"Voluntaryism," the "non-aggression principle" and opposition to "state coercion" have become consistent stalking horses for feudalism, minority rule and the violence of oligarchy.
UBI has been trialed and found to have beneficial effects. Most people who receive it end up immediately using it to better themselves. Homeless people get housing, people tend to work more not less, people enroll in classes or produce more creative work. There's no single intervention by government that would lead to a more ethical, prosperous society.
There's a lot of talk about how much UBI would be at first, and that's a conversation tied directly to the productive capacity of the economy.
But one thing is clear, UBI should not be means tested. Everyone gets the "citizen's dividend." That way, it doesn't discourage people from working. It should be set low enough (say $1,000/month initially) that there's still a strong incentive to work, even at minimum wage. Because it improves a person's standard of living.
As the economy becomes more productive, the UBI could be raised, along with minimum wages. Eventually, if the economy becomes fully automated and compensated labor becomes rare, UBI would represent a person's total income and work would be optional.
Very informative and empowering. Right libertarianism is a Trojan horse full of billionaires. I greatly enjoyed your article and would like to support you, but lack resources for full time support. Would you be willing to look into "buying me a coffee" as a way to contribute for those of us who can't contribute all the time? I would certainly buy you that coffee!
Don't worry, all my posts will remain free. I'm not putting up a paywall. I'll look into signing up with the Buy Me A Coffee page so I can offer that option to occasional readers who don't want a paid subscription. Thank you!
As a Scandinavian immigrant who, in a former life, was in the church (CUT) this is a fascinating read. I never understood your mother's beef with the generous Scandinavian welfare systems and the socialized medicine that we all benefited from in our home countries. She called it "socialist consciousness" and we were told to root it out. No nation is perfect or has all the answers but for the life of me, I will never comprehend why Americans do not choose universal health care and other things that serve the commons. Thank you for writing.
America has the greatest system of socialized medicine in the world. But only if you’re white. In America, employers and self-employed people get a 100% tax break to purchase health insurance. IOW, it’s 100% government subsidized if you’re in either of those categories. But of course, in the US, we’ve also basically set up a system where all of the good jobs go to white people. We’ve created this invisible class system where whites are at the top.
It's well-documented that racial divisions in the US are the primary reason for the collapse in social services. There's an excellent book called The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee detailing this breakdown. Whites decided that they would rather *lose* social services entirely and/or *privatize* them, than *share* them with people who don't look like them.
This is also a gender problem. If only white men had voted in '16 and '24, Trump would have won 538 electoral votes both times.
There's a simple explanation: Cults and religions are hierarchical, and so cult politics trend conservative. There's also a study that was done some years ago that showed that when nations have stronger safety nets they become less religious and more secular. Religion benefits from poverty, disease and misery. It's pretty logical when you think about it.
Powerful breakdown. The parallell to slavery's expropriation is particularly sharp because it cuts through every economic abstraction. I spent years consulting with startups and kept seeing how the tax-haven structures basicaly make civic obligation optional for anyone with enough capital.
Definitely. There are so many accounting tricks. The most widespread one for the wealthy is to never take any income that could be taxed. Instead they borrow against their own equity assets to fund living expenses and simply never repay the loans.
Excellent article. There’s only one respect in which I disagree.
You’re not a leftist libertarian.
You’re a leftist liberal. Leftist libertarians always duck out when the check comes due. What you describe is liberalism. Actual liberalism, not that which sometimes passes for liberalism. What you describe is a society governed by civic input, accountability, and majority rule with protections for the minority.
Terminology gets really muddled. When I call myself a "left libertarian," it's because I'm around -7, -7 on the political compass test, which puts me solidly in the far lower left corner of left libertarianism. The 8values test categorizes me as a libertarian socialist.
You should try those tests to see where you land.
Liberal is also often confused with "classical liberal" and those folks are right-libertarians.
I’d disagree there, a little bit as well. “Classical liberal” is a term that right-libertarians have hijacked. Or more correctly, they’re nihilists masquerading as “liberals but not those liberals” in order to garner support for their cause. But here’s a test: Ask a “classical liberal” (read libertarian nihilist) what their view is on abortion. They’ll almost invariably fall into either of two factions, neither of which is liberal in any sense of the word.
1. They’ll oppose it. This is where Charles Koch and Peter Thiel aren’t even libertarian, and give up the game every time. (Or they’ll hedge on it by saying they support abortion but with enough restrictions so as to render the right to choose futile altogether; or, they’ll say it should be a “state issue”.)
2. They’ll support it in theory, but in the same vein as they oppose poverty. In other words, they’ll say, “My body, my choice.” But will oppose the creation/funding of every single institution that might build an environment in which “my body, my choice” would be a reality.
