為什么應(yīng)該讓Facebook提供全民基本收入？
為每個(gè)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(gè)壓倒性的好處。這個(gè)想法確立了一個(gè)原則：每一位公民都是受到重視的社會成員，有權(quán)分享社會的集體財(cái)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)首次闡述這一主張后，500年來這個(gè)理念激發(fā)著激進(jìn)的思想家們。在我們這個(gè)時(shí)代，隨著我們?yōu)樯钏较陆?、?cái)富集中以及技術(shù)變革可能引起的大規(guī)模失業(yè)感到不安，這個(gè)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(gè)烏托邦幻想，因?yàn)樗偸窃跓o情的現(xiàn)實(shí)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，它們可以概括為兩個(gè)問題。
Why should people be paid to do nothing? And how could we possibly afford it?
為什么人們什么都不用做就能拿到錢?我們怎么可能負(fù)擔(dān)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(shè)計(jì)一套基本收入機(jī)制，在保留其主要吸引力的同時(shí)最大限度減少缺陷，這是可能的。雖然并非刻意為之，但一套行之有效的模式已經(jīng)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(xiàng)憲法修正案，以該州初生的石油熱潮帶來的財(cái)政收入為資金來源，設(shè)立一只永久投資基金。幾年后，阿拉斯加永久基金(Alaska Permanent Fund)開始向每個(gè)注冊居民發(fā)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.
取決于基金的業(yè)績，過去十年，每年給每位居民發(fā)放的分紅金額從878美元到2072美元不等。除了名目不同，這實(shí)際上就是不考慮社會貢獻(xiàn)或者財(cái)富的全民基本收入機(jī)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(gè)機(jī)制并沒有像基本收入批評者擔(dān)心的那樣，造起大規(guī)模的怠惰。線索就在形容詞——“基本”之中。這個(gè)得到兩黨支持的機(jī)制被證明日益受到人們的歡迎，并且被稱為阿拉斯加政壇的“導(dǎo)電軌”，因?yàn)樵谶@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(diào)查中，阿拉斯加居民稱，這個(gè)基金最大的三個(gè)好處是同等待遇、公平分配和幫助陷入困境的家庭。盡管阿拉斯加因油價(jià)下降而受到?jīng)_擊，但約有58%的受訪者說，他們甚至準(zhǔn)備繳納更多的州稅來保留這個(gè)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.
盡管擁有自然資源，但以人均國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)計(jì)，阿拉斯加并非美國最富裕的州之一。然而，部分歸功于年度分紅機(jī)制，阿拉斯加是美國經(jīng)濟(jì)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，F(xiàn)acebook首席執(zhí)行官馬克•扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)訪問了阿拉斯加，贊美了該州的社會項(xiàng)目，稱它們?yōu)?ldquo;美國其他地方提供了一些很好的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)”。
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(yè)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(shù)摧毀。他說，在這樣一個(gè)世界里，我們需要發(fā)明新的社會契約?；臼杖肟赡苁谴鸢傅囊徊糠帧?/p>
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(gè)特例，因?yàn)樗皇欠峙淞耸蜔岢钡墓麑?shí)。但其他地方也可能找到其他財(cái)政收入來源來支撐類似機(jī)制。一些人建議開征地價(jià)稅。另外一些人則建議開征金融交易稅。
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(gè)潛在的收入來源，扎克伯格對此最清楚不過：數(shù)據(jù)。如果就像人們所說，數(shù)據(jù)是新的石油，那么我們可能發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)21世紀(jì)的財(cái)政收入來源。就如石油之于阿拉斯加，數(shù)據(jù)或許可以為世界帶來一些東西。
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(qiáng)大社區(qū)的承諾一樣，他對社會邊緣化人群的關(guān)注值得贊譽(yù)。與我們大多數(shù)人不同，他擁有幫助解決當(dāng)今這個(gè)時(shí)代種種問題的個(gè)人影響力。他運(yùn)營著世界市值最高的公司之一，還擁有現(xiàn)成的數(shù)字講壇，可以對Facebook的20億全球用戶闡述自己的主張。
He should now live up to his rhetoric and launch a Facebook Permanent Fund to
扎克伯格應(yīng)該將自己的言論化為實(shí)際行動，建立一只Facebook永久基金，為一個(gè)更加廣泛的全民基本收入實(shí)驗(yàn)提供資金。他還應(yīng)該鼓勵谷歌(Google)等其他數(shù)據(jù)企業(yè)做出自己的貢獻(xiàn)。
cover a broader universal basic income experiment. He should encourage other data businesses, such as Google, to contribute too. Facebook
擁有的最有價(jià)值的資產(chǎn)是數(shù)據(jù)，這些數(shù)據(jù)往往是用戶在不知不覺之中免費(fèi)提供給Facebook的，而之后Facebook實(shí)際上把這些數(shù)據(jù)賣給了廣告商。利用這種集體產(chǎn)生的極為寶貴的資源獲利的Facebook做出更大的社會貢獻(xiàn)，似乎只能說是公平的。
The most valuable asset that Facebook possesses is the data that its users, often unwittingly, hand over for free before they are in effect sold to advertisers. It seems only fair that Facebook makes a bigger social contribution for profiting from this massively valuable, collectively generated resource.
Facebook股東們會討厭這個(gè)主意。但從Facebook成立之初的那些年，扎克伯格就說過，他的目的是發(fā)揮影響而不是建立一家公司。此外，這樣的慈善姿態(tài)甚至可能會被證明是本世紀(jì)的營銷高招。Facebook的用戶們可以繼續(xù)積極交換貓咪的照片，知道每一次點(diǎn)擊都將有助于社會公益。
His shareholders would hate the idea. But from Facebook’s earliest years, Mr Zuckerberg has said his purpose has been to make an impact rather than build a company. Besides, such a philanthropic gesture might even prove to be the marketing coup of the century. Facebook users could continue to swap cat pictures knowing that every click was contributing to a greater social good.
這種“數(shù)據(jù)換基本收入”的做法簡單明了。它應(yīng)該打動那些抱解決問題思路的硅谷人士。許多科技企業(yè)家對政府干預(yù)抱懷疑態(tài)度。但沒有人規(guī)定只有政府才能參與財(cái)富再分配事業(yè)。
Such a data-for-basic income swap is simple and clear. It should appeal to the solutionist mindset of Silicon Valley. Many tech entrepreneurs are suspicious of government intervention. But there is no rule to say that only governments can be in the wealth redistribution business.
“我們應(yīng)該探索基本收入這樣的想法，給每個(gè)人一個(gè)嘗試新事物的緩沖，”5月扎克伯格在哈佛大學(xué)(Harvard)畢業(yè)典禮致辭中對哈佛畢業(yè)生們說。
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things,” Mr Zuckerberg told Harvard graduates in his Commencement address in May.
說的沒錯，馬克。試一試吧。
Quite right, Mark. Give it a go. 譯者/徐行
