Libertarians Debate Basic Income Guarantee

Should libertarians support proposals to scrap
the current welfare regime and
replace it with a basic income guarantee for American citizens?
That’s the subject of debate this month at Cato
Unbound, the Cato Institute’s online journal, with a quartet
of libertarian academics and policy analysts lined up to opine on
the matter. First up is University of San Diego philosophy
professor Matt Zwolinsky, a strong proponent of the basic income
guarantee (BIG). Zwolinski argues that there’s a pragmatic

libertarian case for dishing out cash, no strings attached,
rather than continuing to rely on our current patchwork of
poorly-managed and work-disincentivizing welfare
programs. 

Zwolinski uses the term “Basic Income Guarantee” (BIG) to
descirbe a range of policy proposals, from Milton Friedman’s
negative
income tax to
Charles Murray’s proposal that every American over 21 get
$10,000 per year from the federal government. 

There is, of course, quite a bit of variation among these plans
in terms of cost, payouts, implementation, and so on. Despite these
differences, however, they all have in common two important
features.

First, they involve a cash grant with no
strings attached. Unlike other welfare programs which encourage or
require recipients to consume certain specific kinds of good–such
as medical care, housing, or food–a BIG simply gives
people cash, and leaves them free to spend it, or save it, in
whatever way they choose.

Second, a BIG is an unconditional grant for
which every citizen (or at least every adult citizen) is eligible.
It is not means-tested; checks are issued to poor and rich alike
(though on some proposals payments to the rich will be partially or
fully recaptured through the tax system). Beneficiaries do not have
to pass a drug test or demonstrate that they are willing to work.
If you’re alive, and a citizen, you get a check. Period.

It might not be ideal—certainly “no libertarian would wish for a
BIG as an addition to the currently existing
welfare state,” writes Zwolinski. “But what about as
a replacement for it?” He argues that the BIG
would amount to less bureaucracy, less expense, “less
rent-seeking”, and less paternalism. Read the
his whole argument here. 

Veronique de Rugy laid out some
pros and cons of a guaranteed income in the March 2014 issue of
Reason. “The biggest risk in implementing a guaranteed
income is that it won’t completely-or even partly-replace existing
welfare programs, but instead simply add a new layer of spending on
top of the old,” de Rugy wrote. “So what are libertarians to
support? If nothing else, more research.” 

Up next in Cato
Unbound’s BIG debate is Michael Huemer, a professor
of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, followed by
Manhattan Institute fellow Jim Manzi on August 8, and Cornell
management and economics professor Robert H. Frank on August 11; it
will continue through the end of August.