ARGUMENTACE PRO
PŘIJETÍ UNIVERZÁLNÍHO
GARANTOVANÉHO PŘÍJMU (UBI)
Matěj Nykl
UBI
• 2 odlišná pojetí
• Neoliberální
• Omezení státních intervencí do trhu (umělá zaměstnanost, minimální mzda)
• Úspora při zrušení testovaných dávek
• Zaručení životního minima všem členům společnosti
• Welfare pojetí
• Zdůraznění redistribuce bohatství
• Zvýhodnění slabších jedinců ve společnosti
• Tlak na zvyšování mezd a humanizaci špatných pracovních pozic
Biomoc
• Michel Foucault
• Anatomo-politika je zaměřena na kontrolu života lidského těla a zvýšení jeho výkonu pomocí disciplinární technologie, zatímco biopolitika reguluje život národa vcelku, její délku, kvalitu, porodnost atd.
• Principy:
• - aplikace diverzifikovaných vědních oborů a potlačování alternativních způsobů uvažování
- chápání zdraví a demografických témat jakožto veřejného problému - normativní charakter uplatňovaného systému poznatků a konstrukce normality
- administrativa a shromažďování dat
- disciplinace obyvatelstva s využitím norem.
Otázky
• Které vědní obory ta či ona verze univerzálního příjmu aktivuje, resp. činí zbytečnými?
• Jaký je vztah argumentace o prospěšnosti univerzálního příjmu vztažena k veřejnému zdraví,
porodnosti (rodině) nebo partnerství?
• K jaké normalitě (jednotlivce, společnosti) je UP
vztahován?
Van Parijs, Philippe. "Basic income: a simple and powerful idea for the twenty-first century." Politics &
Society 32.1 (2004): 7-39.
•
by education, training, or active job search; by home care for infant children or frail elderly people; or by regular voluntary work in a recognised association.
•
The operational criterion may be, for non-citizens, a minimum length of past residence, or it may simply be provided by the conditions that currently define residence for tax purposes, or some combination of both.
•
…it is therefore obvious that prison inmates should lose the benefit of their basic income for the duration of their imprisonment.
•
…paid on a strictly individual basis. Not only in the sense that each
individual member of the community is a recipient but also in the
sense that how much (s)he receives is independent of what type of
household (s)he belongs to.
•
…the relatively rich should contribute more to its funding than the relatively poor.
•
Secondly, there is nothing humiliating about benefits given to all as a matter of citizenship. From the standpoint of the poor, this may count as an advantage in itself, because of the lesser stigma associated with a universal basic income.
•
The other aspect of the unemployment trap generated by means- tested guaranteed minimum schemes is the one most commonly
stressed by economists. It consists in the lack of a significant positive income differential between no work and low-paid work
•
…a universal benefit need not be a single benefit
•
By contrast, a basic income is paid as a matter of right—and not
under false pretences—to homemakers, students, break-takers, and permanent tramps.
•
Not legislators or bureaucrats but the individual workers who can be
relied upon to know far more than what is known “at the top” about
the countless facets of the job they do or consider taking. They have
the knowledge that would enable them to be discriminating but not
always the power to do so, especially if they have poorly valued skills
or limited mobility.
Zwolinski, M. (2019). A Hayekian case for free markets and a basic income. The Future of Work, Technology, and Basic Income, edited by Michael Cholbi and
Michael Weber (Routledge, 2019).
• Two elements in Hayek’s thought – his belief in freedom as a condition of not being subject to the arbitrary will of another, and his well-known skepticism regarding the degree of particular knowledge available to government
planners – push in favor of something very close to a universal basic income.
• Hayek’s persistent insistence that social welfare payments be limited to those who are genuinely unable to support themselves through work.
• I do not question any individual’s right voluntarily to withdraw from civilisation.
But what ‘entitlements’ do such persons have? Are we to subsidise their
hermitages? There cannot be any entitlement to be exempted from the rules on which civilisation rests. We may be able to assist the weak and disabled, the very young and old, but only if the sane and adult submit to the
impersonal discipline which gives us means to do so.
• …in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.
• As an example of the sort of “impersonal discipline” he had in mind, Hayek elsewhere suggested that “some voluntary service on military lines might well be the best form to provide the certainty of an opportunity for work and a
minimum income for all.
• According to this principle, those who seek to benefit from the productive activities of society have a moral obligation to make some reciprocal
contribution to society. There is no right to “free ride” on the productive activities of others, at least when one is capable of making a productive contribution oneself.
• A market economy coordinates knowledge through means of price signals that indicate to buyers and sellers the relative supply of and demand for the
various resources they use.
• In essence, Hayek’s point is that government agents (or anybody else
charged with making decisions about large, complex systems) are inevitably going to face a serious problem in obtaining knowledge of all the particular circumstances that would be relevant to determining how to effectively allocate resources.
•
And in order to provide an effective check against domestic coercion, the income should probably be paid to individuals, rather than to
heads-of-household.
•
Markets are not only not inherently inhospitable to republican
freedom; they are, in fact, often one of the most effective guarantors of that freedom. Taking that exit option is not always easy, but in
many cases it is sufficient to protect the freedom of all that the option exists and that some people take it.
•
For government is, after all, the only institution within society to claim
and generally possess an effective monopoly on the use of force. And
this monopoly on force is often used to establish and maintain other
monopolies: on roads, on the delivery of regular mail, on the creation
and enforcement of criminal law, and so on . Because individuals who
value these services have nowhere else to go, they are often left with
no practical alternative to complying with the government’s demands.
• When that with which individuals have to comply is no longer “the law” but some bureaucrat behind a desk, or some officer behind a badge, with the practically unchecked power to apply the law in whatever way he or she sees fit, then individuals are no longer fully free.
• Competition protects choice and limits coercion; monopoly inhibits choice and makes coercion more likely. And government is the ultimate monopolist.
• A system of redistribution aimed at eliminating coercion will not have the aim of reducing suffering as such, but only a certain sort of suffering caused by the subjection of one individual to the will of another.
• Taxation is theft.
• …you do not have a right to the painter’s services, whereas you do have a right to life-saving water in the case of an emergency.
• An offer of an unpleasant job from an employer is (generally) not coercive because it simply adds one option to whatever options one already has, and one does not generally have a right to work, or a paycheck, from any
particular person.
