A merely national ‘universal’ basic income and global justice

In this article, I raise a justice problem for universal basic income (UBI) if implemented in one or few nations, but not globally. objection from the perspective of someone who is ultimately sympathetic to UBI, even merely national one. My argument specifically problematizes unconditionality UBI and unprecedented benefits those receive it. advocates themselves often draw attention order justify greater moral appeal over other schemes. Thus, my has particular relevance UBI. argue that, response raise, should be accompanied by compensation non-UBI-recipients contribute what will call UBI's ‘effectiveness’. Section I, explain mean II, develop exploitation that faces. III, scheme non-recipient contributors. IV, clarify scope argument, V, discuss how relates potential global A paid irrespective willingness work, wealth, sources income, personal circumstances. If pitched at sufficiently high level, it realizes number goods its recipients: frees them most forms economic insecurity without conditions such as work requirement,1 affords so-called ‘real freedom’, freedom choose way recipients want live,2 allows exit unattractive jobs job market altogether.3 these recipient, say effective. next section, unjust made more effective exploitative labour do thus cannot opt out their jobs, lack live they want, are subject insecurity. currently presented radical yet feasible solution pressing political social problems, poverty,4 demeaning nature conditional welfare schemes,5 costly overly bureaucratic welfare-state regulations,6 drive ever growth resulting environmental destruction,7 fact much necessary care financially rewarded,8 workers increasingly being replaced robots computers.9 For purpose, two things especially significant. Firstly, frequently non-utopian proposal an perspective, could some countries now near future.10 Secondly, contrast, would require major political, economic, changes worldwide. This rather utopian, though perhaps ‘no longer mere pipe dream’.11 insofar intended issues our time politically future, only and, likely, relatively wealthy countries.12 raises question impacted turn, affect current unequal und order. The section version already well-known free-rider concerned with non-nationals non-residents, benefit literature pays surprisingly little injustices between different nations might amplify. fact, discussions unfairness within take place almost exclusively on intra-national level.13 original inspired Rawls's claim Malibu surfers entitled public funds.14 (in)famous surfer society either via socially beneficial ways, but, instead, spends all his surfing. While potentially poses government schemes founded cooperation citizens, particularly here explicitly upon cooperate, example seeking employment. see feature, bug.15 Nonetheless, case surfer, seems clash ‘a widely accepted notion justice: unfair able bodied people off others’.16 sometimes phrased terms unfairness, parasitism, since lives others (supposedly) adequate services perform. underlying intuition person's lifestyle subsidized persons there no reciprocity subsidy, first person reciprocate. There straightforward problem. Take Lazy (the surfer) Crazy, works hard whose taxes help fund spend Crazy reasonably complain about this, since, he finds appealing than own, give up become himself. After all, him real way. does job, then because chooses life higher income—in which both chose, working well both. exploiting can withdraw afforded same security choosing Lazy. find persuasive.17 Things different, however, Crazy's position (financially adequately supported) (I'll ‘Exploited’) neither citizen nor resident18 country Given globalized world we in, Exploited perform Crazy. Such subsidy lifestyles Exploited's cheaper strong bargaining demand pay better conditions. have altogether. someone's another suffers regard subsidies reciprocity. debate fairness concern non-contributors, receiving benefits. less contribute, nationality country.19 latter, me, constitutes Let me spell detail. excludes certain recipients, effectiveness country. They make contribution subsidizing cheap labour, increases relative value makes products affordable everyone received impacts living afford, opportunities open them, attractive (or reduce hours), whether promises, extent so. These be, sense, dissimilar existing citizens developed inequalities, poor conditions, low developing where forced meet needs. However, exists requirement countries, whereas enjoying It reasonable assume contributors were subsistence, also enjoyed need offered produced cheaply expensive. likely (at least part) disappear, recipients. prime exploitation, subsidizes many individuals unlikely put out, sweatshop labour.20 uncontroversial exploitation.21 bad sweatshops (part of) reason why profitable owners mode production end-consumers. Even after introduction sweatshops), may willing manufacture type formerly sweatshops, presumably stronger financial incentives Now, imagine factory builds surf equipment due her colleagues, significantly Lazy's fellow enjoy surfboard pay. extreme case, afford Exploited. Without supply equipment, possible pure (part-time) employment equipment. wants Exploited, who, unlike option specific needs long she render need, so goes further purchasing power otherwise would. Part stems still leaves elsewhere. One respond empirical assumption dry prices questionable. advantages removes disincentives low-paid precarious work; misjudged tax systems leave effectively impose incomes. People top subsistence wage return. cheaper. think intrinsically rewarding meaningful cheaper, occupations having earn living. plausible subsistence-level substantial amount sweatshop-type unless and/or improved (and qualify labour). main grants decline escape ‘forced labor participation’ altogether.22 What, any, poorly paid, dangerous