Most of the objections to Universal Basic Income (UBI), from both the left and the right (usually the right), are fundamentally patronizing, paternalistic, and/or sadistic in nature, whether subtly or not-so-subtly. Those are, of course, very easily debunked as void on their face in anything even remotely approaching a free and civilized society. But what about the very few supposedly ethical objections that don't quite fit this mold?
One such objection to UBI is that it is really just "crowdsourced slavery", both within nations as well as (especially) with the imperialistic Global North continuing to exploit the Global South. Or something.
Tell me, how exactly does one "crowdsource" slavery? And if everyone is getting free money, and all work thus becomes de facto voluntary and optional, who exactly is really being exploited or enslaved? How would anybody be able to economically coerce anyone else?
And how exactly can it possibly be any worse than the status quo? (Don't think too hard about that.)
Even the biggest degrowth advocates like Jason Hickel openly support UBI, and he is certainly no imperialist shill. Ditto for Charles Eisenstein and David Graeber.
True, UBI is unlikely to be global overnight, and will have to start at the national or subnational level. A global UBI (especially directed primarily towards the Global South) would best be funded by a Tobin Tax on foreign currency exchanges, while a national, subnational, or local one would best be funded by seigniorage via national or local currencies, and/or Georgist-style taxation on the use of natural resources. But until then, even a globally lopsided national-only UBI is highly unlikely to be any WORSE than the status quo, even if we do still maintain a sizable "trade deficit" in the near term. In other words, if you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you ultimately end up with neither.
(Some may counter that they are really "making the necessary the enemy of the convenient", but that is really just begging the question.)
Over the lifecycle, we ALL subsidize each other to one degree or another. Period. And whether we like it or not, the globalization genie is out of the bottle, and has been for some time now. And while all empires should of course go back to being republics, returning to complete autarky (whether it be national or small-scale autarky) is a practical nonstarter for the foreseeable future, so a new model of "alter-globalization," perhaps combined with some partial economic relocalization, is the least worst way forward. (The scarcity mindset sure doesn't help.)
Until then, we need to meet people where they are at.
As for slavery, go look up your own slavery footprint under the status quo. Go on. I bet your hands don't feel so clean now, do they?
If you still feel guilty about receiving UBI for whatever reason, then by all means, feel free to to donate it to GiveDirectly then. Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, silence is golden.
Bonus points for those who decide they now support UBI, even if only so they can now finally afford to buy ethically sourced, fair trade products instead of the usual cheap junk often produced by slave labor. If you just spotted the glaring "collective action problem" in the status quo before I mentioned it, you are quite astute, and even more bonus points to you.
Honestly, NO ONE's hands are truly clean in the system we currently live in. Except those at the very top (the oligarchs) and the very bottom (literal chattel slaves) of the global pyramid, we are all effectively varying degrees of slaves AND slavers at the same time under the global kyriarchy. And some form of UBI is necessary, even if not sufficient by itself, to finally end this evil system for good.
(Mic drop)