Mediaboss Marketing

February 6, 2017 by Edwin G. Dolan

Edwin G. Dolan is an economist and educator whose writings regularly appear at EconoMonitor.The Niskanen Center is excited to welcome him as a new Poverty and Welfare adjunct focusing on Universal Basic Income research.

In recent post on EconLog, Bryan Caplan writes, Im baffled that anyone with libertarian sympathies takes the UBI [universal basic income] seriously. I love a challenge. Let me try to un-baffle you, Bryan, and the many others who might be as puzzled as you are. Here are three kinds of libertarians who might take a UBI very seriously indeed.

Libertarian pragmatists

Philosophical issues aside, what galls many libertarians most about government is the failure of many policies to produce their intended results. Poverty policy is Exhibit A. By some calculations, the government already spends enough on poverty programs to raise all low-income families to the official poverty level, even though the poverty rate barely budges from year to year. Wouldnt it be better to spend that money in a way that helps poor people more effectively?

A UBI would help by ending the way benefit reductions and welfare cliffs in current programs undermine work incentives. When you add together the effects of SNAP, TANF, CHIP, EITC and the rest of the alphabet soup, and account for work-related expenses like transportation and child care, a worker from a poor household can end up taking home nothing, even from a full-time job. A UBI has no benefit reductions. You get it whether you work or not, so you keep every added dollar you earn (income and payroll taxes excepted, and these are low for the poor).

But, wait, you might say. Why would I work at all if you gave me a UBI? That might be a problem if you got your UBI on top of existing programs, but if it replaced those programs, work incentives would be strengthened, not weakened. In which situation would you be more likely to take a job: one where you get $800 a month as a UBI plus a chance to earn another $800 from a job, all of which you can keep, or one where your get $800 a month in food stamps and housing vouchers, and anything extra you earn is taken away in benefit reductions?

Or, you might say, a UBI might be fine for the poor, but wouldnt it be unaffordable to give it to the middle class and the rich as well? Yes, if you added it on top of all the middle-class welfare and tax loopholes for the rich that we have now. No, if the UBI replaced existing tax preferences and other programs that we now lavish on middle- and upper-income households. Done properly, a UBI would streamline the entire system of federal taxes and transfers without any aggregate impact on the federal budget.

Classical liberals

Not all of those with libertarian sympathies are anarcho-capitalist purists. Many classical liberals, even those whom purist libertarians lionize in other contexts, are more open to the idea of a social safety net as a legitimate function of a limited government.

In his book Law, Legislation, and Liberty, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek wrote,

The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society.

Philosophically, classical liberals see social insurance of this kind as something to which they would willingly assent if they considered it behind a veil of ignorance, where they did not know if they themselves would be born rich or poor. Once the philosophical hurdle is overcome, the practical advantages of a UBI become highly attractive. In terms of administrative efficiency and work incentives, a UBI wins hands down over the current welfare system, and beats even the negative income tax famously championed by Milton Friedman, another classical liberal,.

Lifestyle libertarians

The libertarian sympathies of still others arise from the conviction that all people should be able to live their lives according to their own values, so long as they dont interfere with the right of others to do likewise. These lifestyle libertarians are drawn to a UBI because of its contrast with the nanny state mentality that characterizes current policies. Why should social programs treat married couples differently from people living in unconventional communal arrangements? Why should welfare recipients have to undergo intrusive drug testing? Why should food stamps let you buy hamburger and feed it to your dog, but not buy dog food?

Writing for Reason.com, Matthew Feeney urges libertarians to stop arguing in principle against the redistribution of wealth. Instead, he says, scrap the welfare state and give people free money. Feeney sees a UBI as an alternative that promotes personal responsibility, reduces the humiliations associated with the current system, and reduces administrative waste in government.

So there you are. A UBI is a policy for pragmatic critics of well-intentioned but ineffective government, for classical liberals, and for advocates of personal freedom. No wonder so many libertarians take the idea seriously.

Original post:
Why Should a Libertarian Take Universal Basic Income Seriously? - Niskanen Center (press release) (blog)

Picture credit: The Huffington Post

Recently graduating from a left-leaning university, in a left-leaning city, with a majority left-leaning friends, all of whom are overly-equipped with cuddle bears and safe spaces, every day Ive had to suffer through hearing about the glorious socialist utopia that would come about with a Bernie Sanders presidency.

Having actually studied political science, focusing heavily on various countries policies and economics, I have to fight a constant urge where I dont lower myself to the lefts standards and go on a peaceful protest rampage. Fortunately, it has never come to that. Being well-equipped with a basic knowledge of economics and morality, one can ask three simple questions to stun any Bernie bro.

This is probably one of the best arguments against Sanders specific idea of socialism, as his views are radical even for a modern socialist.

While socialism never works in the long run, as we have seen with Venezuelas collapse and Sweden and Denmarks reduction in benefits and fragile economic systems, there are measures that can prolong its life.

Sweden and Denmark, both the golden standard for socialists, have some the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. In Sweden and Denmark, the corporate tax rate is 22 percent; whereas in the United States, we have a whopping tax rate of 38.9 percent; the second highest in the world. For socialism to be sustainable, even if it is only in the short run, Sweden and Denmark understood the necessity for investment. They needed incentives for companies to move to their country and employ their population.

As mentioned before, this still isnt enough to save them from disaster that occurs from any type of economic change, which usually leads to heightened unemployment, budget imbalance and increased deficit, and the inevitable removal or reduction in welfare benefits. However, Sweden and Denmarks policy on low corporate tax rates is something Bernie never addresses. Hedoesnt understand this and seeks only to ridicule corporations and the wealthy; the very people that provide the economic means to make socialism as sustainable as it will ever be. Could you imagine a millennial wrapping his head around the idea of lowering tax rates for those evil corporations? Me neither.

This is, arguably, the biggest flaw in Sanders socialist dream.

While this should be common knowledge for a Bernie supporter, youll find many dont actually know the answer or have looked at the in-depth causal effect of what is proposed.

Quoting from Bernie Sanders official site, he states: There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. While this figure is mostly accurate, there are debates about its validity. Politifact references fellow libertarian Daniel Mitchell when he argues that tax laws in the late 20th century required high income taxpayers to report capital income, while middle income citizens didnt have to. Despite this fact, Mitchell goes on to say that the rich arent rich because the poor are poor; the rich are rich, because they are innovative and provide services which others want.

Back to the question at hand. While Bernie mostly relies on demonizing the wealthy, there are instances where he provides a plan to redistribute the wealth.

They consist of raising taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, providing government-funded youth programs, and other expensive programs, all to be billable to higher income individuals. At this time, the top 10 percent already pay 68 percent of all federal income taxes and 53 percent of all federal taxes in general.

What happens when that tax rate widens and the wealthy pay more in taxes and middle class pays less? If you believe those in the top 10 percent are millionaires, youre very wrong. The income for the top 1 to 10 percent is between $380,354 to $113,799. In other words, essentially anyone that owns and operates a successful business. The people that took a risk with their own money, bet on themselves, and came out positive; the people that are providing jobs to the middle class; the people that have to put payroll on their own credit card and often use their own funds to invest in their company; those are the people that Bernie Sanders wants to tax even more, and he hides that fact by having the public perceive the top 10 percent as fat oil men sitting on a mountain of cash.

By redistributing wealth, you are essentially taking money from those that provide the jobs for everyone else, invest and take rise, and essentially keep the economy going. Not only is it morally wrong, but economically idiotic.

The American Dream is based on an idea that anyone can succeed in this country if they have the desire to work hard enough. It is one of the major reasons that America has had the most successful economy since World War II.

The government, specifically under Reagan and Clinton, facilitated an environment where people could achieve anything, because the government would interfere as little as possible. It is why the Reagan and Clinton years (despite the Democrats stance on the economy today, Clintonomics was very much in favor of being enterprise-friendly and making the government smaller) were some of the best economic years in American history.

Bernie Sanders plan is to go against this logical concept, and label the successful and wealthy as the enemy and everyone else as the victim. So, if a successful economy is determined by innovation and a strong working class as Reagan and Clinton proved how do you incentivize people to take risk on themselves and open businesses or try to get a promotion and make more money, when the more money you make, the more is taken away?

* Braden Paynter is your average Joe Schmoe, who loves his country and all the freedom it entails. He has received an education in political science and international politics, being one of the few in his class to emerge without shouting leftist propaganda at the top of his lungs.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Read the original post:
3 Questions for Bernie Supporters - Being Libertarian

Ticket screening was supposed to begin at 7:00 pm, so at around 6:15 pm I started walking up Telegraph Avenue towards the event at the Pauley Ballroom on the UC Berkeley campus. On my way there, I was already seeing ubiquitous anti-Milo Yiannopoulos signs calling this gay, Jewish, immigrant (who predominantly dates black men) a Nazi, a fascist, and many other unoriginal epithets sufficient to excite the decently large low information crowd around here.

I continued on through Sather Road coming closer to the Ballroom venue. I briefly walked into the supposed ticketing area, by the Amazon store, to get a better idea what was happening, but rioters were already throwing rocks, paintballs, and burning objects in that direction. Some of the store windows had been smashed in or blown out completely, barricades were torn down, and the attendees were totally exposed to the rioters standing a little further North (behind some weak metal barricades that were going not to last much longer). To me it was not clear where we were supposed to stand or have our tickets screened, it was all very chaotic, and things began to get dangerous for event attendees.

