[p2p-research] A basic income guarantee versus peer production

[Paul D. Fernhout]

People have mentioned a basic income here in about fifty posts, including 
six times in the last two weeks, some in relation to Ryan' theme of "Why 
Post-Capitalism is Rubbish".

I was surprised the other day to learn Richard Nixon was in favor of one, 
and a version actually passed the US House of Representatives in the 1970s.

From:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan
"Moynihan supported Richard Nixon's idea of a Guaranteed Annual Income 
(GAI). Daniel Patrick Moynihan had significant discussions concerning a 
Basic Income Guarantee with Russell B. Long and Louis O. Kelso."
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income_Guarantee

From:
   http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000038.html
"Richard Nixon presented a guaranteed income plan in 1969, and it passed in 
the House of Representatives with two-thirds of the vote. In the Senate, 
however, moderate supporters - Democrats and Republicans - were defeated by 
the combined votes of extreme conservatives who opposed any aid to the poor 
and extreme liberals who wanted more generous benefits. (Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, the plan’s author, described it, its popular support, and the 
congressional debates and votes in a 1973 book, The Politics of a Guaranteed 
Income.) With regard to helping the poor, many people think government 
should not provide income but only food, shelter, and services. But such 
programs require large bureaucracies that own and maintain housing; buy, 
store, and transport food; and monitor recipients’ income, family size, and 
other eligibility criteria. It’s much easier, more efficient, and more 
respectful to give people a basic income and let them decide where and how 
to live, work, and so on. If someone wastes or misuses the money, there will 
always be the opportunity to make better decisions next month."

I wonder if that is the real reason Nixon got impeached? :-)

Could people here directly explain why peer production is better (or worse) 
than a somewhat regulated capitalism with a basic income guarantee?

I can think of various points on both sides, but I'd like to see what people 
here say.

Personally, I'm starting to wonder that if I had to pick one or the other in 
its pure form, maybe I'd be better of with a basic income, because not 
everyone can produce stuff or has access to the needed resources. So peer 
production may not really solve an essential issue of distributing the 
abundance technology makes possible. Peer production may still be good and 
desirable for many other reasons, of course. But, by itself, it seems to me 
it does not solve this issue of people being left out of the system. Does 
peer production just substitute for some social hierarchy that guarantees 
certain rights (a right to access food) instead a hope for general wealth 
that will lead to local charity, the same as libertarianism?

Also, stereotypical women's work in society has not been valued much 
(cleaning, raising children, volunteering, helping the aged) even thought it 
cost a lot to replace such work with paid labor. So, should not people 
(whatever gender) who do such work receive public support for their 
contributions to society? Though as with anything involving feminism, there 
is controversy there: :-)
   "Feminism and Basic Income Revisited"
  http://crookedtimber.org/2009/02/02/feminism-and-basic-income-revisited/
  "Debate: Should Feminists Endorse Basic Income?"
  http://www.bepress.com/bis/

Anyway, it seems like a basic income guarantee could (in theory) be passed 
into law tomorrow, without immediately changing where everyone works or how 
everything is made. It already passed the US House of Representatives once 
in some form.

Anyway, comments on this would be appreciated.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/