    • As required and/or demanded by its citizens

    You may just dismiss this out of hand for being so stupid, please reconsider, maybe it just needs some smartening up.

    If the basic income problem is not addressed globally, it is scarcely addressed at all. If any one country establishes a BI supported by taxation, and this becomes the model, then all the countries that lack sufficient tax bases will fall so much further behind.

    Providing a low interest reserve currency to each country in this way, with a common international currency, might tend to stabilize exchange rates, so, certainty in planning.

    Granting secured personal sovereign loans against a portion of their share to individuals for homes, a secure interest in workplace,…etc, would further support economic enfranchisement.

    This directly addresses the provision of those Human Rights we have seemingly acknowledged, especially for those displaced by acts of God and war, while also encouraging cooperation over conflict, way better for business.

    I can think of more and more ways that allowing access to capital in this way would help what ever problem is being discussed, and no one will bother to explain why it is so stupid, people are usually happy to do that about most things.

    Thanks for your kind indulgence, Stephen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *