A fundamental concept is that for something to be consumed it must first be produced. A corollary is that if we want to have more to consume, we must produce more. Yet Andrew Yang admits (actually, touts) that his UBI (universal basic income) will allow some to stay home instead of being productive members of the workforce. The result: less is produced, thus there is less to consume. How is that going to make our lives better?
Andrew Yang says UBI can empower women to leave ‘exploitative’ jobs, relationships
Of course some really like the idea, like the hosts of The View:
Yang faced questions about his UBI proposal during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, where hosts appreciated the idea that stay-at-home or single mothers could essentially get paid for the work they perform.
Ok, but here’s a significant concern: Why should the public pay for them to be a stay-at-home or single parent? Isn’t it their own responsibility to maintain their home and children? After all, if it is their choice to have children then why should they be my responsibility to raise? If they hired a maid to raise their children instead, should we all pay for that, too? Where would it end?
The Declaration of Independence proclaims the right to “…Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…”. But the founders considered these inalienable, or natural, rights; as such they exist independent of government or society. Governments are instituted to secure these rights against the trespass of others, not to fulfill them. You must sustain your own life; you must exercise your own liberty; and you must provide for your own happiness. To assert that the fulfillment of these rights are the responsibility of government or society is ludicrous – as is the idea of a UBI.