involving repetitive coercion, health risks? expensive if, globally, UBI.23 standards high-income subsisting fixed form reintroduce necessity work. providing allowing wish depends measure exploitative) above notwithstanding, tool combat injustice nation. vulnerable positions employers, corporations, loan sharks, exploit. right level financed way, serve society, therefore premature dismiss parallel demonstrates defenders raised previous section: namely, ethical harmful climate impact Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). Since 1982 US state Alaska annual dividend—$1,114 2021—to residents. PFD represents largest prolonged period (albeit level). Moreover, financing model, taxing natural resource appropriation, advocates, models, VAT, disproportionately incomes.24 Steve Winter, argues ‘PFD participating complicit grave wrongdoing connection oil industry, practice responsible 150,000 deaths per annum’.25 Winter's is, short, industry involves intrinsic wrongs, Alaskan wrongs. complicity itself wrongful. Winter ‘devastating’ model.26 He proposes ‘to combine payments sufficient funding stop killings’.27 industry28 kill anyone directly, costs indirect effects disease, weather events, foreseeable warming, preventive remedial measures taken remove object model. model components: ‘Funding derived appropriation provide monies prevent occur change’.29 latter change, globally minor source oil. mitigate ‘those negative (we focusing unjustifiable deaths) attributed question’30—meaning, industry. calculates averting 405 killings year ‘discharge Alaskans’ “fair share” responsibility’ wrongful killings.31 emphasizes move applicable models based extraction.32 not, generalize challenges general behind idea arrangements stringent obligations compensate victims. principle limited (more) exploitation. difference props now, show reply discussed modified suggestion calls ‘avert-funding’. phrase own compensation, To understand proposal, let us look four salient points comparison problems section. stresses ‘Alaskans guilty of’ industry.33 Mere wrong severe committing itself. point important, avert-funding usually wrongs agent herself commits. murder you, plausibly donating money buy medicine saves else's life. Compensation appropriate am from, perpetrator. perpetrator's primary duty refrain wrongdoing, offset avert harm suggests ‘equivalent veniality wearing clothing’.34 quite contentious claim, killing commonly considered worse various Presumably, victims, illustrating structure responsibility. agents actively harming themselves, complicit. Importantly, affluent buying products, making would, important sense recipients’ had additional dimension. As suggested foreign cover functions. covered abroad, labour. subsistence. thinks benefiting actions ethically relevant sense. ‘[t]he wrongfulness exposed depend agency’.35 By bring draws agency benefiting. Wrongful agency, instance, obtains consumer choices when knowingly under structures, enhanced several complicated concerning voluntariness. you morally something in—for your transfers bank account every month not.36 address brought opportunity PFD.37 scheme, opting materially any off. (already privileged) denied Finally, opted necessitate reintroduction secure indigent. unsatisfied emphasize coverage UBI.38 Thirdly, maintains ‘Oil itself’, greenhouse gas, causes deaths, ‘is normal component industry’.39 people, early workplace accidents, fairly abnormal, impacts, long-term consequences workers, lost family friends shifts, opportunities, on, inextricable features unintended by-product, essential profit margins worrying it, victims extraction side-effect, people. hinge intuition. Fourthly, PFD, innocuous. cases (of change exploitation) redistribution revenues die private corporation pocketed revenue. Analogously, consumers workers’ untouched, immediate here. stringency duties have. off, middle ground between, hand, opposing grounds leaving unaddressed. save taking, presents clear this: lives. very difficult quantify exploited effective, greatly circumstances contributors, overall impossible determine concrete mechanism must protect Furthermore, killed alive.40 addition, random, know suffer (though groups regions affected others), owed something, somewhere, approximately identify proposed therefore, avert-funding, aims benefit. fair-trade practices legally mandatory resources allocated enforce standards.41 We targeted manufacturing crucial introduced single factories performed. direct worked set years unable Another relax immigration restrictions becomes easier residents funds journey settle in. This, course, happen once, each successive generation replacing retired migrated. are, admittedly, application here, chains complex cross border. wonder conception contributes include produce food unpaid reproductive do. Maybe best start clearly extend gradually, according understanding chains.42 note poverty inequality—as instance focus Thomas Pogge's Global Resource Dividend43—but Not among world's poorest. prospect compensate, structures regardless believe reveal entirely new amplifies pre-existing injustices. try reset (international) relationships non-exploitative. exactly role argument.44 At least, functions prod central prospects drawbacks powerful, persuasive arguments ones. matter qua entitlement commons,45 justice.46 significant reasons adopting discussion consider interact structures. provides compensating workers. privileged Westerners How intensified, ways distributing (some obtained unfairly). Those advocate offers concomitant schemes, provision, participation provide, special goods. pointed beginning albeit overlapping, An requirement, freedom, preferred (many all) realize goods, then, available expense exacerbate obtain same—for example, lower power. Rather, exceeding provided some, part entirely. nation distributes (partly) ill-gotten gains through