爲什麼應該讓Facebook提供全民基本收入

The idea of guaranteeing a basic income for everybody has many obvious flaws but one overwhelming virtue. It enshrines the principle that every citizen is a valued member of society and has a right to share in its collective wealth.

爲每個人提供基本收入的想法有很多顯而易見的缺陷，但也有一個壓倒性的好處。這個想法確立了一個原則：每一位公民都是受到重視的社會成員，有權分享社會的集體財富。

That conviction has animated radical thinkers for 500 years since the argument was first sketched out in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. The idea has gained renewed resonance in our own times as we fret about the erosion of living standards, the concentration of wealth and the possible threat of mass unemployment caused by technological change.

自托馬斯?莫爾爵士(Sir Thomas More)的《烏托邦》(Utopia)首次闡述這一主張後，500年來這個理念激發着激進的思想家們。在我們這個時代，隨着我們爲生活水平下降、財富集中以及技術變革可能引起的大規模失業感到不安，這個想法獲得了新的共鳴。

But for half a millennium universal basic income has remained little more than a utopian dream because it has always crashed up against the rocks of reality. The chief objections are ones of principle and practicality, encapsulated in two questions.

但500年來，全民基本收入始終只是一個烏托邦幻想，因爲它總是在無情的現實面前撞得粉碎。主要的反對意見是兩方面的：原則性和可行性，它們可以概括爲兩個問題。

Why should people be paid to do nothing? And how could we possibly afford it?

爲什麼人們什麼都不用做就能拿到錢？我們怎麼可能負擔得起這種制度？

Yet it is possible to design a basic income scheme that retains its main attractions while minimising its flaws. By default, a good working model has been operating in Alaska for more than 30 years.

然而，設計一套基本收入機制，在保留其主要吸引力的同時最大限度減少缺陷，這是可能的。雖然並非刻意爲之，但一套行之有效的模式已經在阿拉斯加施行了30多年。

In 1976 Alaska’s voters approved a constitutional amendment to create a permanent investment fund, financed by revenues from the state’s incipient oil boom. A few years later, the Alaska Permanent Fund began paying out a dividend to every registered resident.

1976年，阿拉斯加的選民投票通過一項憲法修正案，以該州初生的石油熱潮帶來的財政收入爲資金來源，設立一隻永久投資基金。幾年後，阿拉斯加永久基金(Alaska Permanent Fund)開始向每個註冊居民發放分紅。

Depending on the fund’s performance, the annual payout has ranged from $878 to $2,072 a head over the past decade. It is, in all but name, a universal basic income paid irrespective of social contribution or wealth.

取決於基金的業績，過去十年，每年給每位居民發放的分紅金額從878美元到2072美元不等。除了名目不同，這實際上就是不考慮社會貢獻或者財富的全民基本收入機制。

The scheme has not led to mass indolence, as the critics of basic income fear. The clue lies in the adjective — basic. The scheme, which has commanded bipartisan support, has also proved increasingly popular and been described as the “third rail” of state politics because it electrocutes any politician who touches it. In a recent telephone survey, Alaskans described the fund’s top three advantages as being its equality of treatment, its fairness of distribution and its assistance to struggling families. Some 58 per cent of respondents said they would even be prepared to pay more state taxes to preserve the fund, although Alaska has been knocked by lower oil prices.

這個機制並沒有像基本收入批評者擔心的那樣，造起大規模的怠惰。線索就在形容詞——“基本”之中。這個得到兩黨支持的機制被證明日益受到人們的歡迎，並且被稱爲阿拉斯加政壇的“導電軌”，因爲在這件事上找問題的任何政治人士都會觸電。在最近的一次電話調查中，阿拉斯加居民稱，這個基金最大的三個好處是同等待遇、公平分配和幫助陷入困境的家庭。儘管阿拉斯加因油價下降而受到衝擊，但約有58%的受訪者說，他們甚至準備繳納更多的州稅來保留這個基金。

In spite of its natural resources, Alaska does not rank among the richest of US states in terms of gross domestic product per head. Yet, partly as a result of its annual dividend, it is one of the most economically equal states and has one of the lowest poverty rates.

儘管擁有自然資源，但以人均國內生產總值(GDP)計，阿拉斯加並非美國最富裕的州之一。然而，部分歸功於年度分紅機制，阿拉斯加是美國經濟最平等、貧困率最低的州之一。

Last month, Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Facebook, visited Alaska and praised the state’s social programmes saying they provided “some good lessons for the rest of the country”.

上月，Facebook首席執行官馬克?扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)訪問了阿拉斯加，讚美了該州的社會項目，稱它們爲“美國其他地方提供了一些很好的經驗教訓”。

Like other Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Mr Zuckerberg believes that thousands of jobs are going to be swept away by new technologies, such as driverless cars. In such a world, he says, we need to invent a new social contract. Basic income could be part of the answer.

就像其他硅谷企業家一樣，扎克伯格相信，成千上萬的工作崗位將會被無人駕駛汽車等新技術摧毀。他說，在這樣一個世界裏，我們需要發明新的社會契約。基本收入可能是答案的一部分。

Some argue that Alaska is a special case as it has just distributed the fruits of an oil bonanza. But it may be possible to find other sources of revenue to fund similar schemes elsewhere. Some have suggested a land value tax. Others have argued for a financial transactions tax.

一些人主張阿拉斯加是個特例，因爲它只是分配了石油熱潮的果實。但其他地方也可能找到其他財政收入來源來支撐類似機制。一些人建議開徵地價稅。另外一些人則建議開徵金融交易稅。

But there is one other potential source of revenue that Mr Zuckerberg knows all about: data. If, as the saying goes, data are the new oil then we may have found a 21st-century revenue stream. Data could do for the world what oil has done for Alaska.

但還有一個潛在的收入來源，扎克伯格對此最清楚不過：數據。如果就像人們所說，數據是新的石油，那麼我們可能發現了一個21世紀的財政收入來源。就如石油之於阿拉斯加，數據或許可以爲世界帶來一些東西。

Mr Zuckerberg’s concern for the marginalised in society is commendable, as is his commitment to building strong communities. Unlike most of the rest of us, he has the personal influence to help tackle the problems of our age. He runs one of the world’s most valuable companies and has a ready-made digital pulpit from which he can make his case to Facebook’s 2bn global users.

就如扎克伯格建立強大社區的承諾一樣，他對社會邊緣化人羣的關注值得讚譽。與我們大多數人不同，他擁有幫助解決當今這個時代種種問題的個人影響力。他運營着世界市值最高的公司之一，還擁有現成的數字講壇，可以對Facebook的20億全球用戶闡述自己的主張。