Same thing with guns. They’ll treat all gun safety measures- no matter how unobtrusive- as an all-out gun grab. And then they’ll call it “classical liberalism”. As if the freedom to not be shot was. never something John Locke contemplated. There are other tests that give up the game with these people.
But “classical liberalism” is another term that actual liberals should take back. Take it away from these fraudsters. Being a posse comitatus isn’t classical liberalism; it’s nihilism. Classical liberalism is life, liberty, and the pursuit of property; and most importantly, a government that protects and foments it.
I'm all for policy. But the words we use and the labels that we apply matter. If they didn't, Frank Luntz would be a pauper. Besides, the policies you advocate are liberal. They're not something you should have to apologize for. What you describe is liberalism. It's been co-opted by bad faith actors. Let's take it back! :)
You mentioned some themes here that were also addressed in a recent conversation between David Roberts and Michael Hobbes on the topic of “reactionary centrism” [1] and “Murc’s Law.” [2] Two ideas that deserve a lot more attention. There’s some disturbing psychology surrounding all this, as described in this sound bite from that conversation:
David Roberts: “If you proclaim to have values and to care, we will criticize you relentlessly. We will characterize everything you do as falling short of or betraying those values. But if you just don’t give a shit and act like a nihilist, you’re good. We won’t criticize you because that would be silly. Why would we bother? The centrists have talked themselves into this. This is a very widely held thing among these people. “It’s pointless to criticize Trump and the Republicans. Democrats are the only ones who listen and care when we criticize, so we should criticize them all the time.” The center is criticizing Democrats all the time. And of course Republicans are criticizing Democrats all the time because they rightly view them as their political opponents. Everybody craps on Democrats. Murc’s Law: everything that happens, basically the Democrats did it. The right is like a weather system that just comes in. No point trying to persuade it. It just is what it is.”
For sure. Dems are America's punching bag. The key phrase is "Democrats are the only ones who listen."
Unfortunately, the constant "intra-party" battles among people who are left-of-center leave Democrats weakened.
The minute we stand up a presidential candidate for '28, that person will be attacked mercilessly from all sides. This in spite of the fact that electing a Democratic president is the ONLY way to end Trumpism. No one will be satisfied with whoever it is. And that's as big a problem as MAGA itself.
This is right on. What we need is a New Deal to get rid of the Reagan era oligarchy.
We need:
Steep progressive taxation (top rates >90%)
Strong unions
Public housing
Universal education
Social insurance
Financial regulation
Capital controls with Universal Basic Income. (Good old Andrew Yang ran on this and we need it now more than ever.)
As you state we need mandatory redistribution enforced by law.
Shared prosperity followed elite constraint—not elite freedom.
UBI has been trialed and found to have beneficial effects. Most people who receive it end up immediately using it to better themselves. Homeless people get housing, people tend to work more not less, people enroll in classes or produce more creative work. There's no single intervention by government that would lead to a more ethical, prosperous society.
There's a lot of talk about how much UBI would be at first, and that's a conversation tied directly to the productive capacity of the economy.
But one thing is clear, UBI should not be means tested. Everyone gets the "citizen's dividend." That way, it doesn't discourage people from working. It should be set low enough (say $1,000/month initially) that there's still a strong incentive to work, even at minimum wage. Because it improves a person's standard of living.
As the economy becomes more productive, the UBI could be raised, along with minimum wages. Eventually, if the economy becomes fully automated and compensated labor becomes rare, UBI would represent a person's total income and work would be optional.
Very informative and empowering. Right libertarianism is a Trojan horse full of billionaires. I greatly enjoyed your article and would like to support you, but lack resources for full time support. Would you be willing to look into "buying me a coffee" as a way to contribute for those of us who can't contribute all the time? I would certainly buy you that coffee!
Don't worry, all my posts will remain free. I'm not putting up a paywall. I'll look into signing up with the Buy Me A Coffee page so I can offer that option to occasional readers who don't want a paid subscription. Thank you!
As a Scandinavian immigrant who, in a former life, was in the church (CUT) this is a fascinating read. I never understood your mother's beef with the generous Scandinavian welfare systems and the socialized medicine that we all benefited from in our home countries. She called it "socialist consciousness" and we were told to root it out. No nation is perfect or has all the answers but for the life of me, I will never comprehend why Americans do not choose universal health care and other things that serve the commons. Thank you for writing.
America has the greatest system of socialized medicine in the world. But only if you’re white. In America, employers and self-employed people get a 100% tax break to purchase health insurance. IOW, it’s 100% government subsidized if you’re in either of those categories. But of course, in the US, we’ve also basically set up a system where all of the good jobs go to white people. We’ve created this invisible class system where whites are at the top.
It's well-documented that racial divisions in the US are the primary reason for the collapse in social services. There's an excellent book called The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee detailing this breakdown. Whites decided that they would rather *lose* social services entirely and/or *privatize* them, than *share* them with people who don't look like them.
