The Swiss vote on Sunday on the so-called “unconditional basic income” from. You will probably vote against it wisely. You agree it from a political sanction, which is propagated under a deliberately misleading title. Because of course, the basic income is not “unconditionally.” In addition, it is wrong, not from financing, incentive or practical reasons, but from a moral, an equity considerations.
the basic income is only one side unconditionally – on the side of those who obtain it, on the side of profiteers. On the side of those who pay for it net, it is subject to conditions – these must first develop income. It is the typical method of political propaganda to make the profiteers in the center to obscure the payer but. In any redistribution system there are people who have to pay net.
The argument of the problematic financial viability will convince many, but does not interfere far enough. The argument that many would no longer work is not particularly relevant. Everyone can be as lazy as he wants. It can also act out, be creative, be in solidarity, carry out projects, etc. It may only others do not force you to pay for it. That is criminal when the forced exerted individually. If the State has this constraint, it is unconditional basic income in the world of advocates.
The proponents of the basic income say that it would be financially viable because it would only replace the existing benefits. This is a partially reasonable argument. The merging and simplification would probably actually reduce bureaucracy.
But the unconditional nature is unjust to the proposed system. If there is an emergency, the arguments for government intervention are still halfway comprehensible if there are better here nongovernmental alternatives (insurance, charity, etc.). If no power is present with individual suppressible emergency, there is no argument for the proposed penalty system.
Proponents argue that the beneficiaries of the system would thus freed from constraints, such as could realize their plans, would no longer be forced to unpleasant employment. That may be so. But by the proponents are certainly many of those who like to emphasize the connection between freedom and responsibility, repeatedly criticizing the market economy for their profit making and irresponsibility. With its proposal, they destroy the only room where free action and responsibility are connected directly to one another – the free market, the world of voluntary private contracts. Basic income earners can escape the need to do something for others or to produce, for this they then pay or give something in return. Si That is unjust and the moral foundations of freedom-destroying this proposal.
There are many other arguments against, such as the laws of political economy obeying determine the amount that would be a fascinating political issue. But the coercion of the payer, which would be associated with any responsibility of profiteers is the decisive one.
About a basic income that replaces welfare, you can talk. Trailer of “unconditional” basic income have only one with the freedom of other compatible opportunity to implement their project. To find enough people who want voluntarily and unconditionally pay for the life of other
No comments:
Post a Comment