Note:This is part of the Promise of Republicanism series, which can be foundherein its entirety.
The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is getting a lot of attention these days, thanks largely to the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has made it the centerpiece of his campaign. Yang calls his version of the UBI the Freedom Dividend, a proposal under which every American over the age of eighteen would receive $1,000 a month from the Federal government, no strings attached.
The name Freedom Dividend is, of course, a nice bit of political rhetoric for an electorate largely inclined to view any large-scale scheme of income redistribution as a form of socialism. But beneath the rhetoric lies a legitimate, substantive point. Yang is right: Theres a good case to be made for a UBI based on the importance of individual freedom. Indeed, the foundations of that case have already been laid by none other than the renowned champion of economic and personal liberty, Friedrich Hayek.
Hayeks devotion to the ideals of free markets and limited government is well-known. His most famous book, The Road to Serfdom, argued that economic and political liberties are tightly connected, and that liberal democracies cannot safely curtail the former without also endangering the latter. His later works, especially The Constitution of Liberty, set forth a positive vision of a free society centered on the idea that individuals should be left largely free to act on the basis of their own values and beliefs, rather than those of government regulators or planners, in both the personal and economic dimensions of their lives.
While everybody knows that Hayek saw himself as a champion of individual freedom, few understand the precise nature of the freedom that Hayek sought to defend. Unlike many libertarians, who understand freedom primarily in terms of non-interference or respect for property rights, Hayek subscribed to a republican theory in which freedom consists of being able to live ones life according to [ones] own decisions and plans, in contrast to one who was irrevocably subject to the will of another.
Understanding Hayek as a commercial republican helps to make sense of many different aspects of his political theory. It explains why, unlike many libertarians, Hayek was never seriously tempted by the idea of anarcho-capitalism. Hayek did not believe that government was necessarily inimical to freedom. Indeed, he believed that government, or at least governance, in the sense of a set of institutions that subject human conduct to general and impartial rules, is a necessary precondition for freedom. For example, traffic laws limit the actions we can perform, but they do so in a way that makes us more free rather than less. They do so by allowing us to form reliable expectations about the behavior of others, which enables us to carry out our own plans more effectively than we could without them. However, a tyrant who can order us to perform or refrain from specific behaviors at a whim deprives us of the ability to effectively set and pursue our plans with any confidence even if the tyrant happens not to interfere at any given time. The fact that it is always in her power to intervene in any way she likes strips us of control over our lives, and thus renders us unfree.
Considerations such as these explain why Hayek continually emphasized the distinction between general rules on the one hand and commands on the other (or between law and legislation) in his writings. To be subject to the commands of a tyrant is to be dependent on the arbitrary will of another person. The actions of those subject to commands are based not on the beliefs and values of the actor, but on the beliefs and values of the tyrant. In contrast, general and impersonal rules do not subject individuals to the will of anyone else. They are, in Hayeks words, like laws of nature stable facts of social existence around which individuals can learn to navigate and plan their lives. They do not place some citizens in a position of subordination, nor do they elevate others to a position of dominance.
Hayeks republican political theory provides one of the main theoretical foundations for his strong support of free markets. Although many contemporary republican theorists have been either overtly hostile or at best lukewarm toward the market economy, Hayek saw correctly that market competition can serve as one of the most effective guarantors of republican freedom.
The essence of market competition is the existence of alternatives, and the right to say no to offers that fail to serve ones interests at least as well as one of those alternatives. In a competitive labor market, an employer who tries to force an employee to do something she doesnt want to do is constrained by that employees ability to quit and find a job elsewhere. A used car dealer who would like to take advantage of a buyer by charging an unfairly high price is similarly constrained by the presence of a competing dealer next door. In general, the more competitive a market is, the more prices and other terms of agreements will be regulated by the impersonal forces of supply and demand, and the less any particular market agent will be able to impose her particular will on her partner in exchange. All market actors are constrained by the general, impersonal rules of the market. But those same rules generally work to prevent any market actors from achieving a position of dominance over others.
