On the other hand, the aforementioned global financial crisis also flowed to Poland, mainly in 2009, through globalized financial markets, trade and financial links. Persamaan trasisitor c8050. Hayek never explained his support for UBS outright. However, it's unquestionable that he firmly supported UBS. The closest we come to an explanation is a quote from 'The Public Sector and the Private Sector' in 'Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 3: The Political Order of a Free People': The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born. But why is UBI a necessity? How did Hayek arrive at the above conclusion? Libertarianism.org has a pretty detailed essay by Matt Zwolinski (who is a Philosophy professor and a left-wing Libertarian popular on Bleeding Heart Libertarians resource) asking himself the same question you did: '?' He attempts to reconstruct the reasoning based on other points made by Hayek elsewhere in his writings. The essay is pretty long and I recommend reading it in detail, but I will attempt to distill the main salient points. In first part of the essay, he covers the libertarian case for why UBI is needed/desirable from libertarian standpoint: •. ![]() Political freedom mean freedom from coercion by the arbitrary will of others. (See his Constitution of Liberty, p. 58) • To be free, in contrast, is to be able to act according to one’s own decisions and plans, without having to seek the approval of any higher authority (CL p. 59) • In employer-employee relationship, there's a possibility that employer will place un-freedom restrictions on employee. • On one hand, as the employer does not possess monopoly on force that government does, in theory, free markets mitigate that risk; since an employee who does not like employer's rules is free to quit and find another job. • On the other hand, there is a risk of imbalance of power in that relationship, which an employer may leverage into excercising undue power over employee. Zwolinski himself does not elaborate on why such an imbalance can exist, but it's easy to find out scenarios that provide it. The job market overall may be tight (labor supply greatly outweight labor demand). Even barring that, an employee is likely to need the job more than employer needs the employee for a variety of factors; for example the fact that loss of wages constitute far more of a percentage loss of employee's needs than loss of his labor being a fraction of loss of employer's needs. • As such, we are forced to conclude that some of the restrictions of freedom of employee is NOT the product of workers’ free choice, but rather something imposed on workers against their will by those who wield power over them. • Zwolinsky thus concludes: Cases such as these point the way to a freedom-based case for a Basic Income Guarantee, of the sort that Hayek might very well have had in mind. A basic income gives people an option – to exit the labor market, to relocate to a more competitive market, to invest in training, to take an entrepreneurial risk, and so on.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |