Articles

A Solution for Poverty

The UBI (Universal Basic Income) is a system of fiscal tinkering that gives everyone a non- negotiable, equal, and fair income. This model is key to solving a multitude of things. It reduces income inequality, especially for minorities, and closes gaps due to racial barriers. Alleviates poverty across the world. If countries adopt this measure people will be able to use that extra money as leverage to support basic needs and uphold the basic human rights that every single human deserves.

According to NYC Health Equity, inequitable policies and practices in the U.S. have limited opportunities for wealth accumulation for some racial and ethnic groups. (Morse et al.) This is also true for a lot of programs abroad because these policies still need to make sure you’re “eligible” for these benefits which excludes those who don’t fit these programs’ criteria. However, this is not true for all these fiscal programs. No matter what country, minority groups will always be disadvantaged when these programs are targeted towards them. The UBI is uniquely different because it entails that everyone should receive the same number of benefits across the board. According to Lauren Locke, a writer for Flipboard, she found that in places where the UBI was implemented, it brought about huge strides for communities of color. The program – run by the Atlanta-based non-profit organization the Georgia Resilience and Opportunity Fund (GRO Fund), in partnership with GiveDirectly, the largest backer of guaranteed- income projects in the US – has reached its halfway point. This program beat stereotypes like the “Welfare Queen”- coming from a racist and sexist Reagan-era notion that Black women take public money, spend it frivolously, and don’t work- back because they did not put black women in the spotlight for receiving benefits which solved income inequality while also alleviating the structural violence many people of color have received because of poverty combatting programs. For La- Kingya Singleton, she has lived a year in an Atlanta apartment, later she became homeless and when she couldn’t find a landlord to accept her city housing voucher during the pandemic, she was left stranded and had no options. And for the pilot, it means preliminary data is now available showing the effectiveness of guaranteed income as a means of combating poverty in Georgia – slightly more than half the women have saved some money. La-Kinga Singleton also obtained justice because the guaranteed income program allowed her to get a stable income and get back on her feet. (Pratt et al.)

Poverty is an inherent harm that the social contract, in some contexts, requires governments to take care of. Every human deserves the right to a standard of living, health, and well-being. This can also be closely related to Enlightenment ideals that talked about the social contract and the intrinsic good. Under all of these philosophies, a UBI is heavily supported. According to the UN’s “30 Articles of Human Rights” it says, “poverty is both a cause and a consequence of violations of human rights, and places many other rights listed in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) out of reach. The World Bank and World Health Organization reported in 2017 that at least half of the world's population (some 3.8 billion people) is too poor to get essential healthcare services, inconsistent with the right to health spelled out in Article 25. They also said nearly a billion people spend 10 percent or more of their household income on health expenses for themselves, a sick child, or another family member. Poverty lines should count as measurements of where people's rights have been violated. Additionally, under the social contract, all of us have signed a “contract” with the government that sets preconditions concerning what we give up a few of our rights to gain protection from harm. That harm includes health and well- being. Governments knowing that poverty is harmful and exists serve as violations of that “contract”. According to the World Bank, about 9.2% of the world, or 719 million people, live on less than $2.15 a day. In the United States, 11.6% of the population — 37.9 million people — lived in poverty as of 2021. These numbers are calculated based on income and a person’s ability to meet basic needs. This is not good because the income people are making is not enough to fulfill basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Growing research by the University of Michigan shows that this is particularly important and how this can affect even wealthy and equitable regions. Poverty entails more than the lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education and other basic services, social discrimination and exclusion, and lack of participation in decision-making. 

According to the Drexel University Center for Hunger-Free Communities, a universal, unconditional cash transfer system can address shortcomings in public aid and other benefits that guaranteed income programs geared to specific income levels cannot. Kenya’s approach shows that guaranteed income can help families be resilient during economic and health crises. The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED), a basic income pilot program that provided Stockton residents with $500 per month, found that recipients spent money on groceries, utility bills, and credit card debt. Recipients also reported feeling less anxious and spending more time with family. (Kujawski et al.) The UN (United Nations) also agrees that universal basic income “is a means to protect and promote human rights. In many respects, basic income offers a bold and imaginative solution to pressing problems that are about to become far more intractable. This also acts as governments truly recognizing their role in upholding human rights. This allows governments to hold up their side of the bargain and act as a safety net for those who are falling.