Similarly, it is largely because Hayek views competition as such an effective check on coercion that he views government power with suspicion. After all, government is the only institution within society to claim and generally possess an effective monopoly on the use of force. And this monopoly on force is often used to establish and maintain other monopolies: on roads, on the delivery of regular mail, on the creation and enforcement of criminal law, and so on. Because individuals who value these services have nowhere else to go, they are often left with no practical alternative to compliance with the governments demands.
Moreover, as legal rules become more numerous and complex, as ordinary individuals become unable to know in advance what actions are permitted and which are prohibited, as law enforcement becomes practically unable to enforce all the rules that they could, in theory, enforce, the extent of individual discretion within government increases, and so too does the possibility of arbitrary coercion. In that case, individuals are no longer required to comply with the law, but with the edicts of a bureaucrat behind a desk, or an officer behind a badge. When the agents of the state are granted a practically unchecked power to apply the law (or not) in whatever way he sees fit, individuals are no longer fully free.
But while Hayeks republicanism provides strong support for the ideals of free markets and limited government, it also provides a criterion for determining when those institutions are not enough. Market competition generally protects the consumer against predation by unscrupulous sellers, but this protection can be undermined by collusion and natural monopolies. Similarly, competition in the labor market might protect workers from exploitation when those workers have an adequate range of alternatives available to them, but fall short when those alternatives are limited either by features of the local economy (a lack of jobs) or by characteristics of the employee (e.g. limited skills or lack of mobility).
In order to protect individual freedom in these circumstances, Hayek believed that some governmental action was both necessary and appropriate. Indeed, Hayek took great pains even in his most partisan work, The Road to Serfdom, to distance himself from a dogmatic opposition to government action, writing that nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire. Hayek believed that government had a legitimate (though delicate) role to fill in preventing and/or regulating monopolies. He believed that government had important work to do in the areas of sanitation, health services, and public works. And, most strikingly of all, he believed that it was not only permissible but necessary for government to redistribute income in order to provide a social safety net that would ensure a certain minimum income for everyone, or a certain floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself.
Hayek himself did not have much to say about why he thought such a policy might be justified. But Hayeks commitment to republican freedom provides a starting point from which an argument can easily be constructed. Poverty, while not itself coercive, renders people vulnerable to coercion by others. A wife who is dependent on her husbands paycheck may have to put up with abusive behavior simply in order to keep a roof over her head. And as Hayek himself noted, an employee in a slack labor market must do what his boss tells him or else risk destitution. In these cases and many more, people are unable to escape serious and pervasive interference by others because they lack the financial resources to stand on their own. Providing people with money gives them options, and thus the ability to live their lives in accordance with their own will, rather than in subjugation to the will of another.
Moreover, there are strong Hayekian reasons for providing assistance in the form of cash, rather than in-kind benefits. One of the most powerful and consistent themes in all of Hayeks work is the idea that government planners often lack knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place that would be necessary to carry out their plans effectively. For Hayek, that limitation was an important part of the case for decentralized (i.e., free market) economic planning. But these same considerations provide a powerful argument for redistribution taking the form of cash grants, as opposed to in-kind transfers. Cash gives individuals the freedom to decide for themselves what they need, whether that is paying rent, buying groceries, or saving for future consumption. A system of in-kind transfers, in contrast, puts those decisions in the hands of government, where they are at least as likely to be determined by powerful special interests as they are by genuine and accurate considerations of recipients basic needs.
Hayeks support of a minimum income is compatible with his famous rejection of social justice. There is a difference, Hayek argued, between a society that accepts the duty of preventing destitution and of providing a minimum level of welfare and one which seeks to determine the just position of everybody and allocates to each what it thinks he deserves. The latter task requires a level of knowledge on the part of government that Hayek believed was impossible to obtain, and a level of discriminatory power that he believed was incompatible with a free society. The former, in contrast, could be administered by precisely the sort of general, impartial rules that Hayek believed were essential to a genuinely liberal order.
Still, despite all this, it would be misleading to claim that Hayek supported a Universal Basic Income. One of the defining features of a UBI is the idea of unconditionality, meaning that eligibility is not limited to those who are working, or who are willing to work. And this is an idea that Hayek explicitly and repeatedly rejected.
