The perm fails — can’t shift away from capitalism and build solidarity

Conclusion The case for Universal Basic Services made here is one part, but an essential part, of a rejection of turbo consumer capitalism and a renewal of social citizenship: a shift from customers and consumers to residents and citizens. To achieve this will require a resolute confrontation with the ontology and morality of the current economic model. The ontological ground is the existence of core human needs that require collective responsibilities and a renewed foundational economy to fulfill. The normative justification is the superior potential of UBS to secure human flourishing via greater equality, efficiency, collective solidarity and long-term sustainability. The political argument is that the implementation of Universal Basic Services can achieve results that are superior to a system of unconditional cash payments (a UBI scheme) coupled with markets for commodified services. Of course this leaves open the question, why not advocate both UBI and UBS? There is not the space here to confront that question properly, but it embraces consequential and ethical arguments. A universal unconditional living income would require punitive levels of taxation. By focussing wholly on individual income, UBI would threaten public provision of collective consumption, which of course is why many on the libertarian right support it. UBS is fiscally more modest and discriminatory. Common human needs recognise the social foundations of life and the role of contribution to a collective cause: ‘from each according to their ability’ as a well as ‘to each according to their needs’. In this and other ways, UBS embodies quite distinct—and I would argue ethically superior—ideas of economy, society, sustainability and social solidarity.