The standard argument against third wave universal
birthrights is that, while they might be nice in theory,
in practice they are too expensive. They impose an
unbearable burden on “the economy” —
that is, on the winners in unfettered markets. Much
better, therefore, to let everyone — including poor
children and the sick — fend for themselves. In
fact, the opposite is often true: universal birthrights,
as we’ll see, can be cheaper and more efficient
than individual acquisition. Moreover, they are always
fairer.
How far we might go down the path of extending
universal birthrights is anyone’s guess, but
we’re now at the point where, economically
speaking, we can afford to go farther. Without great
difficulty, we could add three birthrights to our
economic operating system: one would pay everyone a
regular dividend, the second would give every child a
start-up stake, and the third would reduce and share
medical costs. Whether we add these birthrights or not
isn’t a matter of economic ability, but of attitude
and politics.
Why attitude? Americans suffer from a number of
confusions. We think it’s “wrong” to
give people “something for nothing,” despite
the fact that corporations take common wealth for nothing
all the time. We believe the poor are poor and the rich
are rich because they deserve to be, but don’t
consider that millions of Americans work two or three
jobs and still can’t make ends meet. Plus, we think
tinkering with the “natural” distribution of
income is “socialism,” or “big
government,” or some other manifestation of evil,
despite the fact that our current distribution of income
isn’t “natural” at all, but rigged from
the get-go by maldistributed property.
The late John Rawls, one of America’s
leading philosophers, distinguished between pre
distribution of property and re distribution of
income. Under income re distribution, money is
taken from “winners” and transferred to
“losers.” Understandably, this isn’t
popular with winners, who tend to control government and
the media. Under property pre distribution, by contrast,
the playing field is leveled by spreading property
ownership before income is generated. After that,
there’s no need for income redistribution; property
itself distributes income to all. According to Rawls,
while income re distribution creates dependency,
property predistribution empowers.
But how can we spread property ownership without
taking property from some and giving it to others? The
answer lies in the commons — wealth that already
belongs to everyone. By propertizing (without
privatizing) some of that wealth, we can make everyone a
property owner.
What’s interesting is that, for purely
ecological reasons, we need to propertize (without
privatizing) some natural wealth now. This twenty-first
century necessity means we have a chance to save the
planet, and as a bonus, add a universal birthright. ...
read the whole chapter