I do not question any individuals right voluntarily to withdraw from civilisation. But what entitlements do such persons have? Are we to subsidise their hermitages? There cannot be any entitlement to be exempted from the rules on which civilisation rests. We may be able to assist the weak and disabled, the very young and old, but only if the sane and adult submit to the impersonal discipline which gives us means to do so.
Still, just because Hayek rejected a UBI does not mean that Hayekians must do so. Indeed, as I argue in more detail elsewhere, Hayeks own fundamental principles provide one of the best arguments for rejecting the kind of work requirement that Hayek himself endorses. In particular, Hayeks own insights into the radically dispersed nature of knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place pose a serious obstacle to conditional schemes such as those he favored.
The problem is this: Hayeks support of a work requirement appears to be based on a kind of reciprocity principle according to which those who seek to benefit from the productive activities of society have a moral obligation to make some reciprocal contribution to society. But it would clearly be a mistake to assume that paid labor is the only way to make such a contribution. Artists, parents, and caregivers, for instance, all make (or are capable of making) an important contribution to society, even if none of them are engaged in the sort of work that would qualify them for benefits under something like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Furthermore, even if the reciprocity principle is true, presumably some accommodation will have to be made for those who are genuinely incapable of making a reciprocal contribution. Those who are physically or mentally unable to work, for instance, presumably should not be excluded from receiving benefits even if one thinks that those who are able but unwilling to work should not be eligible.
So, in order to correctly apply Hayeks principle, governments would have to know both (a) what sorts of activity count as a legitimate reciprocal contribution and which do not, and (b) which particular individuals are genuinely incapable (as opposed to just unwilling) to make such a contribution. But how could we expect governments to accurately arrive at this information? What standard should they apply to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate contributions to social welfare? What sort of intrusive powers will they require to distinguish between a genuine inability to find work and mere shiftlessness? The Hayekian case for an unconditional benefit is that it economizes on governments scarce knowledge, and that it errs on the side of protecting individuals who truly are in danger of subjugation due to their economic vulnerability, even if that means erring on the side of supporting some individuals who do not truly need it.
Hayeks republicanism provides an attractive way for reconciling a commitment to free markets and limited government with support for a social safety net. Moreover, Hayeks particular emphasis on the significance of dispersed knowledge push in favor of that safety net taking the form of a UBI.
This principled case for a UBI leaves many concerns of a more practical nature unanswered. Wouldnt the UBI cost too much? Wouldnt it discourage work? Wouldnt it turn the United States into a welfare magnet or, on the flip side, lead voters to push for even tighter restrictions on immigration?
But these concerns are not really objections to a UBI as such. Rather, they are objections to particular ways in which a UBI might or might not be set up. It is probably best to think of the UBI not as a single policy but as a family of policies, all of which involve cash transfers, but which vary according to the size of those transfers, whether or not they are means-tested, what sort of citizenship and residency requirement are attached to them, and so on.
My own inclination is to favor a UBI in the form of a Negative Income Tax (as Niskanens Samuel Hammond has argued, UBI is really just a NIT with a leaky bucket), and to address concerns about excessive costs and unemployment effects by altering the size and phase-out rate of the transfer. But as Miranda Fleischer and Daniel Hemel have pointed out, there are a variety of different ways of structuring the Architecture of a Basic Income, each with its own costs and benefits.
The important point is that pragmatic concerns about the UBI can largely if not entirely be addressed at the level of policy design. If the Hayekian argument I have presented here is correct, and there really is a good case to be made for a UBI on grounds of a republican conception of individual freedom, then we should not let such concerns stand in the way of making progress toward a basic income for all.
