1 Comment

I wonder how you square Mill's principle of liberty with your support of UBI and the tax increases that would follow. Surely taxing the rich to provide universal income is a way of limiting the rich's freedom to have and use that money. What direct harm to others are the rich doing that mean they can be taxed under the liberty principle?

This is my main problem with the first principle you propose. Freedom and autonomy are clearly good but they also have costs. In the extreme cases its ovbious which wins out (e.g. North Korea should have a free press, people can't shout "fire" in a crowded building if there is no fire). But the first principle you propose seems to offer too much liberty. Taxes, off the table and the welfare that taxes pay for is too.

A better first principle seems to be the broadly utilitarian one: choose the policy that seems to maximize welfare. This might mean all drugs be legalized (I kind of expect it does) but the argument has to consider the possibility that gains in freedom and individual pleasure can be outweighed by the costs you so quickly dismiss.

Expand full comment