Leroy Tamfu, October 2023

Is it ethical for the United States Federal Government to own and exploit natural resources to fund government projects?

In the early 20 th century natural resources and land were largely controlled by businesses and investors who saw it valuable. Oil production and agriculture were booms to these businesses. However, they came at a huge cost. Emissions and greed from capitalist monopolies had taken their exploitation too far. They used up resources and emitted toxic pollutants which became an issue for the US government. The United States Federal Government took matters into their own hands and started to use their power to take lands and create regulatory measures to alleviate pollution. However, over the years the US has used their control over land to exploit natural resources. This has created many opportunities for investment as well as booms within the nation’s economy. This has highlighted many ramifications that relentlessly go overlooked.

1. The principle of owning land

Native Americans were here before we were many authors such as Tuck & Yang have written articles and books about the exploitation of land by businesses and the government. The idea that the US has “control” over the land makes assumptions that they were here first. This threatens the very idea of the Natives relationship to the land that they settled on first. These assumptions are harmful and have created this sense of social death within the community because Native Americans continue to be barred from participation today.

2. Global Ramifications

Climate change is no joke! These are ramification happening now because of trapped carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to hotter summers, colder winter, sea level rises, snow caps melting and the most frightening resource scarcity. No matter the deal for what the money for these natural resources are for, they harm the Earth which hurts more people than it helps.

3. War

The continuous pumping of natural resources may contribute things back into the community but also used for militarization. Also, competing countries must maintain demand before they can sell. If the US continues this production of oil this creates demand for countries who are dependent on the demand of oil to fall because the US is practically out selling them. This sense of belittling by the US creates enemies that are at high rise tensions now. The US is also an easy target now because of the aftermath of the debt ceiling and a recovering nation coming out of the pandemic. We just are not ready for the smoke.

These reasons all highlight the unethical actions of exploiting natural resources. We must understand the world for what it is and it is that actions have consequences. No matter what programs we may be able to fund through exploitation they cannot escape their consequences which are prerequisites to the goals of these programs. Also, these programs often are not as beneficial as they seem.

Leroy Tamfu, September 2023

Is it ethical for the United States Federal Government to own and exploit natural resources to fund government projects?

For many years the United States has exploited natural resources for many different reasons. The ethical obligation behind the use of our natural resources for exclusively government projects are not ethically satisfactory. Since they only benefit the economy and directly link to how the capitalist system expands, and ignore what the exploitation of our natural resources does to the earth does not make it ethically favoriable. Natural resources have been used for many different things for example the use of oil and natural gasses and can be used for food.  The natural resources we use can be beneficial to our society but the negative impacts of natural resources outweigh. Outside of the use of the federal government and government projects when private corporations exploit natural resources they cause a negative effect of the provision of food and have a negative impact on people. If our Federal Government and private corporations continue the provision of the food that people consume this will have a major impact on people. The natural resources that the earth has aren’t meant to be here without any human intervention on them; they are essential for the survival of the human race. If the continuation of the exploitation of our natural resources continues, they can be exhausted and be very limited. Defined by the Department of the Interior is that the ethical obligation to public service and public trust and have loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above any other gain. If the United States Federal Government decides to go through with the choice of exploiting the natural resource only for governmental gain it breaks the ethical obligation that federal government officials have. If the continuation of the exploitation, this breaks all ethical obligations by destroying our earth and the public's trust and completely demolishes the roles the government should be doing to protect the earth that we live in. Since the Federal Government is supposed to take care of the citizens of the United States they are doing the complete opposite by destroying our earth and putting everyone at risk for the catastrophes that could possibly take place. Our natural resources are one of the many things on our planet that if we change the order of them or exploit too many of them the lack of them will cause destruction to the earth. So the only ethical obligation for federal government officials is to understand how important natural resources are and why removing them and the exploitation of them can have catastrophic impacts to our world. 

-Autumn Jamison, September 2023