Originally posted here:
- Freedom Day Bailouts Get Several Men Behind Bars Out Before Father's Day | 90.1 FM WABE - WABE 90.1 FM - June 22nd, 2020
- This Week in Technology + Press Freedom: June 21, 2020 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - June 22nd, 2020
- The Juneteenth flag is full of symbols. Here's what they mean - CNN - June 22nd, 2020
- We Have to Talk About Liberating Minds: Angela Davis' Quotes on Freedom - AnOther Magazine - June 22nd, 2020
- Journalism Instructor Leading Online Freedom of Information Event - Ole Miss News - June 22nd, 2020
- Dozens gather for freedom march and rally in downtown Columbus - 10TV - June 22nd, 2020
- Justice Thomas concludes that the "freedom of speech" is a Privilege or Immunity under the 14th Amendment - Reason - June 22nd, 2020
- Freedom launches Pilot to simplify teleoperation on third-party robots - TechCrunch - June 22nd, 2020
- Gov. Stitt says Trump rally attendees 'have freedom to stay home' if concerned about contracting COVID-19 - Tulsa World - June 22nd, 2020
- Opinion: The freedom to take a knee - Houston Chronicle - June 22nd, 2020
- Politicized COVID-19 Response Imperils Both Freedom and Safety, States Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons - GlobeNewswire - June 22nd, 2020
- Julian Assange's fianc calls on the Australian government to secure his freedom - World Socialist Web Site - June 22nd, 2020
- 5th Annual Tybee Island Wade-In commemorates fight for freedom - WSAV-TV - June 22nd, 2020
- Pence to visit Texas for 'Freedom' event at megachurch - Monitor - June 22nd, 2020
- COVID-19: Freedom Means That We Can Do Stupid Things, Not That We Have To - Anchorage Press - June 22nd, 2020
- No restrictions on using firearms: India gives soldiers freedom along LAC in extraordinary times - Hindustan Times - June 22nd, 2020
- Aim to Achieve Financial Freedom in the Stock Market With This $30 Bundle - CT Post - June 22nd, 2020
- Freedom is never defined as mob rule | Opinion - nj.com - May 19th, 2020
- American freedom was tug-of-war from the start - York Dispatch - May 19th, 2020
- Finding the balance between safety and freedom in the shadow of COVID-19 - VentureBeat - May 19th, 2020
- In time of quarantine, we must resist Grand Inquisitors view of freedom - Crux: Covering all things Catholic - May 19th, 2020
- Freedom Does Not Mean Being on the Loose - Psychiatric Times - May 19th, 2020
- The van gives me such freedom: Custom conversion gives Eugene woman wheels on which to roam - The Register-Guard - May 19th, 2020
- Freedom is Never Free - The Hudson Reporter - May 19th, 2020
- Germany's flag burning ban is a threat to freedom of expression - Spectator.co.uk - May 19th, 2020
- What will we do with the new freedom to shop and dine? - cleveland.com - May 19th, 2020
- What does freedom mean in this moment? - The Irish Times - May 19th, 2020
- Event captures memories of Freedom Riders' heroic journey between Anniston and Birmingham - Bham Now - May 19th, 2020
- Are Contact Tracing Apps the Key to Lockdown Freedom? - Redbrick - May 19th, 2020
- Hundreds expected to gather for local Faith & Freedom Rally - KDRV - May 19th, 2020
- Freedom of information laws 'have failed to keep pace with public services' - Aberdeen Evening Express - May 19th, 2020
- Captain Tom Moore receives Freedom award during City of London's first 'virtual' ceremony - FE News - May 11th, 2020
- Boris Johnson's roadmap to ease lockdown will start with more freedom to exercise and back-to-work moves from Wednesday - Telegraph.co.uk - May 11th, 2020
- God alone is the source of liberty and freedom - Akron Beacon Journal - May 11th, 2020
- 'Deadly Dictatorship': How Rodrigo Duterte Has Attacked Freedom of the Media in Latest Closure of Main Broadcaster - The National Interest - May 11th, 2020
- Conjure Women is a tale of slavery and its aftermath - The Economist - May 11th, 2020
- Freedom Haven Emergency Shelter and Transitional Living Home - - KUSI - May 11th, 2020
- Freedom Festival events postponed to 2021, firework show will be held - Deseret News - May 11th, 2020
- Granite State confined at home find freedom and calm in the garden - The Union Leader - May 11th, 2020
- MSNBC contributor: Americans 'freedom-obsessed' to point 'we're blind to other types of threats' | TheHill - The Hill - May 11th, 2020
