Universal Basic Income: the UN’s Latest Wealth Redistribution Scheme

A recent wave of worldwide economic experiments called “universal basic income” seems to be ushering in a new era of wealth redistribution.

What is Universal Basic Income?

Universal basic income is an emerging plan to provide a guaranteed payment for living expenses to all people.

Under the plan, everyone would get a set amount of money, including children, workers, and non-workers.  Those workers who earn more will be taxed proportionately to help fund the program.

Individuals are not tested to see if it is needed, and no one is required to work to earn it.  The payments would be modest, but enough to enable recipients to live a frugal, yet decent lifestyle.

In other words, it is a massive wealth redistribution scheme.

Advocates claim a universal basic income would eliminate poverty and provide a safety net for workers who have recently lost their jobs.  Others say it is needed in an era where machines are increasingly displacing human workers.  In Finland, the program is hailed for reducing stress levels.

But critics are quick to point out that people would be encouraged to work less, thereby contributing less taxes into the new welfare program.

Where is it Today?

Universal basic income is already being tested in areas of Britain, Finland, Netherlands, Kenya, Canada, and even the United States.  Next on the list is Scotland, where residents living in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, and North Ayrshire are slated to start receiving a regular sum of money.

Under the Scotland proposal, pensioners would get £150, working adults would get £100, and children would get £50 per week.

Who Promotes it?

In the US, universal basic income has a well-documented following in Silicon Valley.  The idea has caught the admiration of Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.  Zuckerberg actually pitched the idea during Harvard’s spring 2017 commencement ceremony, saying:

“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”[1]

However, the idea itself seems to be compatible with the UN’s 2015 resolution called “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

There, world leaders affirmed their commitment to “combat inequalities within and among countries,” and “create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth and shared prosperity.”[2]

Agenda 2030 insists that by 2030 “all people must enjoy a basic standard of living, including through social protection systems.”[3]

What You Need to Know That Proponents Won’t Tell You

The UN’s Agenda 2030 lays the framework for a worldwide socialist economic system.  It insists that sustainable economic growth is essential for prosperity, and that “this will only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”[4]

It is quite apparent that this progressive scheme is being pushed by the same progressive lawmakers and public figures that insist on inviting mass immigration.  Imagine the drain on wealth that would occur.

A Biblical Perspective

Biblical wisdom indicates universal basic income, as a form of socialism, is a bad idea.

David Jones, an ethics professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary says, “In Scripture, Christians are not called to pursue economic equality.  Rather, believers are called to promote economic justice.”[5]

Nevertheless, some people will argue that socialism was advocated in the Bible, specifically in Acts 4:32-35:

All the believers were one in heart and mind.  No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.  And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them.  For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

However, notes Jones, in context Acts 4:32-35 refers to providing resources in an emergency.  The sharing of resources in this context just talks about what happened for a unique period; it doesn’t give this as a model for living.  Notice that it was from time to time that people sold things they had.[6]

Jesus’ parable of the talents is a great reminder that people are expected to multiply their talents and abilities for economic gain, not squander them.

Paul also reminded his audiences that he worked to support himself.  He didn’t demand others share with him and he insisted that each should work for his own needs:

“If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat . . .” and “For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.  Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread . . . and if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.  Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15

Let God bless those whom He wishes, and let us not steal rightfully-earned wages from others.  Nor let us not encourage one another to eat the bread of idleness, but rather encourage one another to live wisely.

Despite the good intentions we read from its advocates, we must remember that the UN’s universal basic income wealth redistribution scheme inherently forsakes biblical wisdom.


[1] Adapted from Mark Zuckerberg’s spring 2017 commencement address at Harvard University.

[2] Agenda 2030: The 2030 Plan for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015, 3,4.

[3] Ibid., 7.

[4] Ibid., 8.

[5] David W. Jones, “Socialism, Communism, and the Early Church”, available online at http://intersectproject.org/faith-and-economics/david-jones-socialism-communism-and-the-early-church/  Last accessed on 29 December 2017.

[6] Ibid.

3 Ways Progressive Moral Relativism is a Biblical Failure

Moral relativism is one of the most dangerous ethical theories invented by man, yet it is the dominant ethical theory in modern America among progressives.

According to moral relativism, what is “right” or “wrong” depends upon an individual’s preference.

