Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller was in many ways ahead of his time. Of particular interest to me, in light of seemingly ubiquitous online discussions of universal basic income, is how much more effective his way of selling the concept would be. Keep in mind that Bucky was born in 1895. But you could say he had a fuller understanding of the idea than most (pun accepted. In fact, I revel in it).
Bucky spoke of UBI as offering research grants . . . to everyone. And, yeah, maybe we should put "research grants" in quotes, but Bucky contended in all earnestness that even a minute fraction of productive grants would more than pay for the other grants.
This is a perfectly defensible claim, and perhaps one day I will organize research and quotations in order to make that case. That doesn't sound particularly fun, however, so for now I leave you with topics and authors to look into: David Graeber (esp Bullshit Jobs), Bob Black's Abolition of Work, Bertrand Russell In Praise of Idleness, the story of how Linux came to be, Alfie Kohn (esp Punished by Rewards). Also, I'm sure that out all of the contemporary authors writing about UBI, someone has probably done some great work on this claim, but only if they understand that people can be freed up when they are out of our current systems, and conversely, these systems don't lead many individuals to their best work.
It seems, instead, that the dominate rhetorical thrust of current UBI advocates is that most jobs can be automated away, either now or in the near future, and that those displaced workers will be in need of handouts. You can call it a "freedom dividend" but that doesn't make it more palatable to a Republican, unless an alpha enough Republican leader says it first -- look what Trump did for Russia's image amongst the Grand Old Party of liberty and other timeless principles (CP Don't Break My Stuff, also this).
It is my bold thesis that if the mistake isn't made of having a Democrat say it first Republicans by and large could much more easily accept a system of "grants"/"loans"/or "investments" than "universal basic income". Let's break that phrase down into it's parts. "Income" is a handout, "basic" isn't champagne wishes and caviar dreams, and "universal" acts like all lives have equal value, which just sounds communist. But a grant could let you say you are going to do one thing, then burn the money on living expenses. It could be a way to trick the government! While Republicans aren't alone in their love of tricking the government, there is not much evidence of some principles against it. And it makes some intuitive sense that they might find it extra sweet. [1]
The aftermath of the passage of medical marijuana here in Oklahoma made me glad I don't vote. If I had voted, I probably could have been convinced to vote for medical marijuana based on the stories of people who have legitimate, you know, medical needs. My wife knew of at least one child that fit that category, with some medicinal off-shot of cannibals being the only thing that didn't cause sever side effects. All well and good, but I somehow didn't foresee that there would be more dispensaries than liquor stores, selling such valuable medicine as THC-infused gummy bears, lemon drops, and chocolates. Next time I need an antibiotic, I'll see if I can buy it in gummy form from some shady store with a drug pun in its name. It's just the right thing to do, and we do the right thing here in the heartland.
That's not to say in some world where I didn't refuse to validate our sham democracy [2] I wouldn't vote for straight-up legalized (or decriminalized) marijuana -- after all, weed and alcohol seem to be on similar levels as silly, overpriced vices. It appears that I am in an extremely small minority of people bothered by medical fraud and a system that winks at it. Though I cannot relocate the quote, I believe Charlie Munger once said something along the lines of "there is a special place in hell for those who make easily gameable systems." But as social cohesion melts and anything goes (lol!), more and more people are looking for those gameable systems.
So just imagine an Agency of Government Grants which offered a form to say what business you were going to start or what you were going to research, and no matter how poorly you filled that form out, you'd get enough money to be above the poverty line. The standards would be so low that you could write "$ biznes" in crayon, and you would get your checks. Sharing live streams of progress in a video game would be a worthy enough enterprise for a grant, and there is ample evidence such streams promote utility. The romantic set could write "research on mating rituals." And to bring this all full circle, grants cloud be provided for "longitudinal studies of marijuana consumption." No one will check on you, but you'll be "encouraged" to share results. People would love it.
In order to make this work, I am pretty sure you can't advertise how low the grant standards in fact are. Instead, my experience as a teacher tells me it is much better to maintain a level of plausible deniability that you expect more. For people who are competent enough to get online and fill out forms, there should be options to go into extreme detail. Someone like my wife who likes to do the "right thing" would be greatly helped by the appearance of high expectations, and frankly some way to receive praise. Finally, I would have argued that there should be a place to share the data sets and research results, but that sounds like the internet, or at least what it was before the era of anti-social media.
If you thought the purpose of this essay was to a call action to adopt Bucky's rhetoric, you are mistaken. I just wanted to write something interesting and bash the moral vacuity of a particular class of blow-hards. Unlike nearly everyone else, I try to think how likely events are, not rather or not I'd enjoy them. I think the odds of Bucky-style grants are about nil. Though it sounds a bit like humor, I am serious that a Democrat cannot present any of this ("only Nixon could go to China" says Spock). Also, I think we can count on the super-wealthy to pull the strings and exploit divisions in order to prevent redistribution. We can also count on ivy league educated "thought leaders" to be horribly, off-puttingly elitist in their rhetoric, as lastly we can count on Democratic politicians to be completely ineffective.
No, there will be no Bucky bucks.
===
[1] I've many times heard things along the lines of "it's time to get mine" from those dead set against redistribution, with no apparent concern for the performative contradiction.
[2] I know how disturbing it is for some people to read that, and I am sorry to cause offence. Voting is part of a civic religion where we all have a duty to "make" our voices heard. I would explain my reasons for refraining, but so many of them are obvious if someone were in a frame of mind to understand them. Instead, I know "the importance of voting" is a belief held for psycho-social reasons, what Simler calls a crony belief. Much like the vegetarian around meat eaters who isn't trying to convince anyone, I don't care if you vote. But I know that lack of emotional labor can sometimes raise the level of offence.
Also, I reserve the right to vote in local elections if I ever see the point.