- Faith and freedom of choice are key ingredients for parenting - The New Indian Express - May 11th, 2020
- Just after Elon Musk denounced coronavirus lockdowns as infringements of freedom, research shows Britons are too scared to leave their homes anyway -... - May 11th, 2020
- Another Freedom Square resident has died of COVID-19 in Pinellas - Tampa Bay Times - May 11th, 2020
- Celebrating freedom in the same garden 75 years on - Jersey Evening Post - May 11th, 2020
- Freedom Is An Issue That Stirs Voters - America's 1st Freedom - May 11th, 2020
- How You Can Advance the Cause of Reason and Freedom - New Ideal - May 11th, 2020
- As Spaniards got their first real taste of freedom this weekend, hundreds of them got arrested and thousands were fined - MarketWatch - May 11th, 2020
- Lockdown phase one freedoms in Spains holiday island Mallorca - Euro Weekly News - May 11th, 2020
- Book Review: America, Guns, and Freedom - Accuracy in Academia - April 27th, 2020
- Accountability goes hand-in-hand with personal freedom, especially during adversity - Green Bay Press Gazette - April 27th, 2020
- Letter to the editor: Freedom & rallies to reopen - TribLIVE - April 27th, 2020
- From The Editor: Barriers to Freedom - America's 1st Freedom - April 27th, 2020
- Freedom binds us all. Today is all about the greater good - News24 - April 27th, 2020
- Watchdog: Pandemic worsening threat to global media freedom - The Associated Press - April 27th, 2020
- Theodore Gaffney, who photographed the Freedom Riders as they protested segregation, dies of Covid-19 complications - CNN - April 27th, 2020
- This Week in Technology + Press Freedom: April 26, 2020 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - April 27th, 2020
- 15:32 Armenia Ombudsman on freedom of expression in the country - Information-Analytic Agency NEWS.am - April 27th, 2020
- Protesting for the Freedom to Catch the Coronavirus - The New York Times - April 27th, 2020
- From lions to lambs: Covid-19 reveals supposedly freedom-loving British to be anything but, as we happily clap away our liberty - RT - April 27th, 2020
- Outrage as thousands abuse guidelines on first day of freedom - The Leader Newspaper Online - April 27th, 2020
- Freedom, the first casualty in Covid-19 war - Free Malaysia Today - April 27th, 2020
- Hazel C. Boone of Freedom Twp., OH - The Weekly Villager - April 27th, 2020
- Freedom Day: We have a way to go to be truly free - Daily Maverick - April 27th, 2020
- Whither freedom? - The News International - April 27th, 2020
- The rising cost of religious freedom in Vietnam | TheHill - The Hill - April 27th, 2020
- Calls for NHS workers to receive the Freedom of the Borough for their tireless bravery - Wrexham.com - April 27th, 2020
- Passover, Freedom and the Coronavirus | Clifford Rieders - The Times of Israel - April 11th, 2020
- Shaw warns that Freedom Mobile isn't adding as many customers as planned due to COVID-19 - CBC.ca - April 11th, 2020
- America Must Prove the Future Is Freedom - American Greatness - April 11th, 2020
- Israelis mark Passover, a celebration of freedom, in virtual isolation - Reuters - April 11th, 2020
- Eric Johnson on Breaking Patterns to Play with More Freedom - Premier Guitar - April 11th, 2020
- Freedom for man who killed brother in 1996 in argument over smoking - SILive.com - April 11th, 2020
- Whitmer issues order allowing delayed in-person processing of Freedom of Information Act requests - MLive.com - April 11th, 2020
- Wife of imprisoned former congressman cites COVID-19 risk in plea to Trump for husband's freedom | TheHill - The Hill - April 11th, 2020
- Freedom From Facebook Expands To Take On Google - Oakland News Now - April 11th, 2020
- Freedom in the time of COVID-19 - The New Indian Express - April 11th, 2020
- Dispute in Ireland over academic freedom and internationalization - Inside Higher Ed - April 11th, 2020
- Married With Kids: Freedom in the age of the coronavirus - Canadian Jewish News - April 11th, 2020
- 30 Years of Freedom: The Opposition Roundtable Laying the Groundwork for Democratic Hungary - Budapest Business Journal - April 11th, 2020
- The cost to freedom in the war against COVID-19 - Pursuit - April 11th, 2020