Moral relativism is far from a modern, progressive moral theory.  Rather, it is described in the Bible:

In those days . . . everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” -Judges 21:25

One of the first discussions I have in my ethics classes involves whether students wish for others to tell them what is right or wrong.  Inevitably, the initial answer is a unanimous “No!”  We don’t like to be told we’re wrong; we don’t like for people to judge us.

Then I move to a series of questions, somewhat like the method Plato uses in his dialogues featuring Socrates.  Many of you know this as the Socratic method, and I use it to help students discover why moral relativism theory is but a leaky rowboat in an ocean of moral ideas.

Here are a few questions I typically ask:

Is it wrong for a 40-year old man to marry an 8-year old girl?  Is having a child bride always wrong?  Are honor killings wrong?

Is female genital mutilation always wrong?

Is having sex with animals always wrong?

Often, someone inevitably defends such actions in the name of “cultural relativism.” The typical justification is that it is acceptable for societies to practices such things if they wish.

“But what about those social customs immigrating to America,” I counter.  Would these actions be “right” here?

Deep down, we all know these acts are wrong.  Even those of us who say we shouldn’t interfere with the norms of other societies know these types of acts are wrong.  Moral relativism is doomed to fail, but we need to know why it will fail.

Here are 3 Ways Moral Relativism is a Biblical Failure:

1. Moral Relativism Denies Moral Standards

Morality is a reflection of moral standards.  When we say something is “good” or “evil,” we are making a judgment based upon some sort of standard.

However, moral relativists deny that anything is “just wrong.”  Morality must not be based upon any universal, absolute, set standard.  Rather, rights and wrongs are said to be based on social or even individual preferences.

Essentially, moral relativism insists that morality should be based upon generally accepted norms in a given society.

The idea of a God that gives absolute moral standards is anathema to moral relativists.

Not surprisingly, moral relativists have no genuine regard for the Ten Commandments.

2. Moral Relativism Denies the Original Moral World Order

Moral relativism represents a departure from ancient understandings of a rational order which governs all aspects of the universe.  The ancient Egyptians called this “ma’at”; the Hindus called it “rita,” and the Greeks called it “Logos,” which in English is translated as “Word.”

Each of these words captures the concept of living a life of wisdom in balance, truth, and harmony with the created world.

The gospel of John identifies the Logos as Jesus, who became one of us in order to show us how to live in this rational world and to enable us to live according to the original moral order He created:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” -John 1:1-3 (NKJV)

3. By Denying the Original Moral World Order, Moral Relativism Promotes Sin.

Failing to live according to this absolute, unchanging moral standard is called sin:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” – 1 John 1:8-10 (NKJV)

Sin in this context is a concept which means “missing the mark.”  Sin is a moral failing to adhere to moral standards that do not change.

How do we keep from missing the mark?  We have to know the mark:

This book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it.  For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.” – Joshua 1:8 (NKJV)

Globalist Professor: Reverse Biblical Perspective of Humanity to Save the Planet; America Will Decline in the Process

A prominent Sustainable Development icon calls for a “total reversal of the biblical perspective on humanity,” and says that by 2052 Americans will have less wealth than they have today.

Jorgen Randers, professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School and Executive Committee member of The Club of Rome, has written extensively on sustainability issues over the last forty-five years.  His most notable works include The Limits to Growth (1972, 1992, and 2004), 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (2012), and Reinventing Prosperity (2016).  Much of his work on sustainability is echoed in various United Nations world development goals.

Sustainable Development is Blasphemy

Christians beware:  calling for a reversal of the biblical perspective of humanity for the sake of creating a sustainable future for the world is full-blown blasphemy. Blasphemy definition

Blasphemy, as used in the Bible, is understood as switching what God calls right for what is wrong, is a reproach against God, strips away God’s authority, and exchanges the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25).

Christian prophecy warns us of a coming blasphemous antichrist figure to rule the world:  

“And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.  Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.  It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.  And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.” – Revelation 13:5-7

“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.  These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.  These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.” – Revelation 17:12-14

For 2,000 years, this biblical prophecy has prompted Christians to ask, “How could the world be so deceived that it would let the antichrist rise to power?”

