I suppose I qualify as a liberal for purposes of this question.
If you’re asking whether I’d support this as a political platform, my answer is mostly no. If you’re asking whether I’d support this as a way for the world to be, my answer is mostly yes.
To say that perhaps more clearly... While I don’t think a guaranteed minimum income addresses all problems related to poverty (as sixes_and_sevens points out below), I do think there are a number of poverty-related problems that we currently solve in ways far less sensible than a guaranteed minimum income. If I could wave my magic wand and replace the former with the latter in a politically sustainable way, I probably would. (I haven’t looked into this at all carefully and would have to think much harder about the details if I actually had such a wand, but I’m sympathetic to the strategy.)
OTOH, if I don’t have a wand, but rather have to work through political mechanisms to implement such a policy change, I doubt I support it… it doesn’t seem like a viable political move in my country.
I think it’s good to separate out the two problems.
What state do you prefer? What state does it make sense to work to support, given political viability?
Honestly signaling what you prefer allows the possibility of people seeing that you prefer it too. Political viability for what you’d prefer can be increased by signaling that you prefer it.
For many of the programs we are currently implementing to support poor people, I would prefer a guaranteed minimum income to those programs. If the costs of working towards such a state were not greater than the benefits, I would endorse working towards such a state.
I suppose I qualify as a liberal for purposes of this question.
If you’re asking whether I’d support this as a political platform, my answer is mostly no.
If you’re asking whether I’d support this as a way for the world to be, my answer is mostly yes.
To say that perhaps more clearly...
While I don’t think a guaranteed minimum income addresses all problems related to poverty (as sixes_and_sevens points out below), I do think there are a number of poverty-related problems that we currently solve in ways far less sensible than a guaranteed minimum income. If I could wave my magic wand and replace the former with the latter in a politically sustainable way, I probably would. (I haven’t looked into this at all carefully and would have to think much harder about the details if I actually had such a wand, but I’m sympathetic to the strategy.)
OTOH, if I don’t have a wand, but rather have to work through political mechanisms to implement such a policy change, I doubt I support it… it doesn’t seem like a viable political move in my country.
I think it’s good to separate out the two problems.
What state do you prefer? What state does it make sense to work to support, given political viability?
Honestly signaling what you prefer allows the possibility of people seeing that you prefer it too. Political viability for what you’d prefer can be increased by signaling that you prefer it.
I thought I’d answered that?
For many of the programs we are currently implementing to support poor people, I would prefer a guaranteed minimum income to those programs. If the costs of working towards such a state were not greater than the benefits, I would endorse working towards such a state.