This is also a gender problem. If only white men had voted in '16 and '24, Trump would have won 538 electoral votes both times.
There's a simple explanation: Cults and religions are hierarchical, and so cult politics trend conservative. There's also a study that was done some years ago that showed that when nations have stronger safety nets they become less religious and more secular. Religion benefits from poverty, disease and misery. It's pretty logical when you think about it.
Wow, yes, that does make sense. Religion is the opiate of the masses....
Powerful breakdown. The parallell to slavery's expropriation is particularly sharp because it cuts through every economic abstraction. I spent years consulting with startups and kept seeing how the tax-haven structures basicaly make civic obligation optional for anyone with enough capital.
Definitely. There are so many accounting tricks. The most widespread one for the wealthy is to never take any income that could be taxed. Instead they borrow against their own equity assets to fund living expenses and simply never repay the loans.
Excellent article. There’s only one respect in which I disagree.
You’re not a leftist libertarian.
You’re a leftist liberal. Leftist libertarians always duck out when the check comes due. What you describe is liberalism. Actual liberalism, not that which sometimes passes for liberalism. What you describe is a society governed by civic input, accountability, and majority rule with protections for the minority.
In a word- liberal democracy. You’re a liberal.
Terminology gets really muddled. When I call myself a "left libertarian," it's because I'm around -7, -7 on the political compass test, which puts me solidly in the far lower left corner of left libertarianism. The 8values test categorizes me as a libertarian socialist.
You should try those tests to see where you land.
Liberal is also often confused with "classical liberal" and those folks are right-libertarians.
I’d disagree there, a little bit as well. “Classical liberal” is a term that right-libertarians have hijacked. Or more correctly, they’re nihilists masquerading as “liberals but not those liberals” in order to garner support for their cause. But here’s a test: Ask a “classical liberal” (read libertarian nihilist) what their view is on abortion. They’ll almost invariably fall into either of two factions, neither of which is liberal in any sense of the word.
1. They’ll oppose it. This is where Charles Koch and Peter Thiel aren’t even libertarian, and give up the game every time. (Or they’ll hedge on it by saying they support abortion but with enough restrictions so as to render the right to choose futile altogether; or, they’ll say it should be a “state issue”.)
2. They’ll support it in theory, but in the same vein as they oppose poverty. In other words, they’ll say, “My body, my choice.” But will oppose the creation/funding of every single institution that might build an environment in which “my body, my choice” would be a reality.
Same thing with guns. They’ll treat all gun safety measures- no matter how unobtrusive- as an all-out gun grab. And then they’ll call it “classical liberalism”. As if the freedom to not be shot was. never something John Locke contemplated. There are other tests that give up the game with these people.
But “classical liberalism” is another term that actual liberals should take back. Take it away from these fraudsters. Being a posse comitatus isn’t classical liberalism; it’s nihilism. Classical liberalism is life, liberty, and the pursuit of property; and most importantly, a government that protects and foments it.
I guess I'm less concerned about labels than policy. But your points are well taken.
I'm all for policy. But the words we use and the labels that we apply matter. If they didn't, Frank Luntz would be a pauper. Besides, the policies you advocate are liberal. They're not something you should have to apologize for. What you describe is liberalism. It's been co-opted by bad faith actors. Let's take it back! :)
You mentioned some themes here that were also addressed in a recent conversation between David Roberts and Michael Hobbes on the topic of “reactionary centrism” [1] and “Murc’s Law.” [2] Two ideas that deserve a lot more attention. There’s some disturbing psychology surrounding all this, as described in this sound bite from that conversation:
David Roberts: “If you proclaim to have values and to care, we will criticize you relentlessly. We will characterize everything you do as falling short of or betraying those values. But if you just don’t give a shit and act like a nihilist, you’re good. We won’t criticize you because that would be silly. Why would we bother? The centrists have talked themselves into this. This is a very widely held thing among these people. “It’s pointless to criticize Trump and the Republicans. Democrats are the only ones who listen and care when we criticize, so we should criticize them all the time.” The center is criticizing Democrats all the time. And of course Republicans are criticizing Democrats all the time because they rightly view them as their political opponents. Everybody craps on Democrats. Murc’s Law: everything that happens, basically the Democrats did it. The right is like a weather system that just comes in. No point trying to persuade it. It just is what it is.”
[1] https://www.volts.wtf/p/all-about-reactionary-centrism
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law
For sure. Dems are America's punching bag. The key phrase is "Democrats are the only ones who listen."
Unfortunately, the constant "intra-party" battles among people who are left-of-center leave Democrats weakened.
The minute we stand up a presidential candidate for '28, that person will be attacked mercilessly from all sides. This in spite of the fact that electing a Democratic president is the ONLY way to end Trumpism. No one will be satisfied with whoever it is. And that's as big a problem as MAGA itself.
You've *almost* got it.
What am I missing?