The answer may just be “through ‘sustainable development.’”  Consider these bone-chilling words from Randers:

“If I could persuade you of one thing, it should be this: the world is small and fragile, and humanity is huge, dangerous and powerful.  This is a total reversal of the biblical perspective on humanity, and the way in which man has thought during most of his presence on Earth.  But this is the perspective we need to take if we’re to be sure that sustainability emerges or, at least, that the world as we know it survives for a couple of hundred more years.”[1]

Sustainable Development is Bad News for Americans

The premise of Sustainable Development is that the world’s resources are limited and being quickly depleted by people of the rich nations such as the United States. The great fear is that unless urgent action is taken now, there won’t be enough resources available for future generations.  Hence, we must “save the planet.”

The chart below illustrates the perceived likelihood of over-consumption of the world’s resources from each region of the world:

Chart showing Ecological Footprint by global regions
Ecological Footprint by Region showing a justification for wanting to lower the standard of production and consumption in all areas above the one-Earth level back down to “sustainable levels.” YouTube screenshot taken from “What is Ecological Overshoot?” by the Global Footprint Network.

For globalists, the logical conclusion from this chart is that North Americans are consuming much more than their “fair share” of the world’s resources.  The solution to this perceived “North American” problem is to lower the standard of living for Americans via wealth redistribution schemes such as taxation, trade agreements, and immigration policies.  Other schemes, as Randers explains in his 2052, include population reduction via the empowerment of women, access to free contraceptives, abortion on demand, and education for all.

Are Democrats and Some Republicans Complicit with Oppressing Americans’ Wealth?

In a 2012 article entitled, “8 Ways the World Will Change by 2052,” Randers predicts:

“As long as you are not a citizen of the United States, you will be richer in 2052 than you are today.”[2]

“As long as you are not a citizen of the United States, you will be richer in 2052 than you are today.” – Jorgen Randers, 2012.

It is no coincidence that all Democrats and even some Republicans voted against the recent tax reform bill that would reduce the tax burden for so many Americans.

While this one bill doesn’t prove there’s a conspiracy to oppress Americans’ wealth, a closer look at America’s foreign policy agreements reveals Americans should be greatly concerned, not only about their wealth, but also about their rights.

Agenda 2030 is Binding upon Americans

On September 25, 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted a new social resolution called “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”  The preamble for Agenda 2030 claims it is binding upon “all countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership.”

The Agenda 2030 resolution was signed by then-President Barack Obama, and is now an official part of the US Global Development Policy.

Everyone’s Rights are at Stake

Sustainable Development treaties based on Agenda 2030 and its successors could eventually replace the United States Constitution as our governing Social Contract.  If this happens, everyone’s rights are at stake.

In America, our founders resolutely affirmed in the Declaration of Independence that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The blasphemy against God in the name of Sustainable Development means the rejection of our Creator as the source of the rights of all of humanity.

According to Article 29, sections 2 and 3 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our rights would come from the UN, not our Creator:

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The UN is already using American schools to teach its principles and purposes of sustainable development. Through its education branch, UNESCO, the UN is actively replacing the deeply-held beliefs of our children and giving them a new set of values:

“Education must be transformative and bring shared values to life . . . Technological solutions, political regulation or financial instruments alone cannot achieve sustainable development.  It requires transforming the way people think and act . . . Deeply entrenched beliefs take time to change.  But young people are open to new perspectives, and schools are ideally positioned to convey them.” – UNESCO, Global Education First Initiative, priority #3, Foster Global Citizenship.

What Will Become of America?

The battle lines between Sustainable Development and Christianity are taking shape now.  American patriots holding traditional American values have already been branded “Deplorable,” Agenda 2030 has been signed, and now the 2016 Democratic Platform sounds like reflection of Agenda 2030.

The blasphemous UN has aimed to supplant the authority of our Creator, transform the values of our nation, and determine our rights for us.

America, do you really want the UN to rule over your children?  Will this be the generation to witness the rise of the antichrist?



[1] Adapted from Jorgen Randers’ lecture in the 10th Annual Distinguished Lecture Series in Sustainable Development, hosted by the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership and the Centre for Sustainable Development in the Department of Engineering on March 14, 2012.  Available online at http://cms2.unige.ch/isdd/IMG/pdf/jorgen_randers_2052_a_global_forecast_for_the_next_forty_years.pdf

[2] Jorgen Randers, “8 Ways the World Will Change by 2052.” Available online at https://www.fastcompany.com/1680127/8-ways-the-world-will-change-by-2052  Last accessed on 12/20/2017.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: