Why UBI involves both econ and philosophy, and how to make that dangerous.

Getting people to support UBI is like herding cats. It’s easier if you get your philosophy buttoned up.

When I launched my Substack it was with a humdinger of a piece critiquing a fictional anti-UBI antagonist — what I’d imagined a scathing admission from them might sound like if on truth serum.

It came all at once in a furious, cathartic explosion, the kind that can only come from anger over having lived the problem.

I put it up on Reddit and it caused a mini-stir. Lots of “amen, sister,” but also some sort of creepy appeals to join what sounded like an underground activist group. The private message implied, “You articulate the problem extremely well, I hope you realize the only way forward is going to be force. Are you in?”

I quickly made sure they understood that I abhor violence on aesthetic and moral grounds, and every other ground pretty much. They argued with me a little, seemed a bit disgusted with my idealistic pacifism, and when it was clear I wouldn’t budge, they vanished. Good riddance.

But I still bask in the compliment these few years later. (If you wanna read it, just ask. I’ll send you a link.)

I put the piece on Substack and it quickly got a few likes. A gentleman from the UK subscribed to my fledgling blog with a “founding amount” that actually saved my life by the skin of my tits that month, along with some encouraging words.

Something like, “I think we’re aligned and you’re good at this, this is needed, I want to do my small part in helping those who are trying to help the world, so keep going.”

The blessing of helping others get their sea legs and find their voice is wonderful. I look forward to doing that someday. Generously.

Because we live in a mostly indifferent world that seems designed to silence those who see things differently and have the guts and ability to say it out loud.

Too often “guts” is synonymous with having a way to do it without getting fired from work or shunned by your support system. Certainly the case with me.

And in school they make it so stressful and transactional it’s nearly impossible to get a grip on what matters and where your talents can increase well-being and reduce suffering.

Or what I call IWRS, because it’s a mouthful and I have to say it a lot. IWRS is my MO, and I arrive at it without religion, from first principle. Axioms that self-evidently hold up and lead geometrically to IWRS. At least for me.

It’s not a universal truth, it’s just the case with myself and others wired with the kind of empathy and theory of mind that leads to the emotional valence of pain from regarding the suffering of others. IWRS in this context is normative.

As such, the one post of mine that I’d be most delighted for you to take seriously and challenge me on is: IWRS: The floor for a science-backed secular morality, and why we must operationalize it now.

Anyway, soon after my generous mentor and benefactor helped me out, I quickly drilled deeper into the problem, intent to not let him or myself down. I never actually left the topic, I just went so deep that it stopped feeling like the topic.

What’s free will got to do with UBI? 🤔

The reason I spent so much time on the concept of free will in subsequent articles and research is because the UBI topic hits a wall. Namely, there are only two places for opponents of UBI to go once the math proves that it’s entirely feasible to do without harming anyone or holding back innovation. (Thanks a million to the singular hero of UBI research Scott Santens for supplying all the data needed to show beyond a doubt that UBI is economically feasible.)

1. Cold but Honest

Social Darwinism leaning; admitting they simply don’t care for human life intrinsically, but only on the basis of each life’s impact on a free market. The stance is: if it leeches and gives nothing back, then that life is a net loss and has no value. It’s intuited as evil, or perhaps aesthetically unpleasant to redistribute ANYTHING that could instead incentivize and reward those who can benefit humanity either by contributing or at least by being self-sufficient. (Which almost always means contributing, since survival requires barter which requires value, or so it goes.)

2. Incoherent Moral Appeal

Pushing the belief of the just-world fallacy. Namely that it’s possible to be morally deserving of basics, safety, status, power, and luxury, and that good things generally happen to good people and good behaviors. Bad things happen to bad people and bad behaviors. Beyond incentive and deterrent, this group intuits the presence of a free-floating basis for deservedness — the idea that people can morally deserve to suffer ghastly punishment and death, or enjoy soaring entitlement rivaling Olympus, all based on what they choose to do.

This attitude can come from religion easily, no point going into that. Divine inspiration isn’t transferrable or auditable. Any claim they make, no matter how incoherent, is fair game within their framework, and in my experience, “in their framework” is where they will remain, no matter how hard you try to pry them loose.

There’s a better use of my time: the intriguing and potentially winnable cohort that is entirely secular and even atheistic — Rand being a classic example. This group insists and intuits the realness of a basic moral deservedness above and beyond merely consequentialist concerns.

I quickly realized the trick that was afoot here and how vulnerable to assault it might be, in theory. Moral deservedness without some appeal to religion seems abruptly nonsensical for this simple reason: whatever happens is either causal or random. There can be no justification for ultimate moral responsibility in either case. Thus, suffering and well-being can’t be morally deserved or not deserved.

This means that if we dole out suffering and well-being unevenly, when we have the power to do otherwise, it’s either because of the pragmatic utility OR aesthetic preference. It can’t be due to anything beyond that. Nobody can actually “morally deserve” anything.

And this takes us back into category one territory: Cold but Honest, Social Darwinism and/or a specific intuition about where the value of a human life comes from.

Secular people who believe in letting people suffer on any other grounds are full of crap. “They deserve it because they just do,” is really not an answer.

Yet, these folks get by on handwaving and deflection; they get to avoid having to admit to self and others that they are really in category one.

Or worse, they have to admit that they are holding incoherent ideas that are as rationally baseless as a theist’s, but minus the catch-all appeal to divine revelation.

Which, if you think about it, is intellectually far worse than harboring a theistic basis for moral deservedness, which I can’t help but see as forgivable, considering the longstanding function of religion in human society.)

Why don’t they want to admit they are in category one, such that they have to appeal to deservedness-based moral responsibility?

I find that to be an incredibly attractive question.

And a great place to focus my energy, because forcing that group to come to terms with the incurrence of desert-based thinking absent religion, and by extension their real motivations is logically assured to yield fruit.

The way I figure it, either 1) they see their own cognitive dissonance and are horrified by it and come over to my side, or 2) they can no longer hide their true nature, they move over to a more cold but honest Social Darwinist position, and at least then we can negotiate a solution from a place of honesty, instead of endless deflection.

I suppose option three could be adopting Compatibilism. It’s unlikely they’ll grasp what that position entails, so the easy option for now is to just stick with the basic arguments against free will moral desert and you’re bound to leave a massive impression.

For the more cerebral set, see my controversial “The Ugly Intuition,” for a novel look into Dennett’s dangerous and ill-conceived semantics around moral responsibility and deservedness. Additionally, check out my: “Do you only have yourself to blame?” as a companion piece with teeth.