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 had, at least until very recently, openly supported UBI, and he is certainly no imperialist shill! Ditto for Charles Eisenstein and the late David Graeber as well.
True, the Romans had the Cura Annonae (aka "the dole"), and slavery still persisted for quite some time then. But what they didn't have, of course, was anywhere near the number of "energy slaves" that we have now, let alone today's technology that should have made all forms of slavery obsolete long ago, but for the system of late capitalism under which we live.
True, UBI is unlikely to be global overnight, and will have to start at the national or subnational level. Ideally, a global currency created just for this purpose would be the best way to do it globally, starting small and growing it from there. Until the , to avoid the worst unintended consequences, particularly those related to currencies and inflation, a global UBI (especially one 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 (see: Alaska Permanent Fund, for example). 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. Any way you slice it, it is an unserious argument to oppose UBI.)
Also note that a global UBI and a national/subnational UBI are NOT mutually exclusive, and can and should be considered orthogonal and complementary to one another.
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. Dismantling an empire this massive is best done very, very gingerly to avoid catastrophic unintended consequences, even if it takes a bit longer to do.
(Sorry, Tereza Coraggio, but history has shown that strictly small-scale sovereignty also has it's own set of pitfalls as well. And unfortunately, NOT all people are inherently good either, and thus to blame any and all bad behavior entirely on The System is to rob individuals of agency. Better to be protopian and not utopian, as the latter, which literally means "no place" in Greek, ultimately leads to dystopia in practice.)
As for slavery, I hereby cordially invite anyone reading this to 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. (Because, let's face it, "just doing without" is not only a political nonstarter, but often is not even a viable option at all under the current system, at least for those who are not extremely privileged, and is really like saying "let them eat cake".) If you just spotted the very, very glaring "collective action problem" in the status quo before I mentioned it, you are thus quite astute, and even more bonus points to you.
If that's still not purist enough for you, dear reader, then feel free to "sell all you have, and give the proceeds to the [global] poor", as Jesus of Nazareth famously instructed the rich man. (You may not feel rich, but you are far, far richer than even the very richest person was back then on an absolute basis, albeit admittedly ignoring relative wealth and poverty.) And while there is no guarantee that you will "find treasure in Heaven" after doing so, at least then you could finally honestly oppose UBI for moral reasons without being a flaming hypocrite.
(Cue the crickets and cicadas)
Honestly, NO ONE's hands are truly clean in the system we currently live under. Except for those at the very top (the oligarchs) and the very bottom (literal chattel slaves) of the global pyramid scheme, we are ALL effectively varying degrees of slaves AND slavers at the same time under the global kyriarchy. (And, contrary to popular opinion, it is entirely possible for slaves to own or rent other slaves, as Harriet Beecher Stowe noted in her famous, and now politically incorrect, book whose very title was since converted into a mild to moderate racial slur. There was then, and still today, a pecking order that goes ALL the way down, in fact.) And clearly some form of UBI is necessary, even if not sufficient by itself, to finally end this evil system once and for all.
And finally, as futurist Walter Ignatius Baltzley famously noted over a decade ago, the only effective way to end capitalism for good is to give it the one thing that the system cannot survive for long: ABUNDANCE. Because capitalism needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) in order to function. Degrowth, on the other hand, would merely get us permanently stuck in a bad place and still end up destroying the Earth, albeit a bit more slowly and in somewhat better taste. (And then there's, of course, the pesky problem of human nature as well.) Ergo, social democracy + technological progress + abundance for all for the win!
(TL;DR version: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and the sooner we move beyond it into post-capitalism, the better we will all be. UBI is a crucial key policy tool that, while not perfect, will still help further that goal from a protopian perspective. After all, life doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.)
(Mic drop)
