Saturday, October 31, 2015

You Are a BIGger Man Than I, Tom Woods!



Tom Woods interviewed Matt Zwolinski on Matt’s Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) proposal, and Matt’s belief that it is a libertarian proposal.  It is worth listening to the discussion if you have an interest on this topic.  To make a long story short: if you think the idea is cuckoo, you will only think this all-the-more after listening to several of Matt’s responses.  If you think the idea is…libertarian, a critical listen should shake your belief.

I have written a few posts on Matt’s views: certainly regarding his BIG proposal; regarding his concerns about BIG as a libertarian proposal (don’t get your hopes up); also, he suggests libertarians reject the non-aggression principle (which, of course, is necessary if one wants to support BIG).

I have never been very kind or courteous in my writing on these topics; in the interview, Tom is much more a gentleman – a BIGger man than am I.  Tom asks many insightful questions, and leaves nothing unturned.

What is BIG?  Matt suggests that government cancel all existing welfare-type programs and replace these with a $10,000 annual stipend to every American adult.  He suggests that libertarians support this on two grounds:

First, practical: it is more efficient, less costly, and less intrusive than current programs.  When Tom points out that simple math suggests that Matt’s proposal is more than  twice as expensive as current welfare programs, Matt agrees and then suggests some form of means testing, etc. – which, of course, violates the “less intrusive” aspect of his proposal.

Second, on a moral basis: it is not appropriate to suggest – as some libertarians do – that it is assumed all current titles to property are legitimate unless direct evidence can be provided to the contrary: theft, documented expropriation on an individual level, etc.

Matt admits that figuring out precisely who owes what to who is difficult – if not impossible – practically speaking.  Therefore everybody should owe the $10,000 annually to everybody else (I know, I don’t get it either).  Matt also admits that his theory would require redistribution across the globe (as the poorest American is better off than the vast majority of the remaining world population) – requiring some kind of world body to establish and enforce (but he doesn’t want to call this global body a “government” – you know, because they will just ask nicely and everyone will voluntarily hand over the $10,000).

I suggest the following with 100% certainty: every single person on the planet has both gained from and been a victim of some form of property injustice somewhere in his past.  To attempt to resolve this in any method other than individual property claims based on individual circumstance is the ultimate war of all against all.

There is much more to the interview; but here you have it in a nutshell.

14 comments:

  1. "I have never been very kind or courteous in my writing on these topics; in the interview, Tom is much more a gentleman – a BIGger man than am I."

    He had lots of practice with Austin Petersen of the Libertarian "Click-Bait" Republic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom did a really good job with the interview. Zwoninski didn't descend into motivational attacks, which is usually where this sort of thing goes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both gentlemen handled themselves (and each other) respectfully. Because of the tone, it was an easy interview to listen to as long as you could stomach listening to someone advocating that BIG is somehow libertarian.

      Delete
  3. Nice concise write-up! I like when you keep it short and still very valuable - helps with my ADD ;-) But seriously, a nice summary of the BIG main points and their very shaky grounds. Your last paragraph is brilliant and the only thing that should be said about the whole silliness of unjust property rights:

    "I suggest the following with 100% certainty: every single person on the planet has both gained from and been a victim of some form of property injustice somewhere in his past. To attempt to resolve this in any method other than individual property claims based on individual circumstance is the ultimate war of all against all."

    The only thing I would add that there are a few historical societal paradigm shifts when these property questions do come up legitimately on a grand scale: i.e. the shift from communism to democracy in Eastern Europe and the Soviet states in 1989-90. I actually wrote my bachelor thesis on privatization since my graduation happened to be in 1990. And I can tell you that it's not easy at all to make a countrywide shift when very few have any understanding of what private property really is with all its inherent properties (rights, responsibilities, legal framework, moral framework, etc.). Add the huge social pressures from all sides (the "exploited" wanting revenge and the defeated ruling groups wanting to hold on to their wealth in every way possible) and you got some serious work cut out for you in an actual real situation. But my humble conclusion is similar to yours: even in these situations it's better to leave the past in the past, and focus on building an equitable rule of law based on property rights from there on. Imho pointing to the future and giving chance for everybody to fully utilize their talents to accumulate property from there on brings the most healing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norbert, thank you for the comment.

      I agree that there are meaningful events / times in history where such questions are legitimate. What is to be done, and how, and by who? There is the rub.

      Leaving the past in the past...how many survivors of genocidal episodes (or their descendants) will say that they are in a much better place today because they survived and were forced to leave everything behind and start over? Of course, not to be happy about this past (the loss of family, the loss of home), but to recognize this reality?

      Delete
  4. There aren't any libertarian arguments for BIG. However a BIG could potentially undermine the managerial state. The state deciding who gets what benefit is a powerful tool of control for the state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt, setting aside the immorality of compounding one theft with another...this is precisely why it won't work as long as government is the vehicle - they will not leave the process neutral. They want the control.

      Delete
    2. Yup. The state needs consent. It gains consent by giving favors. You don't get consent by being neutral.

      Note that Matt quickly backpedaled from a neutral BIG to means testing.

      Delete
    3. "You don't get consent (for doing the sorts of things D.C. wants to do) by being neutral."

      Delete
    4. I would guess that if you are some group that the state doesn't like, such as "privileged white males", you will not be getting the BIG.

      Delete
  5. Zwolinski and most of his "bleeding heart" colleagues remain high church liberals masquerading as libertarians, just like many left-libertarians are completly indistinguishable from the broader SJW movement (who mostly function as a battering ram for the "respectable" left and corporate astroturf).
    Funny how this political-cultural leftification happens just as the political system hits the crapper and the right is going to see a massive blowup soon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So if this came to pass would the person in charge of it be called Mr. BIG?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are you sure he wanted to *cancel* all existing welfare programs, and *replace* it with the BIG? I was not sure he was in favor of getting rid of all existing welfare. My guess is if you have a broad view of welfare, it's far more than $10k already--public schools alone, say. Roads, etc.

    Plus, $10k is not enough to live on, so it's hard to believe these leftists really mean it. They would surely want at least $30k. We are talking many trillions a year. Probably at least $5T. It's crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Are you sure he wanted to *cancel* all existing welfare programs, and *replace* it with the BIG?”

      From Zwolinski: Wouldn’t it be better just to scrap the whole system and write the poor a check? In what follows, I will make the case for a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) as a replacement for the current welfare state.

      http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

      I will not listen again to the interview, but I recall that he presented the same idea. Of course, with as much crawfishing as he had to do due to Woods’ questioning, perhaps by now he has changed his mind on even this.

      Delete