Libertarian here with an old idea that hasn't been discussed to my knowledge too much at least in my experience. So what do you all think about a basic income as opposed to the traditional welfare state with programs for people who are poor or unemployed. Hayek has been spoken about as someone who would be okay with such a program. I think it was figured that if you dissasemble the current welfare programs in the united states today you could pay every individual ~$50,000 a year.
It gets around the people at the margins who are incented to stay on welfare due to the opportunity cost of losing assistance, same applies to unemployment benefits(subsidies).Obviously violates strict adherence to property rights, ie must be taxed and redistributed. on the other hand if i had the option to eliminate minimum wage along with other aspects of the welfare and regulatory state, I would definitly choose this system.
Giving it to everyone over 18 years old would more than likely solve the incentive to just have more kids to get more benefits.
Criticize away. discuss. I think Randy Bennet a libertarian-ish constitutional lawyer was in support of something like this.
I think this program exposes the welfarists for what they are, thiefs and robbers. Usually they cloak it with "public goods" and "government services", but their real program is income redistribution of the sort you propose. If income redistribution is inevitable, then I would support such program over the current welfare system, at least it doesn't hide its evil.
Guaranteed Minimum Income is an obviously absurd idea but it is useful in critiquing leftist welfare proposals. Essentially, my argument goes like this:
a) No one disputes that the market provides goods and services more cheaply than government can
b) Any welfare measure which interferes in private decision-making is a substitution of the government for the market
c) Hence, for a given money-pile, supporting interventionist welfare measures is equivalent to saying that less total help should be given to the poor
d) Hence, a GMI is the welfare system which provides the largest possible amount of help - for a given money-pile - to the poor
But since GMI is absurd, the idea that the government should forcibly intervene at all into people's lives for the sake of "welfare" is absurd.
QED
Clayton -
How is it going to be paid for?
If we are talking about taxing to get the money, that means everyone who earns a living will have to have an adult "son" in his basement who eats and sleeps and watches video games. Of course none of the recipients will be satisfied with getting only enough to live in someone's basement. This minimum will have to let the adopted son live in dignity.
Can we afford such a scheme? How many people do you know who have so much disposable income they can afford to support another strange mouth? Is it fair to impose such a horrific idea on anyone?
And it we borrow or print money to finance this, it comes to the same thing, only delayed for a while.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
You present your position as if I am an advocate of this program. I am not. it is a blatant violation of property rights because it is funded through taxation. what form of taxation is obviously like picking your favorite poison. I am only saying that if there was a choice between a primarily libertarian world with a basic income versus theat status quo, i would prefer the former. As ron paul said without an income tax we could have a federal government roughly the size of 1980, this would mean we could probably give almost all people in the US something like ~$20000, which is well over the poverty line.
OK, Bill, glad we agree.
Which is the lesser of the two evils? Not sure. you may be right.