There are three general categories of Objections to implementation
of Guaranteed Livable Income.

Number Three: All Government Bad

Some people believe that anything from the government is bad, therefore a guaranteed income will be bad because it comes from the government. However, those who hold this view must also be vehemently opposed to public health care, public services, public workers, public roads, public transit, public ambulances, public firefighting departments, public libraries etc.

To refuse to support a Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI) because you hold the principle that everything from the government is bad, means you are putting poor people under more state control not less.

It means the continuation of a punitive, stigmatizing welfare system that is not guaranteed -- where people must live with the daily anxiety and fear of being cut off their only means to live, of being hauled into the "Prevention, Compliance and Enforcement" office" of having their lives scrutinized to see if they have a "dependent" relationship with their roommates.

It also means living under the constant fear of being reported for "neglect" and having your children apprehended.

It means that poor people will continue to fill jails and become criminalized as they try to find means to survive.

It means poor people putting their health and lives at risk by having to do dangerous work.

It means poor people putting their children at risk because they have to leave them with no care or inadequate care because they must to get to their job no matter what.

It means poor people staying in abusive relationships due to economic circumstance.

People living in poverty are left exposed to exploitation by anyone who has more economic power than they do.

The belief that all government is bad means that those who are physically mobile, healthy and have no dependents will have power over those with dependents, those who have disAbilities, those with health problems, those who are very young and those who are very old.

It means those who are 'strong' may, or may not, choose to help those who are vulnerable since nothing can be 'guaranteed'. It would mean those who are vulnerable would live in fear and anxiety that they will be uncared for and left to fend for themselves.

There are many who are attracted to 'survival of the fittest' ideology for various reasons. Much of the justification for this view comes from the idea that there are too many people on the planet and that there is not enough food and other necessities to go around. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is more than enough in the world for everyone to meet their needs for health and a decent life but there is not enough for the extravagant waste that our current economic system demands.

See our sections on gluts and jobs.

Furthermore, the elitist nature of the view that "there are too many people so some are just going to have to die" is laid bare by the fact that the people who believe this are not immediately killing themselves and telling others to do the same. So they really hope that 'other people' will die while justifying somehow that they deserve to, or are superior enough to survive.

Sometimes the "all government is bad" people also say that "we don't need money". These ideas are sometimes advocated by those who are young, relatively healthy and childless.

Maybe in the future we can organize society so we don't need to use money. It is urgent that humans find ways to live that respects and reveres nature and all other living creatures since nature is the source of all life, wealth and health. If we don't learn to do this we will commit specicide and ecocide.

However, people need to 'stay alive' to create such change, and people 'right now' are losing their health and are dying because they have no money, and no alternative way to meet their needs.

Millions of people do not have self-provisioning skills, or any connection to the land -- money is the means by which they feed and shelter themselves. This does not mean that we can't create a non-money system in the future. But again, people need a means to stay alive to make such a change.

A GLI would provide a 'just transition fund' to create a truly sustainable and livable economy. Only with a GLI can we have the time to free our creative energy to make such a transition.

Only by demanding a Guaranteed Livable Income can people ethically call for a stop to environmentally harmful economic practices that millions of people currently rely on to live.

Only with a GLI can we prevent large and small wars over land and natural resources.

A GLI would offer protection from a 'bully-economy' where babies, children (and their care-givers), the elderly, people with limited mobility, people with health problems -- would have to compete for resources with those who are mobile and healthy.

A GLI should be considered economic harm reduction. Only if we can stop the current destruction of people and the planet, and only if we can stay alive by having enough to eat, clean water, clean air, etc. can we hope to have the time and energy to change things.

To try to change things without an GLI is like having a meeting where people are trying to solve a difficult problem and only a few of the people at the table have had sufficient food and sleep. The rest are hungry, tired and worried about their children. This would hardly be the best way to solve any problem. And yet because so many people in the world refuse to demand a guaranteed income this is exactly how people are trying to solve the world's problems. This is is nothing less than a Stealth War on the Poor.

Back to Objection Number Two
Back to Objections List