Libertarian Argument for Social Credit (Universal Basic Income)

I blundered across this article today. This Thomas Clarke guy from Yorkshire apparently has climate change and sustainability nowhere on his radar, and so has no real sustainability arguments. He’s just arguing from libertarian principles for a policy that many would consider utterly socialist.

I think it’s more urgent and necessary than that. But this is a useful perspective.


  1. I think we need to get away from the idea than the average person can allocate resources by supplying labor (or being under the protection of someone supplying labor). This is the problem - the Puritan idea that wealth is God's signifier of virtue and poverty God's signifier of sin; this model is adaptive in a preindustrial world and in an industrial world but is maladaptive in a crowded, information-driven world. Even the recent ideological adjustment, the replacement of vigor and physical effort with intelligence and diligent study to repair this meritocratic vision, is a cruel lie.

    The world cares nothing for the individual, and the capacity to allocate resources comes down to luck and to pedigree. That's fine for luxuries, but we can afford to give everyone the necessities before they start out.

  2. My "conventional wisdom" side would agree with David - that having basic needs met + lots of free time = babies! And that probably is true for some population segments. However, the trend towards smaller families and childlessness that has been occurring is generally not due to impoverishment, rather it's usually a lifestyle choice. So, having basic needs met + lots of free time may really equal people choosing to party, travel, (and save for travel - not a basic need) etc.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.