Category: Social Commentary

The Land of Free(ish)

jpsnow

The latest Human Freedom Index results are out. Published by the Cato Institute and the Fraser Institute, this index compares countries across dimensions of personal and economic freedom, now updated through 2021 based on the latest data. Those of us in the US often describe ourselves as the freest country in the world, but we’re not. We’re actually 17th, and down noticeably from a decade ago. We’re still a very free country, but for all our competitiveness, we’re no longer the leader. Based on recent laws and policies, the outlook isn’t positive once the latest two years of data are available.

Source: The Human Freedom Index 2023, by the Cato Institute and the Fraser Institute

It’s Not All Bad

jpsnow

Basic Income Would Solve A Lot

jpsnow

Growing arguments for a guaranteed basic income wouldn’t have stood a chance against the dominant market economics mindset I was trained on in the early 90’s. I’ve been surprised in recent years to see that the likes of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and even Charles Murray each put forth arguments for some form of income floor. There’s a strong case for public finance efficiency gains compared to our current bureaucratic welfare state – both for the government administrators and the individual recipients. Another argument I find especially compelling is that automation and scale are driving the marginal product of labor below the level needed to sustain basic human needs. The most timely argument relevant to our country’s current focus on racial justice is that an income guarantee could effect real and immediate progress for the past property right violations incurred by any and all affected groups. Moreover, such a solution focuses on a common future aspiration rather than debating and weighting any particular historical cause and stakeholder group. This and other arguments are summarized well in The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income:

A Basic Income Guarantee might be required on libertarian grounds as reparation for past injustice.

One of libertarianism’s most distinctive commitments is its belief in the near‐​inviolability of private property rights. But it does not follow from this commitment that the existing distribution of property rights ought to be regarded as inviolable, because the existing distribution is in many ways the product of past acts of uncompensated theft and violence.

Matt Zwolinsky, The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income, 12/5/2013, Libertarianism.org

As we discern our future in a time of intense debate about racial inequality and fast changing labor economics, it’s promising to see how the economic thinkers who argued for the benefits of free markets also provide foundational arguments for reconciling the gaps that remain.

Shall We Step Outside (The Echo Chamber)?

jpsnow

The big issues right in front of us right now have been making me want to take action. What action to take hasn’t been as clear, and so I’ve found myself reading and reflecting a lot this summer, in search of a direction. A common theme in the “how-to” of anti-racism has been a suggestion to start by listening and discussing, first steps that seemed far too passive to me at first but which have proven more clarifying and useful than I originally expected. At home and at work, I’ve benefited from deeper discussions about racism. I’m apparently not alone. In the past few days, I’m seeing more dialogue opening up. From what I can tell, social media is still an echo chamber of ranting and digging in on the same repeated points. In more thoughtful media and in actual person-to-person conversations, I’m seeing a change. People are starting to talk about how to have a constructive dialogue. In course, they’re realizing we have more common ground than many of us realized. A good example is this recent op-ed in USA Today: Americans appear to be deeply divided. But we found a different story traveling the U.S.  I’m also seeing articles about how to go about having a constructive dialogue, such as How to (Actually) Change Someone’s Mind in HBR. I’m only through the intro so far for A House Divided: Engaging the Issues through the Politics of Compassion, but it’s already reinforcing that we need to seek out shared aspirations, such as helping each other, and then to look for initial axioms we can agree on and build upon together. Perhaps finding the right actions to take really is as simple as deciding together, in actual person-to-person dialogue, what really matters.