The idea that every person in a society should be guaranteed a living income, no questions asked, irrevocable and automatic is old, diverse in the plans of financing and motivation.
I wont go into details here but argue that anyone who calls himself libertarian should favour an UBI.
Any true libertarian, i.e. someone who cares about liberty for all, not only his own, abhors any kind of pressure. The pressure to work for a living is a fact of nature but it could be overcome by society - and therefore it should.
Freed from the need to work people could pursue a career they really like. Bosses could no longer coerce workers into things they don't like. The amount of personal freedom would reach unknown heights.
I know the objections that will come, especially about financing and UBI making people lazy. We can address those in the debate.
But first and foremost, do you agree that UBI is a libertarian idea? If not, why not?
I suppose it could be considered a libertarian idea, although I'm not entirely sure. UBI seems more a practical measure to ensure the stability and political harmony within society, which is a collectivist notion that libertarians often rail against.
Libertarians strike me as hyper-individualists who ostensibly favor dog-eat-dog competition and an every-man-for-himself philosophy, not unlike that of organized crime. It's a variation of social Darwinism and a just-world fallacy, since they invariably conclude that those who are rich "deserved it" (because they're superior) and that those who are poor "deserved it" (because they're inferior). It doesn't matter
how one plays the game, as long as "he who dies with the most toys wins."
To give money or "free stuff" to the poor somehow violates their sensibilities, as if it's against some sacred "law of nature."
I'm not convinced that "true libertarians" are all that devoted to true individual freedom. They're more stuck on legal technicalities than anything else and artificial divisions between the so-called "public sector" and "private sector." They're also big on contracts and fine print. Their idea of "freedom" is whatever their lawyers and accountants tell them it is.
They go running to "Big Gov" any time something doesn't go their way, so I'm not even convinced that they're committed to reducing the size and scope of government. In practice, what they seem to want to do is clip the wings of the Executive and Legislative branches and put most government power in the hands of the Judicial branch. They want lawyers to run things even more than they are now.
Labor unions might be the working class' answer to libertarianism, since it's private individuals organizing and exercising their right to freedom of association (which is a right that libertarians cherish). Historically, business owners utilized the apparatus of the state to oppose and crush labor unions, or they might have used privately employed strikebreakers to use violence against discontented workers. When that was no longer politically expedient, business owners had to play ball with the unions, until they found another way to work around them by advocating for free trade, outsourcing, and importing low-wage workers (both documented and undocumented) from other countries, driving down the cost of labor and reducing the bargaining power of unions.
As for UBI, I think it would be good for society overall, as a way of promoting greater political stability in society. I don't think it would promote laziness, although there might be some short-term adjustments since it would definitely be a game-changer in terms of the typical employer/employee relationship.
Employers which depend on immediate access to a pool of necessitous individuals with few options and willing to work low wages just to survive would probably be put into somewhat of a temporary bind. It would be a true test of their capitalistic skill, if they could still stay in business without having the option of taking advantage of others' misfortune.
I'm reminded of a story about a lady who owned a small vineyard and winery. When faced with the likelihood that her undocumented laborers could be deported, she complained that she wouldn't be able to stay in business if she had to hire people who were legally able to work in the United States. But I had to wonder, where is her capitalistic skill? Capitalists always crow about how those with the best skills get the best rewards. They talk about how capitalists are just these wonderful, magical people who "create jobs" and "create wealth" just because they're so brilliant and have talents far beyond that of mortal men. But when the real truth comes out that they have to depend on chicanery, manipulation, and exploitation in order to survive, then it puts capitalism in a different light.