Dear FW'ers:
Well, my question seems to have spurred a number
of lurkers into the open and I must say that I have been delightfully reading
your answers - though I have the feeling that we have not yet answered the
question. To that end, let me quote the economist Theobald who maintains
that a Basic Income should be a "Right"
Quote:
It is therefore essential that the areas of
agreement and disagreement among those supporting direct payments to the poor
should be sharply differentiated. The first area of agreement is that the
initial step on the way to eliminate poverty is to supply money rather than
moral uplift, cultural refinements, extended education, retraining programs or
make-work jobs. In addition, it is agreed that the prime criterion for the
distribution of funds should be the poverty of the individual rather than
whether Congress is willing to pass special legislation supporting him ... There
is another area of agreement which is crucial. It is seen as vital that
funds should be provided as an absolute right.
Thomas
This is pretty radical. The concept of a
"right" is an acknowledgment of the principle of Universality.
So my second question is - Should every human being be entitled to some share of
the resources of the planet as a Right? To broaden the question in
nationalistic terms, should every nation be required to give some portion of
wealth of that nation to each individual as a right due to existence? This
has been answered by another thinker Jon N. Torgerson in this
quote.
Quote:
"how could they who produced nothing claim
a share of the product as a right?" His host responded that they were
co-inheritors or the "achievements of the race, the machinery of
society" and so equally entitled to their share of its
benefits.
