Thursday, December 5, 2013

Cato: The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income

Libertarianism.org, which is funded by the Cato Institute/Koch brothers, is carrying the piece,The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income"

What I find most remarkable about the piece is that under "objections," the fundamental libertarian objection, that a "basic income" would require coercion by taking from some and giving to others and thus violates the Non-Aggression Principle, is not even mentioned.

This is a new low for Cato and the Koch brothers. And highlights that the Institute has become comprised of nothing but a bunch of beltarian government tinkerers. Where the hell is the consistent fight for freedom and non-aggression?

(ht alan szepieniec)

16 comments:

  1. Wow. Just wow. This has got to be the pinnacle of idiocy for Cato. But something tell me, sadly, that they will soon top even this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Libertarianism.org, which I run, is intended to explore a range of views within the very broad spectrum of libertarianism. We have articles by classical liberals, minarchists, anarchists, and so on, often disagreeing with each other. Anything published on Libertarianism.org doesn't necessarily represent the views of Cato or any of its scholars, as is stated quite clearly on the site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaron, people can be for a guaranteed basic income but there sure as hell isn't a libertarian case for it. And if a basic income can be justified on libertarian grounds, why not apply it to the Left's holy grail, universal healthcare. Or how about a guaranteed basic house, car, food, fuel, etc, etc, etc?

      Delete
    2. Why "The Libertarian Case for..."? Why not, instead, just 'The Case for x', where x is "a Basic Income", military conscription, nationalization of all hospitals, or whatever?

      The explanation is obvious. You are full of weasel words and b.s.

      Delete
    3. P.S. Let us recall that Cato the Younger was a conservative fool who committed suicide. Perhaps Rothbard knew this when he chose Cato Institute's name.

      Delete
    4. So, I went to the site to read the essay, and whose name appeared as the author? "Matt Zwolinski", it reads.

      "I know that I've encountered that name before", I thought to myself. Then, just as I finished scrolling to the bottom to see if there might be more details about the author, it dawned upon me: The author is none other than Matt "Bleeding Heart Libertarians" Zwolinski, who founded that awful blog.

      Matt seems not to realize that he's gone leftist in the corrupt, European sense of libertarianism, but at least he reminds the reader how bad both Hayek and Milton Friedman were. In a way it's also ironic that Matt invokes Hayek's famous book in the manner that he does, for Friedman, in a preface to the 50th anniversary edition, suggested by innuendo that Hayek was a mouthpiece for the despotism that Hayek pretended to oppose.

      Delete
  3. CATO are basically consequentialists, who could justify any perverted twisting of libertarianism by claiming that their suggestions may lead to the best possible result to the most possible people.
    Or, its variety "well, it's better than what we've got now." Oh really?

    Yeah, good luck trying to dissuade people who have gotten used to the concept of a basic income that it's time to get rid of the concept for something less forceful.

    But CATO are not totally consequentialist. They actually have the nerve to argue that there is an *idealistic* or moral libertarian case for a basic income.

    A funny one is the one where they claim there would not be much disinsentive because jobless people get to keep their basic income even when they get employment. Apparently, there is something *good* - as opposed to welfarism which is at least conditional - about keeping stolen loot EVEN when you find employment to actually earn your own money. So aside from the fact that working still guarantees you someone else's property, your own actually earned property will also be looted to provide others - who ALSO work - with money they haven't earned.

    CATO genuinely wants to create a society of a guaranteed economic looting and sharing of money that isn't earned, and instead of the semi/crypto-communism it is, they call it "libertarian".

    Although i still don't know if this one is a new low. Making a libertarian case for military servitude to the state with the possibility of death or at least forced murder, maiming or being maimed, traumatized etc still sounds more revolting to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conservatism has been corrupted in the same manner. In its infancy it may have held to some principles. However, overtime it has become indistinguishable from other forms of statism. That's why you will read many articles like The conservative case for gay marriage:

      http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/07/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage


      For the welfare state:

      http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/12/25/a-conservative-case-for-the-welfare-state/?_r=0


      For single payer:

      http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/march/the-conservative-case-for-single-payer-health-reform

      For a wealth tax:

      http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203462304577139232881346686?mobile=y

      For a raising the minimum wage:

      http://www.salon.com/2013/05/18/the_conservative_case_for_raising_the_minimum_wage/

      I believe there are many people who wish to destroy libertarianism just as they did conservatism. The best way to destroy libertarianism is not to oppose it but rather to co-opt it. That's what the beltway libertarians are up to right now.

      Delete
  4. Rothbard specifically calls out this "tinkering" type of mentality in his book, For a New Liberty. It is an absolutely ineffective strategy- weak sauce (as the hipsters might say). I just finished reading the book a few days ago for the first time, and loved it! Rothbard argues that the way to argue for liberty is to be compelling, passionate, and principled. Impotent utilitarian pandering is useless, and actually counterproductive in this case, as the author concedes the basic premise of the debate by presuming coercion must be employed by the state to offer a "basic guaranteed income" for human beings the state calls "citizens".

    It is sad to see that website is named "libertarianism.org", as I am sure more than a few have stopped by, and assumed that it is the internet hub for libertarians. I hope they are able to find their way to sites like EPJ, LRC, Tom Woods.com and Mises.org to get the real deal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Impotent utilitarian pandering is useless"

      Fantastic little line/gem.

      It doesn't take much effort to see what "compromise" has done to America and extrapolate it to what happens if libertarian principles become corrupted by such thinking.


      Delete
  5. Generosity is a virtue, not a mandate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love this text in the piece:

    "I begin with a relatively weak proposal that even most hard-core libertarians should be even to accept."

    To whom it may concern, I'm a hardcore libertarian and I don't accept any of your statist proposals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I laughed at this headline. It was as if I had just read "A Christian Case for Atheism".

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'd like to know whether Cato EVER referenced the non-aggression axiom when defining libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to know any definition of libertarianism which holds a non-violable NAP as a necessary condition. Can't seem to find it any place I look.

      Delete
    2. If you can't agree with the NAP, then by it's very definition you can't be a 'libertarian" in any sense of the word. If you think acceptance of the NAP isn't required to be a libertarian, maybe you can start by giving us either an example of such or your own definition by which you claim to be a libertarian.(I don't mean the capital "L" either)

      Delete