In favor of the Universal Basic Income

     Social programs are all the rage with the leftist. They say these things are for people, because life is what happens and you cannot account for most things that come up, like injury for instance. While their argument there is sound, they don’t factor human nature into it and these programs actually hurt those with the greatest needs for them, whilst allowing for parasitic waste of flesh and oxygen to suck from the system and to breed their maleficent genetics into the world destroying the American Ecosystem.

     An ecosystem is a system filled with many different species, all of which should, ideally, live in a harmonious environment among one another, where everything adds, rather than detracts from the system. The ocean is one such ecosystem, where species cohabitate among one another, with a hierarchical structure of predator, prey, producers, consumers and decomposers. These complex systems are dependent on producers to create the vertebrae that keeps the system afloat. Humans also follow these patterns as well and we can break down how each establishes itself into our country. Producers are the job creators, movers and shakers of this world. A producer need not be a businessman, since the arts are also producers, but primarily, businessmen and woman will be the glue that holds the economy together. Consumers are exactly what one would expect, they consume. In biology, consumers are organisms that create no food of their own, much like the general populace, they’re entire being is dependent on being able to get food from the producers.

     Now, we should, in capitalistic society, be based on mutualism, in which relationships are formed with benefit. The role between job provider and employee for example, is one such form of mutualism. Commensalism is where one organism benefits and the other isn’t harmed, exhibited by the roles of parents with their children. The other is parasitic, where the parasite benefits at the expense of the host, but doesn’t kill it, since a non-living organism wouldn’t be beneficial to the parasite, exhibited by government dependents and government themselves, ironically, forming an exclusive form of mutualism, the benefits both, but no one else within the ecosystem.

     Human beings are considered a complex system, albeit, we’re not really that complex to understand. Humans fall into all different sets of people, but one look to our brethren in the wild and we’re not really that different from the animals we claim to have dominion over. Like an ecosystem, we’re filled with producers and consumers ourselves that fall into other subcategories as well, such as altruist acting, cheats, reciprocators and other types of beings you can read about in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

     What we’re going to look at here just those that would come about in regards to social programs as they currently are. Cheats from a selfish gene point of view are animals that benefit in a commensalism nature. To borrow directly, but not verbatim, from the book, some apes groom each other to remove parasitic animals that would otherwise harm the host, even if it doesn’t kill it. Cheats will benefit from this by getting themselves groomed, but not returning the favor, thus the commensalism aspect of the relationship, where one organism benefits, but the other isn’t harm, maybe just it just hurt feelings. When someone doesn’t pay their taxes, they’re referred to as a cheat, because this is the exact type of relationship I am discussing. One of the arguments against welfare is steeped in exactly this type of reasoning and it isn’t erroneous. Welfare leaves rooms for cheats to benefit. The social programs we currently have, almost never actually benefit those who need them most and while welfare fraud is at a very low frequency, that hasn’t stopped some people from being cheats, even if it is rarity in regards to welfare benefits, let’s take a closer look at human nature and that is the perception department.

     The golden ratio deals with humans forms of attractiveness, the higher you are in this ratio, the more symmetrical you are and the more beautiful you are perceived as. You are also viewed as having good genetics and there is a lot of privilege that comes with such beauty. To borrow from Michio Kaku, if you go to the doctors and they ask you what’s wrong, you’re registering good genetics. Humans gauge people on these looks every day and it is partially how we interact with one another for everything from sex to work and beyond. More attractive people are often deemed smarter than their less attractive counterparts, which can negatively impact intelligence quotient scores and perhaps erroneously inflate them as well.

     Currently we don’t have a database that deals with the number of highly attractive people there are in the world, just studies showcasing beautiful privilege, regardless of skin color, this will hold concurrent across races. In other words, subjectivity in regards to race would have little bearing in such. I bring this up because I want to discuss one welfare program, called disability, which is where this will be a huge hurdle for people to clear, when they’re high up on the golden ratio. Just because you’re born attractive, does not mean you cannot have something bad happen to you and this factor comes into play when they go to approve you for disability, seeing attractive people as abled bodies. Often times these people that need it the most will be turned away, while inferior genetics easily get on and for very easy things, such as depression or gender dysmorphia, because them being less attractive makes their plight seem more believable, even when others, with innumerable amount of evidence proving their disability, cannot. Whilst anecdotal, I’ve had friends who were rejected for this very reason, while living in a town where lazy people are ushered into the program and then working the second they get their lavish back pay. A video in regards to this has cropped up on Youtube some years ago and can be found very easy.

     While we can never know the true extent of fraud that goes on in regards to these programs, we can prove that faulty human nature will err by way of sheer incompetence making the decisions, time and time again. So how can we fix the system and make the world a better place, while seeing both sides of the coin? We need to look at the Universal Basic Income. I know it is a very un-libertarian idea, but it makes sense from all angles, including fiscally conservative. First, studies have shown that when a populace is giving a UBI, more people become entrepreneurs, which creates more producers, making the backbone of our ecosystem stronger. Why is this? Well, some people are trepid and unable to take risk without a safety net. While I cannot have sympathy for these types, I can understand they’re different from me in that regard. The other factor in this, is it is fair to those born with good genetics, who may land on times of hardships and not just subsides genetics that wouldn’t otherwise breed in a Darwinian society. If we look to the number of government programs we spend on each year, the amount is quite costly, without factoring in the lack of yearly revenue from companies missing out on employable people. A UBI would almost certainly be cheaper in the long run and give a bigger boost to the economy than anything that has come before it. Furthermore, a UBI can be given to everyone, including the affluent, without discrimination. It levels the playing field between all types of Americans, reduces the stigma for those who truly need the help and even alleviates the strain on neurotic types that need stability to produce, like with Lazlo’s hierarchy of needs. The benefits, both macro and micro are too many to count and ultimately lead to a more productive society.

     The economy is an ecosystem, as with any ecosystem, is has it rules and all different types of organism, each with their own set of rules. The rules that govern humans do not work for social programs of most types, as they might be in direct violation of an individual’s personality or a person genetics might impede them form gaining such. The only way to fix this is to look at the Universal Basic Income as a way to impede human nature from harming innocents and causing a rift between leftist and conservatives alike.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.