There are three general categories of Objections to the implementation of a universal guaranteed livable income.

First, most 'free' market adherents believe that people 'work' only when they are forced to and that a guaranteed income would destroy the work ethic and this would destroy society. In fact the opposite is true: a blind adhereance to "the work ethic" does not differentiate between work that is harmful and work that is beneficial and results in encouraging humans to work hard to destroy the planet: polluting the planet, squandering natural resources, ruining people's health by selling disease producing products (pop, tobacco, alcohol, junk food etc.), and, in general, putting all life on earth in jeopardy.

The idea that people only work when forced to is ridiculous when one considers that most of the world's essential work is done for no pay: the vast amounts unpaid care work in its many forms. See article Mothernomics. The biggest problem the earth has right now is that people insist on working (because people without "jobs" are stigmatized, reviled and punished by poverty) even though they are destroying and disrespecting the very things upon which their lives depend: a clean and healthy environment, life-giving natural resources and other living creatures.

Most people in the world do not believe in the ruthless competition of individualistic 'free' market' values. If they did, there would be no humanity because there would be no one to birth or raise the young of the species -- the the most challenging, demanding and essential to society work that there is -- and doing this hard work makes you poor not rich!

The fact that billions of dollars worth of work is done for free, reveals just how wrong the idea that people are inherently selfish and lazy. People do rightfully object to being exploited for other people's gain, or doing meaningless or harmful work. It is quite natural to resent and reject being exploited for some stupid or harmful industry. But people yearn to do meaningful, and needed activities, this is also why millions of people volunteer or help their neighbors during times of crisis.

Secondly, the 'free' marketers believe they earned all their money and they want to be free to do with it whatever they choose. They do not want to give 'their' money away to the 'undeserving'.

Never mind that their wealth is based on the fact that the vast riches of numerous continents were taken by deceit (Gosh, you say you lived here first? too late now!) disease (oops! sorry about those small pox blankets) destroying food supplies (oops! we accidentally shot all the bison) and other vast criminal acts (Gee Wiz everybody had slaves!) that have yet to be accounted for. They also depend on the 'free' production and raising of new generations of consumers by women around the world. See Mothernomics.

The 'free' marketers believe that if other people need money then they should just work hard to get it. There is endless and ruthles scrutiny about the lazines of the poor, but no concern is shown over the idle rich who inherit money, win money, or over people who make millions chasing balls or talking.

Most of the 'free' marketer's reasons for opposing guaranteed income are based on a bunch of worn out myths and outright lies of people who fear life without fear and coercion. Perhaps what they fear is having to be kinder to people; they fear joining the human species and giving up their god complex.

Thirdly, some free marketers speak about the need to eliminate poverty through more trade and industry. This is the Big Pie Lie. Many people (on both the political right and left), say we can solve poverty by making "the economic pie bigger." However, our environment cannot survive more economic 'growth.' All wealth comes from nature -- yet we have economic experts telling us that we can create wealth with our brains or that we can have infinite economic growth on a finite planet.

Next: Objection Two
Back to Objection List

Home