A big fire had erupted near where I stood because rioters had thrown a Molotov cocktail at a container that seemed to be leaking gasoline. At some point I heard a loud explosion, maybe even two. Firecrackers were continually being thrown in the general vicinity and a lamp pole had been torn down to the sound of cheers. The Cops were mostly inside the buildings staring outside, but they were not intervening at all as far as I could see. Id say there were about 30-40 cops, vs hundreds if not thousands of rioters and supporters.

I tried to connect with a fellow Being Libertarian writer in attendance, but it was difficult to find one another and his phone was dying.

Virtually everyone I saw, across the entire area all the way back to Bancroft & Telegraph, was excited, happy, giggling, taking photos, and basically having quite a blast. Behind the front line of rioters there were drummers, and a DJ, there was a real dance party going on. After theyd officially succeeded in shutting down the event, naturally followed by massive cheers of joy across what seemed like the entire campus, they broke through the barricades completely and moved towards Telegraph & Bancroft.

The rioters, who largely consisted of masked individuals brandishing Antifa flagpoles, lead the march; they were accompanied by continuous drum beats, hip hop music, and people dancing behind them, I could hear a rap song with the profound hook line Fuck Donald Trump.

Having attended alone, Id now successfully connected with another person on the events Facebook group and we met up on Bancroft and Sather Lane (note: its Lane now, not Road). Thats when the atmosphere turned from dark to terrifying!

Suddenly serious scuffles started in that area, Antifa rioters began to chase down, or sucker punch, Trump supporters and Miloattendees. I heard one Antifa protester, a woman, proudly proclaiming Hey, we found a bunch of Nazis over there! I saw a small group help a woman who was wearing a Make Bitcoin Great Again hat, who had been sucker punch pepper sprayed during a TV interview by a masked individual.

I saw one guy, surrounded by Antifa rioters, getting bludgeoned really bad as more backup, armed with flagpoles that were gratuitously utilized, came flooding in from behind. I suspect thats the body I later saw in this footage, where you can see him motionless on the road, surrounded and beaten with a flapole some more for good measure. I wonder if hes alive.

I saw two Trump supporters, one wearing a MAGA hat, chased down Bancroft Way towards Dana Street by another Antifa mob who were shouting things like Beat his ass!, and Get out Nazi scum!.

Here you can see the official protest organizer, Berkeley school district teacher Yvette Felarca, (who recently returned to her job after having been placed on leave pending an investigation into concerns that have been raised) explain how doing whatever is necessary to shut down Milos event is their right to self defense, thus clearly condoning the violence, arson, and destruction; how else would they have shut down the event? Its good to know that this unstable, and insecure cliche of a mental patient, is instructing children with your tax dollars, isnt it?

At this point I, and the friend Id made here, somehow got pepper sprayed or tear gassed, were still unsure where it came from. There was no police presence at all around here. With impaired vision, we fled in a direction that seemed to be the safest way to escape the violence.We managed to connect with a few more friendly event attendees down the street and exchanged experiences and information before we got out of the general area. It was a crazy night!

Heres an official legal definition of terrorism from Merriam Webster:

terrorism the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.

In my opinion, this was not a protest, this was not even just a riot, this was well planned and coordinated domestic terrorism! The same kind of terrorism that we can [currently] observe all over the Western world, with matching signage, symbols, names, weapons, flags, strategies, chants, intimidation techniques, violent professional agitators, and so on.

So why not deal with it accordingly? How much longer will this behavior be tolerated?

If youre interested in more discussion on the topic, here is my call in to Freedomain Radio, together with my friend:

And here is a recorded conversation with another friend regarding the event, including some footage that he mixed in:

This post was written by Nima Mahdjour.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Nima is an entrepreneur and Bitcoin advocate who writes about economics and freedom. He was born and raised in Berlin and received his Master's degree in the US in 2004. He co-founded an auction software company in San Francisco and successfully sold it in 2015. (Twitter: @economicsjunkie)

Like Loading...

More here:
What I Saw at the Anti-Milo, UC Berkeley Riots! - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

Libertarian Party Gets Win For Fair Debates Being Libertarian Currently, the CPD requires a candidate to have 15% approval rating from five national polls. During the last election, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was close to reaching the benchmark but was shy by 3 percentage points. Furthermore, candidates ...

More here:
Libertarian Party Gets Win For Fair Debates - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian (satire)

A Warning From A Spanish Libertarian Being Libertarian (satire) On January 22nd 2017, I woke up early to catch up with some work. As I turned my computer on, I saw a Facebook post shared by a friend. It was a video showing a group of masked men and women beating a 20-year-old girl to a pulp. What was going on ...

Originally posted here:
A Warning From A Spanish Libertarian - Being Libertarian (satire)